How would DU have treated Jimmy Carter ?

[Progressivism]

I just watched a documentary on Jimmy Carter, and it noted his opponent in the 1980 primaries, Ted Kennedy, was favored by the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party.Knowing that DU is mostly composed of that sort of people(I am one of them),I am looking for your thoughts on how the people of this website would treat Carter if the internet and DU(or something like it) would have been around at the time of the Carter Presidency(1977-1981).

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Hmmm... good question. Jimmy Carter was crucified by the GOP and the media....

Jimmy Carter was a good president in a horrendous situation, and the GOP, churches and the media stood together to destroy him. And Dems did not stand up for him. Dems don't stand behind many of their leaders, as far as I can see.

Dems as a whole need to grow a pair of balls and stand behind their leaders FULLY, and stop aiding the little nazis of the GOP.

[Cha]

10. Sounds familiar..and look what it got us

8 years of reagun and 4 bushsr.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. Exactly! nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Very badly, I would guess.

[AllentownJake]

3. Jimmy Carter is a good man

Who didn't know how to handle D.C. and got eaten by it.

[Thothmes]

53. Agree. Probably the most honest man to sit in the oval office

for several decades. But, always seemed to be the deer in the head lights when problems arose. JMO

[mdmc]

74. He was the last decent man to be President (present President excluded)

The only way to handle DC is to sell out.

I see the Carter Administration similar to a Supreme Court written dissenting opinion that is decades before its time. The laws change, but some people see the need long before the others.

[QC]

4. Very badly, I suspect. Carter was a Southerner and a Baptist.

Those are unforgivable sins around here.

[onehandle]

27. +1 nt

[jonnyblitz]

58. self-delete. posted in wrong spot. nt

[karynnj]

68. As opposed to a New Englander and a Catholic?

There were an incredible number of posts in 2005, 2006, and 2007 that the only Democrats who can win are Southern Baptist Governors. The fact is they based this on exactly 2 since JFK. Those of us who liked Kerry were told that people from the South can't deal with his accent.

[mdmc]

72. yes, but his mom was progressive..

although, yeah, we would have gone with Teddy Kennedy..

[mdmc]

77. +2

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Carter is a Magnificent Person

But he was not a good president. Not awful... but not good.

[Oregone]

6. He made a colossal error with Operation Cyclone

But the current DU ignores this in favor of Carter worship, so he would probably pass off fine here.

Its not simply a mistake...its a stain on his entire presidency that gets blacker with each passing year

[Hippo_Tron]

16. A drop in the bucket compared to all of the horrible things that Reagan did

[Oregone]

23. Yes, Reagan was a dick

But we are still feeling the effects of "Some stirred-up Moslems" (Zbigniew Brzezinski) in a very bad way, so Carter himself was not without failures

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Yea but here's my point

Conducting foreign policy in the post World War II era as a Democratic President is almost always a choice between a lot of crappy options. Ever since Eisenhower and McCarthy there has been a dominant paradigm in this country that Republicans are the ones who you can always trust to protect you. If it's a Democrat they need to prove to the American people that they aren't a wussy pacifist both while they are running for office and even still while they are in office.

Thus when faced with a serious foreign policy crisis Democratic Presidents are extremely unlikely to back down or cut and run because they are almost assured to lose their re-election and then a Republican will come to power and run an equally hawkish if not more hawkish foreign policy.

Jimmy Carter did ultimately lose and Reagan came to power and ran a much more hawkish foreign policy. Had he chosen to be slightly more hawkish and dropped some bombs on Iran during the embassy crisis he probably would've won. Now think about this. In which counter factual is there less human suffering in the world? Jimmy Carter arms the Mujahideen and bombs Iran and wins re-election. Or Jimmy Carter does neither of those things and Reagan comes to power. If you look at everything Reagan did during his presidency (especially considering the fact that he would've definitely armed the Mujahideen himself and bombed Iran if the hostages hadn't been released) the answer is clearly the second scenario.

Those are the choices in the real world. Having a Democratic President back down from a conflict and try to explain themselves simply doesn't work. It's a recipe for getting your ass kicked in the next election and dangerous people like Reagan and George W Bush coming to power. Until somebody figures out a better third option, those are the choices.

[Oregone]

30. "Having a Democratic President back down from a conflict"

We created the conflict with Operation Cyclone.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. A perfectly reasonable interpretation

Of course that's not the interpretation that the Republicans running for President will or the one that people believe. The crisis began, according to them, in 1978 when the Soviet-friendly government came to power in Afghanistan in their view and Jimmy Carter would've had hell to pay (even more than he already did) if he had sat by and just accepted that.

[Oregone]

33. Except the operation I'm referring to was initiated prior to Soviet involvement, to incite it

As I said, we created the situation

[Hippo_Tron]

48. I'm aware of the history, but again you're not seeing my point

Yes the Soviets didn't invade Afghanistan until we incited them to. The government in Afghanistan was still Soviet-friendly and that was a problem for Jimmy Carter because that occurred on his watch.

[mdmc]

79. thank you for this post

bookmarking thread..
peace and low stress..

[ShortnFiery]

17. Yes, much worse than Reagan fixing deals with Iran while our hostages were in peril.

Or his firing of the Air Traffic Controllers ... or his dislike for anything in government that couldn't be belittled and/or privatized.

No, Jimmy Carter, as our President was FAR Worse than Saint Reagan or NAFTA's Big Dog, Bill Clinton. :crazy:

Radicalizing the tribal elements in Pakistan turned out dreadfully thanks to blowback. However, we would not have been hit on 9/11 had we not had troops stationed in "Allah's Country" of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, there's more than enough blame to go around.

[martymar64]

49. Carter supported the Shah when it was no longer prudent to do so.

Had he arranged fort he Shah to leave peacefully, then the Islamic revolution might have been blunted or even averted. It was also Carter's allowing the Shah into the US that precipitated the Embassy hostage crisis.

From there it was all downhill.

[Kaleva]

7. Jimmy Carter would have been roasted here.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. I thought Kennedy's entry into the Primary was the beginning of the disaster.

I was always further left than Jimmy, but I really thought Teddy's entry was destructive. Forcing a sitting President through a primary battle just didn't seem like smart or responsible behavior right then. Of course Jimmy had a whole lot of other things go wrong for him--the energy crisis & incredible 20% inflation, the hostage crisis combined with a failed rescue attempt (hardly his fault, but pinned on him), and probably the "October Surprise" illegal actions of the Reagan/Bush I people that set the stage for the Reagan coup and later led to the Iran/Contra mess.

[BlueMTexpat]

34. Much as I loved Ted Kennedy (and his brothers Jack & Bobby),

I can't help but agree with you. And, like you, I was always further to the left than Jimmy.
What a lot of people have never seemed to understand, whether they think that Carter was a good President or not, is that under his policies, the US deficit that had been created in the early 70s (under Republican Presidents, although basically due to OPEC policies), actually shrank significantly. Had Carter's fiscal policies continued, the economics of the 80s would have been significantly improved. And, as a result, there would have been many other domestic policies that would have been improved under a Carter administration, IMO. There would certainly not have been the deliberate structural destruction of governmental institutions, oversight and labor rights that began with a vengeance in those years.
It was also under Jimmy Carter's guidance that significant political progress was made in the Middle East, with the accords between Egypt and Israel. I have no doubt but that the I-P situation would have improved had he been President for four more years. I do NOT believe that he would have subsidized religious Muslim zealots in Afghanistan to fight against the Russians. Given his very hawkish Sec of State with Eastern European origins, however, we probably would not have been as quick to negotiate with the Russians for an Afghan pull-out as we were to negotiate in the ME. And seen from the point of view of the Soviets, they were worried about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism on their southernmost border, especially after the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and comprised as the USSR was of states in that region with significant Muslim majorities ... think of the various "-stans." Can you imagine the US reaction if the Mexican population were all RW Catholics or other Christian zealots favoring the Inquisition, among other unenlightened so-called Christian policies (especially those anti-woman and anti-minority), and were armed, ready, able and willing to do battle with the US to the point of martyrdom, and were being subsidized by the Russians in that effort? It wouldn't have taken a second for the US to invade Mexico and install our own puppet government there. In fact, in many of the Central and South American countries, we had effectively installed puppet governments already.
Another thing that people, usually Republicans, love to forget (or perhaps never realized), is that it was largely Republican pressure on Carter to allow the fleeing (and ailing) late Shah of Iran to enter the US for medical treatment that pushed anti-US sentiment over the edge so as to cause the Iranian seizure of the US Embassy in 1979. These individuals included David Rockefeller and Joseph Verner Reed, former VP of Chase Manhattan Bank, and longtime BFEE member.

<...> The Chief of Protocol's job is as tailored to Reed as one of his Savile Row suits. A descendant of Edward Doty, a servant who arrived on the Mayflower, Reed is the grandson of Verner Reed, who amassed a fortune first in oil, then in gold. He grew up in Greenwich, Conn., where his parents were friends with the President's parents, Prescott and Dorothy Bush.

Like the President, Reed went to Yale and in 1959 married Marie "Mimi" Byers, now 51, the daughter of an upper-crust Pennsylvania family. The couple have two grown daughters, Serena and Electra. After graduating, Reed worked for the World Bank, then spent almost two decades at the Chase Manhattan Bank, eventually becoming a vice president and personal assistant to Chairman David Rockefeller. In 1979 Rockefeller asked Reed to help arrange for the ailing Shah of Iran to enter the U.S. Two years later President Reagan made Reed Ambassador to Morocco; in 1987 he became the United Nations' highest-ranking American, when he was appointed Undersecretary General for Political and General Assembly Affairs. <...>

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20117859,00.html

More on Reed. Have fun noticing his guests at the Alfalfa Club dinners mentioned. Martha Stewart apparently fell out of favor after 1999.

http://www.nndb.com/people/614/000052458/

[Jackpine Radical]

42. That was a dynamite post.

One thing you prompt me to add is that Carter knew about the impending energy crisis, and tried to get us onto an alternative energy track. I think Big Oil (Geez, did you say "Rockefeller?") was one of the major forces behind the Reagan coup. Famously, the first thing Ronald RayGun did was to take Carter's solar panels off the White House roof. That was intended as a flare sent up to signal to the oil barons that Their Guy had taken over the White House.

Much as I distrusted his Baptist roots and southern origins, much as I saw him as politically to my right, Jimmy grew on me. I remember listening to his "malaise" speech and marvelling at his courage and honesty. And the media skinned him alive for it.

In a lot of ways, Jimmy Carter was (and remains) a better person than we deserved. Maybe he was just too decent for the job.

[mdmc]

76. I feel the same way.

Carter had an energy crisis that we are only now admitting.
I always thought of him as a Christian - a real one.
Everyone wants easy answers. Carter gave us the truth during his "malaise" (a word never used during his) speech.
He is my favorite President, although Obama is one smooth cat and may steal my heart in the end. I'm betting he breaks it though..

[mdmc]

75. thanks for the info..

peace and low stress.

[karynnj]

69. We didn't even know one dangerous legacy - The Carter doctrine

where he said that we would fight to keep oil flowing - while working to diminish the need for oil.

[bluestateguy]

9. People forget that he governed as a DLC Democrat would have governed today

Short answer to your question: it would not have been pretty.

[ShortnFiery]

20. No, Jimmy Carter was not DLC. He asked for national sacrifice and conservation of energy.

As soon as Reagan hit the WH they TORE OFF the "solar panels" that Carter had installed on the roof.

CONSIDER that if we "valued Carter's leadership" and been a nation independent on foreign oil ... Would we NOW consider sinking ourselves DEEPER into two IMMORAL Occupations within Middle Eastern Nations?

[bluestateguy]

21. So?

The DLCers call for sacrifice too: look what they want to do to entitlements.

Your point about Carter's energy policy is correct, but beside the point to what I was saying.

Airline deregulation also happened in 1978 on Carter's signature, and he actually started raising the military budget in 1980, before Reagan increase it still more.

[ShortnFiery]

22. No the DLC only asks for sacrifices from the LABOR force not their Masters of Corporation USA.

Nothing wrong with keeping a STRONG military, just don't have them occupying Muslim Nations and sparking off WWIII. :shrug:

[mikekohr]

43. Airline Deregulation Was One Of Senator Kennedy's Major Accomplishments

Before deregulation air travel was out of reach for most Americans. Today most Americans can afford to fly if the need presents itself.

mike kohr

[HamdenRice]

35. Utter nonsense. He was considered right of center for things like zero based budgeting

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone is not entitled to their own facts.

[karynnj]

70. He predated the DLC, but it was his wing of the party Southern Conservative Democarts who became the

DLC. We should have followed his start on conservation and research into alternative fuels, but he was neither progressive or liberal. He even had a LT Calley Day in GA when he was released from jail.

[Sebastian Doyle]

12. The DLC'ers who treat him badly now probably would have done the same then.

To this day, I don't know why Ted ran against him, and apparently neither did he, since he couldn't answer the question when asked.

[FrenchieCat]

13. If he would have scratched his ass with the wrong hand,

DU would have been all on it with pictures...just like now with Barack Obama.

That goes for Clinton too.
It was probably we didn't have DU then....
cause it might have exploded....especially after NAFTA, DOMA, DADT, Then Banking Deregulation,
or the 96 Telecommunications act....and don't even bring up Darfur.

Woulda have been a big ass mess, like it is now,
and Clinton would have probably been impeached.

[Fire1]

73. I think Clinton WAS impeached. n/t

[PM Martin]

14. Half would have loved everything he did and the other

half would have hated him. Much as it is now.
There is no balance around here.

[boppers]

15. You got two halves... that's 50%... isn't that a balance?

:yoiks:

[IndianaGreen]

18. The pro-Israel DUers would have accused Carter of being an anti-Semite

a charge which they often level today in the I/P forum.

[David__77]

19. "Treated?" That's a very personal way to put it. Isn't it about policy?

I mean, I suppose when he supported arming fundamentalists in Afghanistan, or other things to ratchet up the Cold War, I would oppose him. But "treated?" I don't know what that means.

[vaberella]

29. When people start attacking Michelle's dress in the GDP section--it's rarely about policy. n/t

[noamnety]

46. +1

I didn't have an answer to the OP because they didn't specify which Carter policy they wanted to know DU's opinion on.

They seem to be looking for an oversimplification of history where everyone is categorized as a good person or a bad person, a hero or villain, rather than allowing for (or encouraging) reasoned criticism of any specific policies.

James Loewen (Lies My Teacher Told Me) refers to that as the Disneyfication of history, where students are taught in school to pigeonhole each character in history into their proper hero/villain slot. It's a means of dumbing down Americans, which plays into the neocon/nationalistic agenda.

[tavalon]

55. It means that we are being chastised for criticizing Barack Obama

because it means we don't like him, not that we are holding him accountable.

[quiller4]

24. I think he would have been crucified here. There were plenty

of party liberals who remained loyal to Carter. Had they not, Kennedy would have been the nominee.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. He'd be criticized constantly for not giving members of congress the "Johnson treatment"

And people would claim that because we had large Democratic majorities in congress the only possible reason it could be so difficult to legislate is because the President is either corporate owned or inexperienced.

[vaberella]

56. + Infinity. n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. my failure to solidly back Jimmy Carter in 1980 was the stupidest political mistake

and misjudgment I ever made in my entire life.

The zeal of some of us on the left to push the country farther in the liberal/progressive direction - did not take into account the political realities that really, really existed in the real world - Instead we ended up helping usher in a long, long period of right-wing reactionary domination. I would hope no one, ever, ever, ever makes that mistake again. - never again!!

[girl_interrupted]

31. I don't think it would have mattered, to be honest

No matter if the left backed Carter or not. The majority of the electorate voted him out. He's a very decent man, but I think between the country's problems at the time & Reagan's "charisma", he didn't have a chance. But sometimes life closes one door and opens another. Carter has accomplished so much humanitarian good. Especially with Habitat for the Humanities. An awesome organization. Perhaps that was his destiny, what he was truly meant to do in life.

[hollowdweller]

81. Carters Debate Notes Getting Stolen By the Reagan Camp

Sealed the deal.

[JTFrog]

36. We have a loud section of DU walking right back into that scenario now.

Have you seen the threads calling to primary Obama in 2012 right here on DU even before the end of his first year? I would call that the stupidest political mistake I've seen in my lifetime. Especially after the last eight years. :shrug:

[DailyGrind51]

37. Like a decent man who was too ethical for the job.

[Umbral]

38. Better than the rest of the country, by a huge margin. nt

[ensho]

39. I would have had Carter's back

nt

[treestar]

40. It would have been the same, and with Bill Clinton too

Some people are just negative. They find fault only. Anytime you try to point out a positive to them, they knock it down. The world is not a perfect place. Therefore, it's easy for them.

The right unfortunately for us does not seem to have these people. If the far right sees shortages, they shrug and move on and energetically support whatever will get them anywhere at all. Look at abortion. They want that illegal, they have made no progress for 30 years, yet you still don't see them condemning the Republican party and going off in a huff of superior purity. They realize it's a long haul.

[JVS]

41. I'd support Teddy.

[Hekate]

44. Carter, beloved and respected here now, would have been spat upon by many DUers then...

Count on it.

Hekate

[mitchum]

50. That's because he is a hell of a lot more progressive EX-president than he was...

president.
Despite the desperate efforts of the revisionists, Jimmy Carter was NO liberal

[Hekate]

51. Oddly, Carter is who he always was: a deeply moral man who lives by his Christian principles...

... for which, lest we forget, he was roundly mocked by Washington insiders.

Life is strange.

Hekate

[mike_c]

45. answer: it depends....

Carter is respected and well loved here today because of who and what he is today. While arguably the same man during the 1970s, he was certainly not as effective as president as he is today. That's the important distinction, and suggesting that he would be unfairly excoriated by DUers is classic misdirection.

The answer is that it would depend on Mr. Carter.

We might ask the same question about Al Gore, or any number of other democratic party politicians, who were lackluster in office or during campaigns but who went on to exemplary service records later. Their performance at the time is what merits criticism or praise.

[mitchum]

47. I would have despised him for his rightward leanings and for dragging that Jesus bullshit...

into the political discussion. Just as I do to this very day.

As governor of Georgia and President of the US, Carter was NO liberal.

[thelordofhell]

52. Jimmy Carter was the only President I have touched

He shook my hand at a stop in his campaign, I was only 12 at the time. He was a nice man that had to go up against the assassin's of the republican party. I knew nothing at the time about the lenghts republicans would go to get into office, I do now.

[tavalon]

54. He would have been treated harshly

He wasn't a very effective President. He is, however, a stellar person.

[TheKentuckian]

57. He'd roast on a spit over a steady fire

but damn if we'd not be like 1000 times better off if the country had listened to Jimmah rather than buying the Ray Gun pig in a poke and the whole greed is good philosophy.

Sometimes you can't let the acceptable be the enemy of underwhelming because the absurdly horrid is usually the prize in the second Showcase and more than plenty of it.

[jonnyblitz]

59. yeah he would have been criticized but who cares? this sacred

cow, personality cult crap where we imagine that some political icon from the past might have been (gasp!!!) criticized here is fucking IDIOCY and illustrates what is wrong here when people's priorities are politician veneration and NOT the ISSUES. who gives a FUCK if some politician might have been criticized here. anybody that thinks a politician is above criticism is fucked in the head royally. :crazy:

[dionysus]

63. does anything NOT piss you off? seriously dude EVERYTHING sets you off!

:rofl:

[Aramchek]

60. 75% of us would have supported him, 25% would have treated him like shit

just like they do to Obama...

[TheWraith]

61. They would have called him "Nixon II." nt

[Progressivism]

62. Who and why ?

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. He would be villified like any other Democrat who achieves power

Look at what happened to Reid and Pelosi after they became the party leaders in their respective chambers.

[SIMPLYB1980]

65. He would be called the worst President EVAH!!!11!

Or something like that.

[freddie mertz]

66. I supported him at the time.

Voted for him twice.

Never regretted it.

Next.

[WI_DEM]

67. horribly.

[mdmc]

71. I think we would have been Jerry Brown, Teddy Kennedy people

After all Carter (my favorite president) used Ralph Nader (the most trusted man in America at the time) to get elected, then failed to allow him access during his administration..

[Overseas]

78. Same as any president-- complained about some policies and criticized others.

Because I remember being glad about his public stances on human rights while the USA was still supporting tyrants in El Salvador.

[hollowdweller]

80. Well

People would have dug that he said he wanted to decrim marijuana and he had the Allman Bros play the White House.

They would have given him shit over his making his evangelical faith an issue in the election and this came back to bite us when the GOP did it.

They would have hated his policies in Central America.

They would have liked that he didn't bomb or invade Iran.

They would have liked his goal to make us energy efficient and his putting solar panels on the White House.

[mopinko]

82. roasted and served with relish.

i have mentioned jimmy in several threads this week. he would have been eviscerated.