• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter seems very decent. But he was a sort of end-of-an-era President -  Cyclical theory (United States history)

Arthur Schlesingers Sr. and Jr. proposed that US history follows a cycle, alternating between liberal and conservative, public purpose and private interest, increasing democracy and containing democracy, concern with the wrongs of the many and concern with the rights of the few, and concern with human rights and concern with property rights.

Liberal periods usually have lots of reforms, and they end because of society-scale activism burnout. Conservative periods end because of the accumulation of social problems that society's elites are unwilling to do very much to solve, if they think that those problems are real problems.

Liberal: revolution and adoption of Constitution // Conservative: Hamilton Era (G Washington, J Adams) // Lib: Jefferson Era // Con: Era of Good Feelings // Lib: Jackson Era // Con: Slaveowner dominance // Lib: Civil War, Abolition of Slavery, Reconstruction // Con: The Gilded Age (only golden on the outside) // Lib: The Progressive Era // Con: The Roaring Twenties // Lib: The New Deal Era // Con: The Fifties Era // Lib: The Sixties Era // Con: The Reagan Era, Gilded Age II (where we are now)

Jimmy Carter was President on the tail end of the Sixties Era, and he tried some reforms, like supporting renewable energy and adoption of the metric system of units. But he was not very successful, and his successor Ronald Reagan undid some of those efforts.

In fairness to him, unfinished business is a common feature of ends of liberal periods. The Civil War Era ended because Southern black people were unable to consolidate their social gains well enough to resist an onslaught of white-supremacist politicians and terrorists. The Progressive Era ended with women getting the vote, but women did not make much further social progress until the Sixties Era. Late in the New Deal Era, Harry Truman proposed national health insurance, but his proposal failed. The Sixties Era had some additional unfinished business besides Jimmy Carter's efforts, like the Equal Rights Amendment almost but not quite being ratified, and abortion becoming a major culture-war issue.
 
Stephen Skowronek has a theory of "political time". The US has several eras over its history, with these features.


Each era begins with a reconstructing president, one whose presidency establishes a new political order with a new dominant political party. SS identifies Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan as reconstructing presidents, and George Washington also seems to fit. These are some of the most positively-remembered presidents. A reconstructing president is typically followed by an articulating president, one who continues the era's political paradigm, like James Madison (TJ), Martin van Buren (AJ), Harry Truman (FDR), and George Bush I (RR). The presidency then alternates between the dominant party (more articulating presidents) and the opposition part (preemptive presidents). Preemptive presidents work within the system, despite having different political inclinations.

An era ends with a disjunctive president, one who is unable to cope with the failing of the era's political paradigm, and who is usually remembered as a failing or incompetent President: John Quincy Adams (TJ, AJ) with his corrupt-bargain election, James Buchanan (AJ, AL) with Southern states' secession, Herbert Hoover (AL, FDR) with Hoovervilles, a very visible part of his inadequate response to the Great Depression, and Jimmy Carter (FDR, RR) with malaise.

Examining Carter's 'Malaise Speech,' 30 Years Later : NPR
Independence Day, 1979: Lines at gas pumps stretch for blocks, and President Jimmy Carter is scheduled to address the nation. But when he cancels last minute and disappears from the public eye, rumors spread of a health problem or, even worse, that he's left the country. After 10 days, he reemerges with a speech — to address the energy crisis, unemployment, inflation and something else a bit more nebulous:

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.

The speech was later dubbed the "malaise speech," even though Carter never used that word.
The Iran hostage crisis made him seem hapless, as did the "killer rabbit" incident:  Jimmy Carter rabbit incident
 
Skowronek's eras typically contain more than one Schlesinger cycle. Here are the two most recent ones:

Rec: FDR, Art: Harry Truman, Pre: Dwight Eisenhower, Art: JFK, LBJ, Pre: Richard Nixon, Jerry Ford, Dis: Jimmy Carter

Rec: Ronald Reagan, Art: George Bush I, Pre: Bill Clinton, Art: George Bush II, Pre: Barack Obama, (not sure about Donald Trump or Joe Biden)

From the WaPo:
Disjunctive presidents come to office when the dominant party’s old solutions are no longer seen as effective, but it is not united behind new ones. Currently, Republicans can’t agree on what to do with the growing millennial and Latino populations.

Confronted with unfavorable circumstances, late-cycle parties nominate someone with tenuous links to the party to offer something different under the same party label. Adams had been part of Hamilton’s Federalist Party before acquiescing to Jeffersonian dominance. Hoover was a humanitarian “wonder” to both parties before he cast his lot with Republicans in 1920. Carter forged an independent political identity and distanced himself from both party establishments as the public recovered from Watergate.

Trump’s roots in the Republican Party are equally shallow. Until recently, Trump enjoyed close ties with Democratic politicians and enunciated liberal views on issues such as abortion, health care and foreign policy. A disjunctive president typically comes from the “region of greatest erosion in his party’s national support,” as the Northeast is for Republicans.
(written May 11, 2016). Since then, he showed himself to be someone very unusual. The Republican Party bent over backward to please him, even those targeted by his name-calling, like "Lyin' Ted" Cruz and "Little Marco" Rubio.
 
USSR invaded only one country.
Really? Who defeated the Nazis in Berlin then?? I know American WWII movies barely mention the USSR, but I am pretty certain that their armies invaded Poland (both as part of an agreement with Hitler, and then later as part of the war against Hitler); and also invaded Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland.

So that's ten countries, just between 1939 and 1945.
Wait a minute, aren't all those countries really part of Russia?
 
He is the first president I remember from soviet papers.
By the way, he was the one who provoked soviet invasion of Afghanistan which eventually caused 9-11.
I don't know how Russians manage all of that persecution, being forced to invade other countries.
USSR invaded only one country. And as I said, it was explicitly provoked by US.
Cold war USA invaded countless number of countries, unprovoked.
Same with post-cold USA - countless number of invasions.
Russia invaded many countries--just by subversion rather than direct invasion. Invasions were done by it's puppets, not directly.
 
I still think the whole rabbit thing sounds dumb as hell, but I guess you had to be there.
The aftermath of the incident, specifically the lunatic theories about how that incident is connected to the Iran hostage crisis or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is just nonsense. To me, the incident is just a crazy human interest story the likes of which could happen to anyone. The fact that it happened to a sitting US President and not some rando bubba makes it even more compelling. I think you're reading too much into it.
 
I still think the whole rabbit thing sounds dumb as hell, but I guess you had to be there.
The aftermath of the incident, specifically the lunatic theories about how that incident is connected to the Iran hostage crisis or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is just nonsense. To me, the incident is just a crazy human interest story the likes of which could happen to anyone. The fact that it happened to a sitting US President and not some rando bubba makes it even more compelling. I think you're reading too much into it.
You reference people seriously trying to connect dots between a freaking rabbit and Iran-Contra somehow, but I'm reading too much into it? I had never even heard of the incident until the forumers started going on about the thing. Who the hell cares if the president splashed at a rabbit? It's easily the dumbest political "scandal" I've heard of, and standing proof that Republicans have always lacked brains, not just recently.

Do you people read Watership Down and get angry at Hazel for not submittting to the obviously superior masculinity of the Efrafan warren?
 
I still think the whole rabbit thing sounds dumb as hell, but I guess you had to be there.
The aftermath of the incident, specifically the lunatic theories about how that incident is connected to the Iran hostage crisis or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is just nonsense. To me, the incident is just a crazy human interest story the likes of which could happen to anyone. The fact that it happened to a sitting US President and not some rando bubba makes it even more compelling. I think you're reading too much into it.
You reference people seriously trying to connect dots between a freaking rabbit and Iran-Contra somehow, but I'm reading too much into it? I had never even heard of the incident until the forumers started going on about the thing. Who the hell cares if the president splashed at a rabbit? It's easily the dumbest political "scandal" I've heard of, and standing proof that Republicans have always lacked brains, not just recently.

Do you people read Watership Down and get angry at Hazel for not submittting to the obviously superior masculinity of the Efrafan warren?
You're reading too much into it with regard to my mention of it. If you go back to my first mention of it, I was talking about personal memories of the Carter years as a teen. The attack rabbit story is something that appeals to the mind of a male teen, much more than what was going on with his foreign policy, etc. Same with his nationwide appeal to keeping the thermostat at 68 degrees and put on a sweater. There are others I remember, such as his "I have lust in my heart" from his Playboy interview. Honestly, I had no idea about the looney connections to Iran-Contra or Afghanistan invasion until I posted the Wikipedia article. If you want to know the truth, I like Jimmy Carter. He did many great things with his life, and was a kind, humble soul. The world would be a much better place if people had his integrity and intelligence. However, I would tend to agree with those who say he was better as an ex-President, than a President. I don't think most serious non-partisan presidential scholars and historians would put him in the top 10 (nor would they put him in the bottom 10).

And sorry, I don't anything about Watership Down. And what do you mean by "you people"?
 
Character Above All: Jimmy Carter Glossary - from an interview in the November 1976 issue of Playboy magazine:
I try not to commit a deliberate sin. I recognize that I'm going to do it anyhow, because I'm human and I'm tempted. And Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. Christ said, 'I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.'

I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes I will do--and I have done it--and God forgives me for it.
"Looking at women with lust" and "committing adultery in my heart" got turned into "lust in my heart", something like Marjorie Taylor Greene's Jewish space lasers.

Washingtonpost.com Special Report: Clinton Accused
A separate New York Times Magazine interview with Norman Mailer, also published during the general election campaign, added fuel to the frenzy's fire thanks to Carter's impolitic remark, "I don't care if people say f---."
 
He is the first president I remember from soviet papers.
By the way, he was the one who provoked soviet invasion of Afghanistan which eventually caused 9-11.
I don't know how Russians manage all of that persecution, being forced to invade other countries.
USSR invaded only one country. And as I said, it was explicitly provoked by US.
Cold war USA invaded countless number of countries, unprovoked.
Same with post-cold USA - countless number of invasions.
Russia invaded many countries--just by subversion rather than direct invasion. Invasions were done by it's puppets, not directly.
You're projecting. Real data shows that USSR was remarkably reluctant to involve itself in other countries business, even within Warsaw Pact ones.
 
He is the first president I remember from soviet papers.
By the way, he was the one who provoked soviet invasion of Afghanistan which eventually caused 9-11.
I don't know how Russians manage all of that persecution, being forced to invade other countries.
USSR invaded only one country. And as I said, it was explicitly provoked by US.
Cold war USA invaded countless number of countries, unprovoked.
Same with post-cold USA - countless number of invasions.
Russia invaded many countries--just by subversion rather than direct invasion. Invasions were done by it's puppets, not directly.
You're projecting. Real data shows that USSR was remarkably reluctant to involve itself in other countries business, even within Warsaw Pact ones.
:hysterical:🇨🇿🇭🇺
 
He is the first president I remember from soviet papers.
By the way, he was the one who provoked soviet invasion of Afghanistan which eventually caused 9-11.
I don't know how Russians manage all of that persecution, being forced to invade other countries.
USSR invaded only one country. And as I said, it was explicitly provoked by US.
Cold war USA invaded countless number of countries, unprovoked.
Same with post-cold USA - countless number of invasions.
Russia invaded many countries--just by subversion rather than direct invasion. Invasions were done by it's puppets, not directly.
You're projecting. Real data shows that USSR was remarkably reluctant to involve itself in other countries business, even within Warsaw Pact ones.
Sure. The Warsaw Pact was unified because they loved the Soviet Union and all the economic rewards that provided.

And there was definitely subversion across the globe by the Americans and Soviets. An elephant couldn't fart in Africa without the two taking opposing positions.
 
He is the first president I remember from soviet papers.
By the way, he was the one who provoked soviet invasion of Afghanistan which eventually caused 9-11.
I don't know how Russians manage all of that persecution, being forced to invade other countries.
USSR invaded only one country. And as I said, it was explicitly provoked by US.
Cold war USA invaded countless number of countries, unprovoked.
Same with post-cold USA - countless number of invasions.
Russia invaded many countries--just by subversion rather than direct invasion. Invasions were done by it's puppets, not directly.
You're projecting. Real data shows that USSR was remarkably reluctant to involve itself in other countries business, even within Warsaw Pact ones.
Sure. The Warsaw Pact was unified because they loved the Soviet Union and all the economic rewards that provided.
Yes, Soviet Union was pretty much bribing its satellites without asking much in return
And there was definitely subversion across the globe by the Americans and Soviets. An elephant couldn't fart in Africa without the two taking opposing positions.
Well, considering that West was trying to hold on their colonies, murdering democratically elected presidents, it was not that hard for USSR to offer their help.
 
You're projecting. Real data shows that USSR was remarkably reluctant to involve itself in other countries business, even within Warsaw Pact ones.
:hysterical:🇨🇿🇭🇺
What are you laughing about? Remember Czechoslovakia? We now know that Brezhnev was fine with their "reforms" It was Poland and DDR who decided that it must be squashed.
Yet, USSR still gets the blame. Vietnam? They asked USSR help after asking ..... USA to help ..... get french out. We all know how it turned out. Freedom loving USA sided with french colonizers. So yeah, Afghanistan was USA way to get back at USSR for all that pain they caused to themselves. Now USA is alone, nobody in Africa/Asia/South America likes you very much. You have to pay countries to like you. And president Carter took part in this debacle.
 
Sure. The Warsaw Pact was unified because they loved the Soviet Union and all the economic rewards that provided.
Yes, Soviet Union was pretty much bribing its satellites without asking much in return
And there was definitely subversion across the globe by the Americans and Soviets. An elephant couldn't fart in Africa without the two taking opposing positions.
Well, considering that West was trying to hold on their colonies, murdering democratically elected presidents, it was not that hard for USSR to offer their help.
Yes, the Soviet Union... the liberator of the people. Which is why they needed a wall in Berlin. No doubt, the US has taken some awful positions including supporting any number of terrible leaders who committed atrocities. Central America in general, Pakistan, Chile, among other places.

But I'm reminded of the ending to Shostakovich's 7th when it comes to the splendor of the Soviet Union.
 
Yes, the Soviet Union... the liberator of the people. Which is why they needed a wall in Berlin. No doubt, the US has taken some awful positions including supporting any number of terrible leaders who committed atrocities. Central America in general, Pakistan, Chile, among other places.

But I'm reminded of the ending to Shostakovich's 7th when it comes to the splendor of the Soviet Union.
Yup. People vote with their feet. Bad places will have borders pointing in, good places will have borders pointing out. I've been in the majority of the second world countries (and if you don't know what that means, get off my lawn and go google it) and the borders were always pointing in. Customs actually looked at our stuff, sometimes in fair amount of detail. There was always required per day spending levels. Documents were looked at carefully. Most other countries barely looked at things--the most through search we got anywhere else was from the US--and that was agricultural, not customs.
 
Yes, the Soviet Union... the liberator of the people. Which is why they needed a wall in Berlin. No doubt, the US has taken some awful positions including supporting any number of terrible leaders who committed atrocities. Central America in general, Pakistan, Chile, among other places.

But I'm reminded of the ending to Shostakovich's 7th when it comes to the splendor of the Soviet Union.
Yup. People vote with their feet. Bad places will have borders pointing in, good places will have borders pointing out. I've been in the majority of the second world countries (and if you don't know what that means, get off my lawn and go google it) and the borders were always pointing in. Customs actually looked at our stuff, sometimes in fair amount of detail. There was always required per day spending levels. Documents were looked at carefully. Most other countries barely looked at things--the most through search we got anywhere else was from the US--and that was agricultural, not customs.
Reminds me of a conversation I had at work one day some years ago.

I had an intern shadowing me for the day, and my traffic director (who was around my age) came in with a stack of forms for me to work on. He handed them to me and said (in his best Russian movie villain accent) "I believe these papers are in order."

I replied "no, comrade...it appears your papers are not in order." We chuckled. The intern had a blank look on her face.

"You know...your papers please? Soviet Union?"

She was born after the Berlin Wall came down, and didn't get the joke. To her that was "history." That's kinda the person Barbie is targeting with the propaganda. People who don't realize that the Iron Curtain was not just built to keep western countries out, but to keep the "comrades" in.
 
Intern nothing. A person born on the day the Berlin Wall came down is 34 years old today, and will be 35 in November.

The Cold War is history. Even if some of us lived through it.

Shit, there are adults walking around today who weren't yet born on 9/11, and whose parents weren't yet born when the Berlin Wall came down. Babies are being born right now whose grandparents were born after the Cold War ended.
 
Intern nothing. A person born on the day the Berlin Wall came down is 34 years old today, and will be 35 in November.

The Cold War is history. Even if some of us lived through it.

Shit, there are adults walking around today who weren't yet born on 9/11, and whose parents weren't yet born when the Berlin Wall came down. Babies are being born right now whose grandparents were born after the Cold War ended.
Your post jogged my memory.

I also had an intern around the same time who'd come to this country as a child when her parents fled Serbia. She didn't remember much, but this nice, well adjusted young woman I was showing my job started life as a refugee. Now that I think of it, we also had a sales assistant around the same age who spoke up in a staff meeting. We'd just gone through an "active shooter training" and she chose that moment to remind us of how serious this was. She had been at the Bataclan in Paris when the terrorists attacked, and had to run for her life.

My own daughter just turned 34 a few days ago.

Time marches on...
 
Back
Top Bottom