Monday, May 9, 2011

Sorry But, No

Sometimes, folks, the "Party" asks too much of us. Such, I believe, is the left's present day affinity for Jimmy Carter, their new found stance that he really wasn't such a bad President after all.....................................................................................................Look, I'm not saying that Carter was a bad fellow (he was actually a very a good and decent man), or that everything that happened under his watch was necessarily his fault. But, come on. I certainly don't think that the shoppers who saw their bills literally go up weekly (a nearly 14% inflation rate) thought that Jimmy Carter was a good President. Nor do I think that the homeowners with a variable rate mortgage (paying over 20% interest rates) thought that Jimmy Carter was a good President. Ditto, I don't think that the person who got his ass laid off (an over 7% unemployment rate) thought that Jimmy Carter was a good President....And, yes, folks, even I, in the midst of those 4 hour gas lines, didn't think a whole hell of a lot of him back then, either...................................................................................................In 1976, Jimmy Carter asked the American electorate, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Carter ended up losing four years later because Ronald Reagan asked that same electorate the identical question.

7 comments:

  1. I'm glad I was to young to remember that nightmare. Unfortunately, I grew up in a nation still afflicted by his policies. The department of education was the worst of his many mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't know many (any?) people on the Left that believe Carter's was a particular effective or beneficial presidency. I don't know many (any?) who even think he was a liberal.

    There were a lot of significant changes taking place around the world in the 70's. One major change was the rise of OPEC coinciding with the rise in demand for oil in the United States, while reached our peak output in the 70's, beginning the inevitable slide toward foreign dependence. Carter attempted to address that, but congress was loathe to do anything serious about it. All we got was the old 55 MPH laws.

    The economy here and abroad was changing as well. We were becoming more of a service economy, beginning the age of deindustrialization and free trade. The workplace was rapidly changing. Small farms, no longer able to complete with Big Agro, begain to fade away quickly, with Big Agro raking in huge profits from these new trade export markets.

    So, things were changing around the world. Carter entered office at a this time of tumultuous change. On top of that, he walked into an entreched Democratic machine that had a headlock on the Hill. His biggest obstacle to making proper change to accomodate this new world was his own party in congress.

    Carter was no liberal either. Remember, it was he that brought in Paul Volker to the Fed, ushering in the Volker/Greenspan/Bernanke era of the Milton Freidman school of economics. No liberal has even been happy about that.

    On balance, he was a good man, a weak president, and a moderate in both economic and social issues. Internationally, he was a typical Caold War proponent. Kissenger himself once said that Jimmy Carter had more to do with the collapse of the USSR than did Reagan! Of course, he was making the point that no one world leader personally brought down the USSR. But it's food for thought.

    Trestin, try not to believe silly, simplistic myths about presidents and history. It's a lot more complicated than you obviously understand. try reading some quailty history of the period. Than you'll see a clearer, though more complex, picture.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting, I find myself at least in partial agreement with your assessment JMJ. Carter was a decent man who ought to have been a preacher.

    Question for you, do you see Obama ultimately being viewed as another Jimmy Carter by historians?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I doubt it. The two presidents are personally very different. Also, Obama was able to accomplish a lot working with congress, something Carter could never really do. As well, the times were very different, with very different problems, and America was a far more liberal place in the late seventies, which would explain a few of the programs Carter was able to get through.

    Remember, one of Carter's greatest failings (if you can call it that) is that he truly was an outsider. He came into Washington with his outsider crowd and was never really able to get into the inside. Obama came in with the Chicago Democratic Machine, serious and respected insiders who had the gravitas, reputation, and freinds to call in favors, twist arms, etc.

    On top of all that, Obama very well may win next year. The GOP field is - let's just face it - a bunch of sure losers. Until someone new rises up tro seriously challenge the president, Obama will be reelected next year.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  5. Out of reasonable, true complaints against Obama, you smear the easiest target in the last 40 year, besides Reagan.
    Getting bored Les? No one left to be nasty to, so you dig up a 37 year old issue. Weak, and showing your mean side, which we ALL know you have, and have been showing to often.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Point to the exact issue you are referring to Anon. If you refer to Will's post above on Jimmy Carter, well as he said, the left affinity to provide revisionist history is, quite predictable and boring.

    What's wrong Anon {who has not the class to identify yourself} you can't take straight talk and anything that disagrees with your cherished progressive values, oops, I mean non values.

    have a good day.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.