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

161–170 of 190 posts

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#161

Post by CalChris »

yyyk wrote: post #28
voz_ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know he wasn't popular in the US which I don't really understand. Note, these are not my opinions, but I am going to seek to answer this based on the things I have read on him. In short, the general opinion is that he was a weak, pitiful, activist president. His overtures toward peace, anti-imperialism, humanitarian causes were laden with activism rhetoric that one would normally use if they were outside the stru…

>My personal opinion is that, if you squint, his [Carter's] presidency is a lot like that of Trump The parallel goes further. Both of these presidents initiated a very different economic policy, and this was expanded on by the succeeding president despite the successor being a standard bearer of the other party: * Carter initiated deregulation and appointed Volcker to the Fed. * Trump initiated China tariffs and deco…

Except maybe Reagan.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#162

Post by mikeyouse »

starkd wrote: post #138
mikeyouse wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh.. the majority of the deregulation that Reagan is credited with actually happened under Carter (craft beer, trucking, airlines, oil, nuclear, natural gas), he appointed Volcker specifically to beat inflation who then spiked rates to 17% which caused the slowdown that likely contributed to Carter's reelection loss.. Noah Smith has a good post on the topic: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/much-of-what-youve-heard…

he appointed Volcker towards the end of his term. Inflation had been a growing problem throughout all of the 70s. Read about Nixon's diastrous attempt at price controls. Ford had his WIP ("Whip Inflation Now") campaign. Inflation was not fixed with just the hike in rates. It took well over a decade for it to come down to near zero rates. The hike in the fed fund rates sent the economy into stagflation. The economy wa…

Reagan's tax cuts were passed in late 1986 and didn't fully come into effect until 1988.. here's the chart of Real GDP from before Carter to early Bush I:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=10d3t

The tax cuts were incidental to the better economy in the 1980s, and couldn't have caused it since they weren't in effect until well after things had recovered.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#163

Post by latency-guy2 »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #94
ubermonkey wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, the guy who received a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing and ordered missile strikes on people. I can just never take those comments seriously. I don't know much about Carter, but Obama's presidency is much more recent.

I actually recommend reading on Carter's domestic and foreign policy, maybe if you're a bit like me you'll be dumbfounded at the comments here about the huge amounts of historical revision being done, just because the man is on his deathbed

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#164

Post by Forgeties79 »

yellowapple wrote: post #98
Forgeties79 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this a lot but I think it’s kind of a cynical take. There are plenty of people who run for office because they genuinely care and genuinely believe they can make a difference. Of course there are power hungry sociopaths who make it. But there are 535 members of Congress, 50 governors, thousands of mayors and city council members and state reps, etc. They can’t all be terrible, yet I feel like the popular refra…

It's hard to find solid numbers, but even assuming only 0.5% of Americans meet the criteria for a Narcissistic Personality Disorder diagnosis ( https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/mental-health/narcissisti... ), that's still 1,666,437 people - more than enough to fill nearly every (if not actually every, with room to spare) candidacy for every elected position in every level of American government. Solid numbers for A…

Honestly, I find this comment kind of patronizing, as well as buying into the cynicism I was talking about.

Of course it is statistically possible that all of them are all terrible. Are you willing to bet that it’s the case?

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#165

Post by cpleppert »

ineptech wrote: post #116
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…

It should be pointed out that a lot of people believe the hostage crisis was not just mismanagement or bad luck, but collusion between the Reagan campaign and Iranian leadership to delay resolving the crisis until after the election. I think it's now widely agreed that Iran wanted Reagan to win and extended the hostage crisis for that reason, and that Reagan's campaign had back-channel communication with the Iranian…

There is really no evidence to support such a contention. Iran had no reason to help out Carter by releasing the hostages. On the flip side if they weren't going to drag out the situation it was better to resolve it and get some goodwill with the next administration, which they did.

It would have been strange if the US did not supply Iran with weapons given the geopolitical situation. Iran was surrounded by Soviet friendly countries and an Iranian loss to Iraq would have been a disaster for both the US and Israel. Israel, not coincidentally, served as a backchannel for the Iranian US relationship during that time period.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#166

Post by syzarian »

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…

But Reagan got things done by blatantly violating the law with impunity. Lovers of democratic forms of governance ought to look with disdain at such shenanigans.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#167

Post by syzarian »

refurb wrote: post #102
michaelscott wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But Reagan’s “effectiveness” includes murdering and torturing human rights advocates who opposed his unlawful actions in Central America. The U.S. and world would be better without such “effectiveness”.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#168

Post by ETH_start »

HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #46
sfgoodforonce wrote: post #40

Carter blessed the re-election of Hugo Chavez as “free and fair” when he should have known better. Carter was ultimately a flawed man more beholden to leftism than to to truth. He was complicit in the total destruction of a country and that’s what he should be remembered for.

Just a heads up — you live in an echo chamber

I don't think you realize how utterly disastrous Chavez was for Venezuela. Maybe consider taking your own advice.

Chavez' officials, like Venezuela's own Elizabeth Warren, Karlin Granadillo, claimed "the law of supply and demand is a lie", and her socialist party nodded in unison to this ideological rhetoric:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201112003937/http://www.bloomb...

Only an echo chamber can allow this kind of economic illiteracy to proliferate.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#169

Post by refurb »

syzarian wrote: post #167
refurb wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But Reagan’s “effectiveness” includes murdering and torturing human rights advocates who opposed his unlawful actions in Central America. The U.S. and world would be better without such “effectiveness”.

Pretty sure you can do what i said without supporting death squads.

Theyre really not related at all.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#170

Post by calgarymicro »

woodruffw wrote: post #145
quercusa wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any current national Democrats who would be to the right of Carter?

Economically, most national Democrats are about as conservative as Carter, if not further right. Carter is in many ways the progenitor of the neoliberal wing of the DNC; he brought back Progressive Era views that had previously been sidelined by the New Deal. Socially, Carter is some probably slightly left of the DNC’s national position.

This doesn't sound right to me. The modern Democratic party isn't very fond of mass deregulation, balanced budget drives, or quantitative tightening, which is pretty much Carter's economic legacy. And while Carter's very socially left wing now, I doubt he supported, say, gay marriage, when he was president.
Post reply on HN