Was Carter right?

porkbelly

If there is one person who every conservative in America loathes, it is Jimmy Carter. His mix of self-righteous moralizing, ironbound ego and utter incompetence as a leader was summed up in this disastrous speech. It rightly doomed him - Americans were not yet ready to throw in the towel, and voted for Reagan who proceeded to prove that the national obituary that Carter was trying to write was, to say the least, premature.

Now decades later, you say there are conservatives who find Carter's mewlings attractive? Most unlikely. Especially given the many parallels between Carter and the present occupant of the White House.

Verity

No, preachy Jimmuh Cahduh was the one who didn't have the backbone to go the hell into Iran and rescue the hostages in the Embassy of the United States of America for God's sake! Frozen by fear.

I was living in the US at the time and his stupid face was never off TV talking about "the hostage crisis". After three months or so, it's not a "crisis" any more, so he changed his wording to "the hostage situation".

Let us not forget that Texas (yay!!!) billionaire H Ross Perot organised an airstrike and rescued his own men. Daring private enterprise. But the President of the United States, Jimmuh Cahduh, went on TV night after night talking helplessly about the "hostage situation" which I think paved the way for the capture of the RN ship in the Straits of Hormuz and fat, chain smoking Cap'n Faye of the Royal Navy gave up her ship to Ahmadinnerjacket and adopted the burqa.

Leftist appeasement is all of a straight line, and Jimmuh was a coward without the intellectual nous to see any big pictures. He claimed to have graduated second in his class at uni, but was something like No 49. (Too dumb to realise it could be checked.) Jimmuh had nothing to offer then and nothing to offer today.

wrinkled weasel

I could not help myself. I put Carter's words into the mouth of Gordon Brown, say two months ago, to see how they would sit.

I tried to imagine Brown reading out genuine and quite coruscating criticisms of himself. It would never have happened, for Brown only wanted us to hear the good news.

You say that this kind of frankness did for Carter and that the polished Reagan campaign videos, so sunny and optimistic and so affirming of the American Way, appealed more to the people.

You appear to suggest that the Carter Way may be resonating once again in the ranks of the conservatives. I don't know, but I am more interested in how it plays out here. Too many people in Britain still voted for a leader who promised a brighter, publicly funded future, in the face of the stark reality.

People want to believe in dreams and in dumping Carter, the Americans perpetuated their own. Over here, too many still believe in fairy land, full of hand-outs and never ending "investment" in public services. Nobody wants to pay the price, but more frighteningly, many believed the lies, about the economy and about Britain's true status in the world.

Carter was attempting to appeal to a public morality; at the end he quotes a religious leader. He dimisses materialism at the outset.

Brown trotted out his "son of the manse" schtick once too often to be believable, and still people believed.

The fact is, the masses want good news. Furthermore, the masses do not want bad news. Wilful igorance abounds. Nothing has changed - people still follow the guy promising free lunches.

DavidDP

"It was a disastrous move, politically"

This is wrong. The speech was actually well received, including by the press, and Carter's ratings went up. It was the sackings that occurred almost immediately afterwards that gave the impression of confusion and drift, and which depressed his ratings.

yank

"Today, however, some of the more original thinkers on the American Right are looking back at the speech in different light."

.

.

Oh really? Name one, "original" or no. And as Bacevich is not considered to be a conservative, you start at nil.

In my younger, quite foolish days, I voted for Carter... twice. Today, we all of us recognize that both Carter's message and method were of failure. Sure, these might fit Tories over there just fine... and good luck to them, if so. But to fantasize that this rot is getting "an improbably warm reception" here is... well... pure fantasy. Carter, his message and all of him are disparaged, in all corners, not just among conservatives. He's viewed as Gordon Brown, without the wisdom, grace and beguiling charm.

Yes, conservatives here know full well that austerity is required now... but you misread where conservatives will be applying that austerity. All strains of conservatism here... and there are a multitude... recognize that austerity must be brought to government... not by government. As Reagan said then as he was destroying Carter... government isn't the solution to the problem... government is the problem. That idea resonated with the people then, if not with me, and the people are in just such a mood now, fyi.

I have some additional news for you. That Carter video of yours will be featured in various political campaign television ads over the next 2 years... devastatingly so... and most prominently in the 2012 presidential campaign, as it appears the incumbent and Carter are effectively soulmates.

Poor Jimmuh Cahtuh... he's about to be involved in another presidential campaign. Poor man, they'll probably hit him with the "killer rabbit" again, when "the rabbit approached his boat, "hissing menacingly, its teeth flashing and nostrils flared and making straight for the president",[1] trying desperately to enter the boat, causing Carter to flail at the swimming creature with the oars from his boat."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4p6_G4gQpk

Fergus Pickering

But I always thought Americans loved self-righteous moralizing. They do it so well. And so often.

maddy1

Carter said to the gathered African delegates, "what can Amerrikka do to improve its image with You?" The Africans insulted Carter and his great Country and Carter walked out in a huff! It took the quick conquering of American forces in Arab Lands for America to get its prestige back!

Greg

absolutely nothing Carter says or does is the right answer or sincere for that matter. He's an anti-democratic and Israel bashing bigot. A gift to the dictators in the middle east.

strapworld

He knows an awful lot about peanuts, though!

And whilst we may not like the messenger the message is true of this country-which has rejected its Christian heritage and now worships at the Cathedrals of out of town shopping malls. People will repeat, parrot fashion, that they are christians but know absolutely nothing about the faith.

Bring back compulsory Christian school assemblies. Close all shops on Sunday's and let us have proper Christian programmes on the radio and television.

Let us pray that the Archbishop of York takes over as Archbishop of Cantervury and injects much needed Christian teaching back into our daily lives.

We are on the path towards an islamic state! Spain first, then France and Holland. I hope I am wrong.

TrevorsDen

mmm... No.

The problem with saying 'we are consuming too much' is that the people who produce the consumer goods then go out of work.

We can of course quite rightly say we can and should produce goods more efficiently.

Equally we can argue against conspicuous consumption, from both a moral and social standpoint. Footballers and their wives come into this category and so to bankers and their bonuses. But this is hardly and excuse for espousing the notion 'Too many of us worship self indulgence and consumption...'

TomTom

Carter was regarded with contempt in Europe especially by Helmut Schmidt who attacked his "Zig-Zag Policies". He was humiliated by Leonid Brezhnev who flew Cuban mercenaries throughout Africa and almost took over Portugal for a Soviet naval base.

Carter was WEAK.

Then to tell Americans they must have a Dept of Energy to control gas pipelines and oil companies was symptomatic of an era when it looked as if the USSR was WINNING !

BTW. Itis forgotten that US ally Saudi Arabia imposed an oil embargo on the US 6th Fleet in the Med, but Royal Dutch and BP ensured it was supplied with oil.

"the Saudis duly instructed Aramco to stop the supplies to the military. The position was serious enough for a managing director of BP in London to receive a phone call from Washington asking whether BP could supply the Sixth Fleet. Exxon and the others were now wide open to the charge that had so often been made against them in the past -- that they put profits before patriotism."

(The Seven Sisters by Anthony Sampson)

despair

@Verity - your strident views on what to you is evidently pretty much a binary world can be refreshing but don't play fast and loose with the facts. Carter did make an attempt at freeing the hostages by force. It went wrong and 8 US servicemen died.
As for Ross Perot's 2 employees, their situation was simply not comparable to that of the 52 embassy hostages.

David Booth

Jimmy Carter was one of the most weak and naive presidents the USA has been lumbered with.
When he was up against ruthless murderers in Iran who were holding Americans hostage all we got from Jimmy Carter was dithering and incompetence. I remember seeing him on TV wittering on about wondering what his daughter, ? Amy, thought about the world situation. The Iranian government then ruthlessly twisted the knife in Carter to emphasise his weakness by waiting until he was kicked out of office before they released the hostages.
No Carter was a failure. He may have been ?? a good man in a bad world but often this is not enough, the good man has to do something rather than rely on his innate goodness to win the day.
Now he spends his time ineffectively pontificating about the woes of the world, whilst enriching himself, along with that other useless fool Al Gore.

libertarian

@strapworld

Do not fear, you are wrong. You just don't know what you are wrong about! Good idea lets bring back superstition and the middle ages

libertarian

@Trevorsden

Oh I get so tired at hearing this utter nonsense about footballers, wags, bankers and well basically anyone more wealthy.

For exactly the reason you mention in your post the spending of rich people creates jobs work and income for other people.

What is it with us British ? Why as soon as someone earns a lot of money we assume they either stole it or were given it for doing nothing. It really is the most lame brained thinking

Robert Taggart

Get Carter... back !
Materialism be the modern ill. So many people work all the hours going (particularly in Blighty) just to consume more for the sake of it (or to 'boast' to their 'circles' how 'great' they are).
Moi ? Sponging it ! Making do with less, for considerably less effort !! Keep those benefits coming !!!

Simon Stephenson

wrinkled weasel

"The fact is, the masses want good news. Furthermore, the masses do not want bad news. Wilful igorance abounds. Nothing has changed - people still follow the guy promising free lunches."

But there are, you will admit, people who don't have thought processes like this. People who though they may still harbour optimism in their hopes, still insist that their expectations are founded in reality.

Is it more likely that such a separation is possible only in the small proportion of people born with compatible attribures, or that with appropriate nurture and upbringing it's something that can become part of more or less everyone? And if it is possible to establish the separation as a standard within society, can we be clear that this would lead to more happiness and well-being than we would experience by carrying on as we are?

TrevorsDen : 9.44am

"The problem with saying 'we are consuming too much' is that the people who produce the consumer goods then go out of work."

Can we not extend this back a stage and say that the problem has become the vision of social perfection as a fully-employed population maximising the production of economic value, as currently defined? Have we not become so competent at producing economic value that it is no longer necessarily of social benefit to treat such activity, by default, as being more noble than any other form of activity?

For example, might not a way forward be to encourage an understanding that the taking of purposeful sabbaticals for self-betterment is socially praiseworthy, not self-indulgent laziness, to the extent that the person falling short of social expectations becomes the one who fails to move away from the idea that a lifetime of economic production is enough.

Verity

Good post, Yank and thanks for the first laugh of the day ... I'd forgotten all about the Killer Bunny! As soon as I read the words just now, I saw that newspaper photo again of Jimmuh standing up in a rowboat brandishing an oar at that poor little rabbit that was trying to scramble aboard to save its life. Why didn't he just rescue it instead of claiming that it was was about to attack him? Oddly enough, I can see Obama having exactly the same reaction.

callingallcomets

"But the very fact that such Carter’s ideas are beginning to find an improbably warm reception on the American Right does suggest that conservatism in the US is a’ changing."

Over the last 2/3 years I have come to learn that when someone from the Speccie talks about the American right they merely mean Brooks, Douthat, Frum or Sullivan - in other words from the media establishment approved list. You would never guess that outside these "official" NYT/WaPo mouthpieces there is a vigorous grassroots conservatism simply bubbling and seething with ideas - sometimes brash, sometimes wild , exemplified by the Tea Party movement. Speccie posters have never made any serious attempt to understand or analyse this phenomenon which is why anything posted about the American right at CH is usually way off the mark - and this post is a classic example. To give the impression that Carter's speech is now a talking point amongst US conservatives is totally misleading.

Verity

David Booth - I'd forgotten about him taking advice from 10 year old Amy!

Also, we all had a laugh when the Iranians demonstrated their absolute contempt for Carter by releasing the hostages immediate ... as in, IMMEDIATELY ... after Ronald Reagan had taken the oath of office.

Scary Biscuits

Srapworld, there's something called the Protestant work ethic, which was largely responsible for England and then America becoming not just rich but also better morally. Catholics, on the other hand, have often derided work as they want the people to stay poor and pure. The result was disaster zones of poverty and corruption such as southern Italy, Spain and Ireland. I for one will not be praying for promotion the Archbishop of York, as I regard his philosophy, like much of the bishopric, as dangerously left wing and attempting to recreate a mini papacy. The modern church leadership has lost its way because it has forgotten why it was created, its founding principles and is instead repeating the mistakes of the popery that it did so well in breaking away from.

Libertarian, there's nothing superstitious about working hard, loving your neighbour and staying with your wife to bring up plenty of healthy children. It's a formula that's been proved over and over again by Darwinian selection. In seeking to create their brave new world, socialists think they know better.

I do agree with you, however, that we shouldn't envy other people's wealth. But as Yank says, we should be angry at a government that is trying to enforce austerity on us rather than on itself. Carter richly deserved to lose and I hope somebody like Reagan, who recognised that government is not the solution but the problem, is one day elected here too. It's interesting that we all have a recession problem but no leader in the western world in the western world is talking about reducing taxes or the size of the state in real terms. Is that democracy or is it a perversion of democracy where the will of taxpayers is overrulled by the sort of people who worship murders like Moat?

PayDirt

Is it possible the French have a better take on this question of materialism? Reduce working hours and spend more time preparing really nice dinners for friends and family. But then there are the neighbours, no prizes for guessing who, who have the unfortunate attribute of invading/selling us motor cars and taking away liberty, as well as F and E. So let's just carry on, muddle through and above all, REMAIN VIGILANT!

Simon Stephenson

Scary Biscuits : 1.35pm

"Srapworld, there's something called the Protestant work ethic, which was largely responsible for England and then America becoming not just rich but also better morally"

Better morally than whom?

Some would suggest that there's a major moral crack in a social organisation that is built around the need to create a small number of big winners, a large number of small losers and a medium number of big losers. Certainly one can observe that no other system yet designed has produced a better outcome for society, but I feel that if we were to strip out the contribution of self-interest to the formation of arguments we'd find the general feeling to be that it is a denial of human capability to conclude that this is as good as it can get.

yank

Let us further discuss Mr. Reagan, and his simple but precise methods, in contrast with Mr. Carter's frantic overreach.

In 1981 (a few months after he was shot by assassin... "Honey I forgot to duck!" he larked to his beloved, as he was being wheeled into the emergency room. What kind of a man was this, who could bring us this wit and grasp?), Reagan was confronted by a strike from the air traffic controllers' union, several tens of thousands of them across the country.

Now, this was an illegal strike, as these controllers had each taken an oath against such, and the law plainly did not support it.

The country was paralyzed. Reagan's cabinet hastily met, furiously throwing ideas around the table. All of our betters were represented: the Ivy Leagers with their unassailable pedigrees, the Princeton law professors, the Harvard Kennedy School of Government overlords. These would maneuver us through the minefield of union activism, economic turmoil, political fallout and vagaries of public opinion. Only such wise men as these could ever hope to deal with this situation... as they would surely tell you.

All of the schemes were plotted and hatched. Oh how clever these men were. They would bring on the solution, ever complex and obviously unintelligible to we the unwashed.

Reagan, "the amiable dunce" as it was said, sat quietly and patiently, listening to the wise men set the course, to which he'd obviously nod his head and consent. Afterall, he'd not attended Princeton, or even Colgate for goodness sakes.

He did listen. He did hear them out. And as the wise men orated their summations, he discretely wrote a few simple sentences on a slip of paper, and handed this to an aide to read to the assembled.

The controllers were to be given 48 hours to return to work, and would be terminated if they didn't.

The stunned wise men sat slackjawed, that this simpleton could disregard their sage connivance.

15 minutes later, that same slip of paper was walked down to the microphones and read to the world... word-for-word.

This is what we call "leadership". It is sometimes ugly, and it is sometimes wrong. It is always necessary.

David Lindsay

I see that the cultists of Romald Reagan are out.

Privatisation, globalisation, deregulation and demutualisation have turned out, in the most spectacular fashion, to be anything but fiscally responsible. The same is true of a generation of scorn for full employment, leading to the massively increased benefit dependency of the 1980s and to the institutionalisation of that mass indolence down to the present day.

But what of the other two legs of the stool that was the Reagan Coalition? The only two conservative things that Reagan ever did were to begin nuclear arms reduction in Europe and to withdraw from Lebanon because no American interest was at stake. Reagan was no more a national security conservative, as that term in generally employed, than he was a fiscal conservative, as that term is generally employed.

Bringing us to the third leg, the social conservatives, "the Religious Right". The moral, social and cultural consequences of massively increased welfare dependency and the glorification of selfish greed were wholly of a piece with the rise of Political Correctness in the 1980s, and with that decade's general moral chaos. Reagan was an extremely infrequent churchgoer and did not formally belong to any parish, congregation or denomination. He remains the only President of the United States ever to have been divorced, and his Californian no fault divorce law has since been copied by most other states. As Governor of California, he signed into law the legalisation of abortion in that state. Read that last sentence over again.

There should be Tea Parties for people who object to the fiscal irresponsibility, and to the wildly anti-conservative social effects, of neoliberal economics, of neoconservative foreign policy, and of a Healthcare Bill which had to be filleted of the public option (leaving only a gigantic taxpayer subsidy to the insurance companies – what is fiscally responsible about that?) and of the Stupak Amendment in order to appease Blue Dogs who voted against it anyway and wavering Republicans who turned out not to exist at all. There should also be May Day parades for those who object to the anti-worker effects of mass and illegal immigration, and of the erosion of America as an English-speaking country. The capitalist system cannot function with such migration and erosion. That is but one of its myriad anti-conservative features.

Osred

Imagining a slew of Jimmy Carters in the White House makes the vision of Vladimir Putin as Euro President all too believable.

lescam

"The fact is, the masses want good news. Furthermore, the masses do not want bad news".

Agree. They also want improved public services (as do we all) AND lower taxes.

As the old joke goes, "half the country can't read, half can't write, and the other three-quarters can't add up".