Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement on President Carter’s Health

cartercenter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 190 posts

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#101

Post by roenxi »

version_five wrote: post #57
Waterluvian wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A classic problem in politics: We need leaders because everyday people are often not informed or interested in the boring but important things. The sober choices that are often right but unsatisfying. But then a lot of us want our leaders to obsess over the little, inconsequential things we find to be important. And then we end up wondering if a candidate is someone you could have a beer with, and the exceptional can…

Related is the fact that most people who would be good politicians want nothing to do with politics and most that go into politics are the worst people to represent us. While i know it's too idealistic, I wish there could be some jury duty style model where real people are obliged to take on political duties

"Want nothing to do" undersells the hazing process that US politicians go through. Any sane and reasonable human being would be destroyed by the scrutiny that comes with public office. The process catches any flaws that someone might have, but also rules out anyone without an unusually strong ego and a lust for power. Which means all the people who might handle power appropriately are not involved.

Although yes to sortition. It'd be much better than current practices.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#102

Post by refurb »

michaelscott wrote: post #67
syzarian wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don’t understand about narrative that Carter failed on Iran is that Regan never got enough blame for blatantly violating U.S. laws and negotiated with Iran despite saying we don’t negotiate with hostage takers. Carter got far too much blame and Reagan far too little. https://www.vox.com/2016/1/25/10826056/reagan-iran-hostage-n...

Reagan played the political game far better than both Carter and Nixon (Watergate notwithstanding). He was a master at couching effective foreign policy tactics, which often relied on detente (eg negotiating with Iran), within the augur of American values and exceptionalism that spoke to the people of the time ("we don't negotiate with hostage takers"). The former was critical to actually get things done, but a presi…

Pretty much this. As much as people hate politics, its the politicians who can work thr system that are the most effective.

Image is important because thats what maintains support, but you also need to be pragmatic at the same time and do things that might lose you support because voters dont understand the trade offs.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#103

Post by klabb3 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #26
fortran77 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.adl.org/resources/news/anti-semitic-reactions-ji...

Quoting stormfront isn't particularly convincing about Carter's views, and given that a quick jaunt to the Wikipedia article shows Carter stating he fully supports Israel and that it's a "wonderful democracy" makes me wonder what you're talking about. Carter's views can't even be called antizionist. He plainly supports Israel's right to exist.

I agree, this line of rhetoric (look, the extremists agree with this, therefore it’s wrong and you’re reprehensible for even entertaining the thought) is deserving of a hall of fame in terms of logical fallacies. It’s an obviously incomplete proxy for morality, and can be weaponized to create all kinds of absurd conclusions, including new forms of extremism. However, it’s a dominant rhetorical strategy today, that many are guilty of.

I don’t know how much is deliberate short term “winning the argument” vs how much people genuinely believe it, but it’s unfortunate for the majority of people who want to discuss issues under civil conditions. The second order effects are concerning, because this leaves public debate (ironically) to extremists, narcissists and manipulators.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#104

Post by croutonwagon »

ubermonkey wrote: post #34
wefarrell wrote: post #18

I’m a huge fan of the man despite the fact that I wasn’t alive when he was president. He strikes me as possibly the kindest, humblest and most compassionate man who has possibly ever occupied the Oval Office. The complaints about him that I’ve heard from the older generation of my family is that he was too nice and naive to run a superpower like the US.

I WAS alive — though a child - and I think you’re likely right. The only President of this era who I think might be as kind and compassionate is Obama. But Carter’s post-presidential years stand alone in their profound decency and generosity.

I agree but feel Obama may not be an apt comparison. He spearheaded or allowed and covered for a lot of shady progression of the MIC in his time, from domestic surveillance and big bumps in prosecutions of whistleblowers to the prevelance of drone strikes on non combatants, including known extra judicial strikes of Americans overseas.

That said I’m not sure a modern president can really go through a tenure without having to make some tough choices and having some black eyes on their record. They are a hostage to many factors they don’t control, ranging from economic to even world affairs. Biden for all his faults is in a lose/lose when it comes to a situation like Ukraine/Russia. Even doing nothing is villifying, direct intervention is vilifying and could trigger larger conflicts. Discreet support is villifying too. There’s no win in such a situation.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#105

Post by starkd »

Maursault wrote: post #54
Miraste wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was unpopular for a number of other reasons, some of which were just bad luck. Inflation was high, the economy was poor, there was a massive oil shortage, and the Iranian hostage crisis went poorly. There were a lot of smaller issues too, like the 55mph speed limit. While he had good intentions and was far more forward thinking than other presidents, he wasn’t an adept administrator and didn’t manage to get buy-in…

President Carter solved inflation, and it cost him the election, and President Reagan got the credit. Carter appointed Paul Volcker, an inflation hawk, as Fed chair in 1979. Volcker solved inflation by raising interest rates, causing two recessions, one of which was during Carter's re-election year. Reagan kept Volcker on for a short time before firing him, but Volcker got the job done, so it was President Carter tha…

This is not accurate. When Carter appointed Volcker, inflation was a dire problem, having reached upwards of 20%. He hiked the fed fund rates in full point increments, provoking howls of protest because it sent the economy into a full recession. But it took over a decade for inflation to come down to near zero range. (That's where the term stagflation comes from. There was zero GDP but high inflation.) Volcker could very easily have succumbed to the pressure and reversed course, but he did not. Reagan refused to criticize him, because there was general agreement that high inflation was just not tenable. It is the cruelest tax because it affects the low-income the most. President Carter did not solve inflation. He appointed Vocker towards the end of his term, and it was not the priority it should have been throughout his term. Inflation had been festering since the Nixon administration. Nixon confronted the problem with his disastrous use of price controls. Gerald Ford tried combatting it with his WIN (Whip Inflation Now) campaign. By the time Volcker was appointed, he was able to hike rates because he was given the political space to do so. But he had to endure a lot of nasty criticism at the time.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#106

Post by wefarrell »

blululu wrote: post #96
wefarrell wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I don’t think the US should ever be expected to handle any foreign revolutions.

The Iranian revolution was not a big issue in the election. It was the fact that American embassy staff was held at gunpoint for nearly two years so they could put the Shah on Trial. People were not happy about that.

I get it but what did they expect Carter to do? Secretly sell Iran stinger missiles and use the proceeds to fund a civil war in Nicaragua while supplying Saddam Hussein weapons for his invasion of Iran?

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#107

Post by yyyk »

0xDEF wrote: post #87
nivenkos wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He funded and armed the Mujahideen in Operation Cyclone though - which has literally caused endless trouble with the rise of radical Islam. So it wasn't all "world peace".

This is a rather wrong view on who exactly the West supported in Afghanistan. The Mujahideens the West supported became the Northern Alliance. The NA allowed girls to go to school. The NA was also allied with Iran and didn't persecute the Shia population of Afghanistan. Unfortunately the NA lost the later Afghan civil war to the Saudi/Pakistan backed Taliban. Also the rise of radical Islam has more to do with Arab co…

>Also the rise of radical Islam has more to do with Arab countries and Israel

Not in that area of the world. The Deobandi school is an indigenous South-West Asian school, a radical version of that was wed to a Pakistan going off the rails under Zia and we see the results today. It is a parallel to the Saudi-radical Wahhabi convergence of the time, but still an entirely local development.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#108

Post by candiddevmike »

oxfeed65261 wrote: post #55
coin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> really seem interested in world peace Definitely. He returned the Panama Canal to Panama because it's the right thing to do despite perhaps not being in the US' best interest. He advocated Palestine's rights despite all the resistance from the pro-Israel community.

Apparently my grandfather had a bumper sticker, “Keep the canal, give ‘em Carter.”

Seems so subtle and nuanced compared to FJB and other slogans you see today.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#110

Post by tengwar2 »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #81
Waterluvian wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Mother #*^%er.” “What’s wrong?” “Sigh. Just got this in the mail. It says I have to be president this year.”

This is not as far-fetched as it would seem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition The ancient Greeks pretty much appointed magistrates and others by lottery, and every citizen participated in a very direct democracy. The Greeks saw this as a counter to oligarchy. I'm not sure that today's federal government is very far off from oligarchical tendencies.

You can't generalise about ancient Greeks like that. Every polis (city state) had its own constitution, and they were more radically different than any we have now. There were some poleis which used sortition, yes, but others had something more recognisable to our voting system. And of course there were the Spartans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_Constitution.
Post reply on HN