Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The American Conservative: "Carter Was Right!!"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Faryn Balyncd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 11:42 AM
Original message
The American Conservative: "Carter Was Right!!"
Edited on Wed Apr-08-09 11:50 AM by Faryn Balyncd



.....A humble analysis whose blinking banner link at the top of home page of "The American Conservative" proclaims "Carter Was Right!"


(At what other "conservative" magazine did the editor (Scott McConnell) break with co-founder Pat Buchanan, to publicly endorse both John Kerry and Barack Obama, and publish Andrew Bacevich's "The Conservative Case for Barack Obama"?)








Carter Conservatism

The 39th president’s modest proposal

By Sean Scallon



Jimmy Carter’s “Crisis of Confidence” speech, delivered from the Oval Office on July 15, 1979, has long been a symbol of Democratic defeat—and defeatism. Republican politicians from presidents on down have used it to tar Democrats as the party of “malaise,” a word that Carter himself never uttered in the address.

Rarely has a speech so backfired. Yet what if the text, obscured by recriminations, turns out to be one of the most conservative presidential statements of the last 30 years?

It was delivered as the Carter presidency was beginning to crater, as the turmoil of the Iranian Revolution caused oil prices to rise, and gas shortages once again afflicted the nation as they had six years before during the Yom Kippur War. Anger over higher prices and long lines at the pumps threw the administration into disarray. Carter wanted to make another speech on the energy crisis, the fifth of his presidency. But his advisers thought it would be ignored, if not ridiculed. Only something bolder, broader, and different from any speech hitherto made by a president could transform the situation.


. . . . . .


Carter felt the country was on an unsustainable course, and only through lower expectations, conservation, and sacrifice could the U.S. survive as a free nation—or at least “free” as Carter defined the term in his speech:



"We are at a turning point of our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I’ve warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. … All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to the true freedom for our nation and ourselves."



Could Russell Kirk or Richard Weaver have said it any better if they were debating Ayn Rand? Carter defined freedom as self-sufficiency rather than the right to take resources from other nations for our own well-being. He even gave a nod to the populist “drill here, drill now” contingent who felt the country had enough resources already to be energy independent: “We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline we will build it. …We have more oil in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias. We have more coal than any nation on earth.”

This was not the speech of some America-hating leftist. Carter did not try to tear down the country, he simply wanted it to come together and direct itself toward a goal other than unlimited growth or unending progress. As Andrew Bacevich points out in The New American Militarism, the president recognized the high cost of empire:


"In July of 1979, Carter already anticipated that a continuing and unchecked thirst for imported oil was sure to distort U.S. strategic priorities with unforeseen but adverse consequences. He feared the impact of that distortion on American democracy still reeling from the effects of the 1960s. So he summoned his fellow citizens to change course, to choose self-sufficiency and self-reliance and therefore true independence but at a cost of collective sacrifice and lowered expectations."


Self-sufficiency, discipline, sacrifice, conservation, independence, the striving for meaning and purpose beyond material wealth. All of these characteristics were once associated with conservatism, and they were all part of a speech given by a man who was naval officer, farmer and large landowner, small businessman, Sunday school teacher, and Southerner. Does this not sound the background of a conservative?

In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.



.......



Unfortunately, as Carter feared, the American mission and lifestyle proved unsustainable. In the short run, the Saudis and other OPEC nations and oil producers slaked America’s dependence on foreign oil. The Chinese and other emerging industrial nations were willing to provide cheap consumer goods and buy U.S. Treasuries so that American consumers could have plenty of choices at the marketplace. This cut the inflation that bedeviled the Carter administration. In return, the U.S. military provided protection and stability around the globe through deficit financing. The hoped-for reduction of government that was a part of Reagan’s rhetoric was junked because it threatened to shatter the “you can have it all” coalition. Instead, government grew, in part through a neat trick called supply-side economics in which the New Deal, the New Frontier, and even the Great Society could be offered at low cost to taxpayers through massive levels of borrowing. Wrapped around all of this was a nationalistic attitude. The launching of a few cruise missiles every now and then disguised the loss of American economic independence.


After what happened to Carter, no American politician today is brave enough to ask for limits. Bush I said that our way of life is non-negotiable. Bush II told Americans to go shopping after 9/11. President Obama says Americans “will not apologize for our way of life.” President Carter is remembered as a weak man—yet no politician now (outside of perhaps Ron Paul) has the guts to make a similarly bold speech during our current economic crisis.



________________________________________



Sean Scallon is an author and journalist living in Arkansaw, Wisconsin.


http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/apr/06/00014/











:kick:








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. So THAT's how conservatives plan to save their party? Pretend they were liberals all along?
Christ, Carter made a classic statement of liberal ideology and this conservative is trying to claim it was a conservative statement. These guys are sickening even when they agree with us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. They are OLD-FASIONED Republicsns!
And they have no more love for Neo-Cons, than we at DU have! Over the (Bush) years, they've put out many worthwhile and hard-hitting articles, with a lot of them being mentioned here at DU (and with great approval!)

pnorman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. "Old fashioned" means their new ideas failed so they are pretending they had other ones all along.
Barry Goldwater or Pat Buchanan weren't preaching the virtues of Carter over Reagan in 1980.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. (Sigh!) You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him take an enema!
The important thing about these people is that they're intellectually HONEST, and you can learn much by engaging them in discussion/debate.

Here's their Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Conservative

And their webpage: http://www.amconmag.com/

(Sigh!)

pnorman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. The horse doesn't need an enema, he just needs a drink of water.
How is it intellectually honest to argue that an opinion they once condemned is now the opinion they've held all along?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. You can apply that water at whichever end strikes your fancy.
but do yourself a favor and read some of those articles. And then (mentally) debate them. You'll probably find that they'll employ no deliberate subterfuge or falsehood. After doing that, you could DEMOLISH any Ditto-head!

pnorman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. I can handle dittoheads with my own ideology, thank you very much.
And I don't care if they may be on the right track on some issues now (if they are), my point was and is that they hated Carter and condemned his words then, and are now trying to adopt them as their own. Read the article in the OP, about how Carter wasn't "an American-hating leftist," and he was closer to their values. That is not what they were saying then, and those were not the values they held then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. (Sigh!)
n/t

pnorman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. You keep breathing through your mouth like that, you're going to swallow a fly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #33
46. Hey there "Tex", is this some sort of macho contest to you?
n/t

pnorman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. No, I just despise people who try to win arguments through ridicule rather than reason.
So I responded on your level, to illustrate that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #50
60. You make your own point
n/t

pnorman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #25
66. If You Want To Respect The Will/Buckley Wing. . .
. . .of the right, go ahead. Me, i think it's faux intellectualism and i have no use for it.
GAC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faryn Balyncd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. Actually (Re: what "they" were saying then), ed. Scott McConnell was working on the Carter campaign
Edited on Wed Apr-08-09 03:13 PM by Faryn Balyncd




...in 1976.

We don't know exactly who author Sean Scallon was supporting (or saying) at the time, but we do know that he was 3 years old at the time Carter gave this speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_McConnell
http://www.beatingthepowersthatbe.blogspot.com/

Your statement (regarding condemning Carter in 1979) is probably correct regarding (The American Conservative co-founder) Pat Buchanan, whose views regarding Carter I suspect have not changed today.

But the views of Buchanan, and those of his co-founder and editor Scott McConnell, often do not coincide.

Their disagreement about Carter, as well as McConnell's endorsements of Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008 are examples. (Buchanan and McConnell do agree on their mutual opposition to the war in Iraq and to American imperialism.)

McConnell's views are more nuanced, and have evolved over time:

For a time between his support for Carter in the 1970's, and his involvement with paleoconservatism, McConnell had a neoconservative phase, a period on which he elaborates in "Among the Neocons" http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/apr/21/00007/ .

McConnell has now not supported a Republican presidential candidate in 9 years (since 2000).

But unlike many disaffected Republicans who sat out the 2004, 2006 and 2008 elections, McConnell publicly endorsed both John Kerry and Barack Obama (on the pages of the American Conservative.

Moreover, in 2006, just days before the mid-term election, McConnell penned "The GOP Must Go", advocating a Democratic win. A duplicate of this editorial can be seen here: http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=563 (It apparently is no longer available on The American Conservative website). Days after this was published, the Democratic Party took control of the Senate by a margin of one Senator, on the basis of Jim Webb's 8000 vote win in Virginia. Webb benefited from several favorable articles in The American Conservative (which coincidentally is based in Virgina.) http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/jun/19/00016/ (And, interestingly, support for Webb from The American Conservative has not diminished when Webb harshly attacked corporatism and class inequality on the pages of The Wall Street Journal http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009246 and has consistently taken egalitarian positions regarding labor and class issues, as well as prison and justice reform.)

McConnell, who received a doctorate in history from Columbia, has published in The Huffington Post on the antiwar movement (in which he has worked with both progressives and libertarians): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-mcconnell/where-is-the-antiwar-move_b_2443.html

Meanwhile, Buchanan remains a Reaganite.

But the same cannot be said for McConnell, who continues to evolve.

Perhaps, some might say, he may in some respects be coming full circle, and recognize the wisdom of the president he worked to elect in 1976, Jimmy Carter.



(All is not black & white in this diverse world.)










Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. All of which has little to do with my post.
Except for the detail about McConnell working on the Carter campaign.

Regardless, my point was simple. They are starting to embrace the ideology that I and many Democrats have held since the 70s, but they are trying to claim that it instead aligns with what they have believed all along. That is a common pattern with conservatives of whatever adjective they prefer--they oppose liberal ideology and propose something radically different, then when their ideas blow up in their faces they return to what we were saying at the time and try to pretend that was their point all along. We see that with claims that JFK and Truman and even Clinton were really conservatives in as much as they were successful, now they are claiming Carter because Carter is finally being proved right.

They can wander all over the political spectrum if they want, they can endorse our leaders if they want, they can even condemn the current Republican Party if they want, but the simple fact is that most of them, whether neocon or paleo or whatever were wrong, and they are trying to deny that fact (probably even to themselves) by claiming that our leaders were on their side all along.

As for their current views, if you learn something from them or respect them for these views, fine. I've made the point often enough that Buchanan and some of the other older conservatives are more honest than the Bush/Reagan cronies, so I can relate. I don't respect their views, but I give them credit for being more intelligent than those who control the conservative movement today. But that wasn't the point of my post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faryn Balyncd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. I think some conservatives are seeing that they have more in common with liberal/progressives than..
Edited on Wed Apr-08-09 04:01 PM by Faryn Balyncd





...with those that now set the agenda of the "conservative movement".


Specifically, many (who have thought of themselves as "conservative") now realize that the right wing uses "conservative" rhetoric ("fiscal responsibility", "small government", "the constitutional government", "freedom", "morals", "family values".......) as marketing slogans to sell a corporatist, authoritarian agenda that is in direct opposition to professed "conservative" principles.


Some are seeing that if they want to value these ideals, they will do better to look for allies on the left, and certainly not within the Republican Party or the "conservative" movement.


I don't think this is true of most of the republican dead-enders, but I think it does apply to many who supported the Republican Party in past years, but have become independent or Democratic in the last 8. And some of these individuals may still define themselves as "conservative", though they have little in common with those still supporting the GOP, or at Fox "News".


I agree with much of what you have said, but I think it applies more to Republican dead-enders than to the author of this article, or to his editor.












Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. My complaint with the article is in trying to claim that Carter was a Conservative.
He was a liberal, and he was exactly the type of liberal that they developed terms like "American-hating leftist" to describe, despite the article trying to claim Carter was different than today's liberals. They are trying to steal Carter's wisdom while jettisoning his supporters.

If they want to meet on the issues, I'm all for it, but this article wasn't about building bridges, it was an attempt to cross a bridge, throw those of us on the other side into the river, smash the bridge so no one else can cross it, and claim they lived on that side of the bridge all along. That was my point--they are trying to save their party by claiming that Bush was not really their party, that their party was right all along, and by extrapolation the liberals were wrong all along.

It's an old tactic, and one we shouldn't let them get away with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faryn Balyncd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. You are right.
Edited on Wed Apr-08-09 06:23 PM by Faryn Balyncd




Carter was, and is, a liberal. And to misrepresent him would be wrong.

My take, however, on what the author is saying is a smidgeon different than your interpretation:

The author is a paleoconservative, speaking to other paleos.

I think he is saying something that is quite radical for a paleo to say:

Specifically, he is saying that the conservative movement took a wrong turn in rejecting Carter, and beinbg seduced by Reagan's "no limits" triumphalist myths. That it is the conservative movement that went the wrong way.



His clear implication is that Reagan and conservatism went wrong, and that the values of conservatives were more faithfully represented by Jimmy Carter, a president that has been maligned as weak, and, (perhaps even worse for those who think of themselves as "conservative") a "leftist".




There is a huge problem with interpreting the article as trying to align Carter with the current "conservative movement": Nobody would buy it....... least of all the 20-30% deadend Republican base that absolutely despises Carter, and considers him to be the epitome of Democratic weakness and idealism.

This author is not trying to redeem the current conservative movement (which he despises, and considers corrupt).

The author is just not quite ready to give up on the label of "conservative".

But it would appear that his central theme - - - what he is actually telling his fellow paleos - - - is that they (conservatives) went wrong when they rejected Carter for the snake-oil of Reaganism.











Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Excellent points. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #45
54. One more thing
I think this writer is also realizing that the powerless paleo-conservatives on their side of the aisle and the powerless populist liberals on our side have a lot in common.

And he's right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #45
57. I don't read it that way.
I agree he's writing to conservatives, but he is also writing to those who aren't aligned, or who are reconsidering their allegiance. He is not writing to convince them that they should have followed Carter instead of Reagan. He is writing to convince them that conservatives have been right all along, and that the liberals who were right were only right because they were really conservatives. He is not trying to bring paleo-conservatives to the left, he is trying to prevent them from moving to the left. Maybe, though I doubt it, he is rejecting Reagan, but mostly he is saying "We don't have to be afraid of this new direction, because really it was our direction to begin with, and the American-hating leftists are the ones who rejected it. Bush failed because he wasn't a conservative, and although we are now advocating policies similar to Carter's, Carter was really a conservative, so they are really our ideals."

That allows them to keep the rest of the conservative ideals they hold while rejecting the unpopular ones that lead to recession and lost wars and religious factionalization. This is not an attempt to reject Reagan, but to save what he can of Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #32
59. Carter was not a liberal though, he was a conservative southern Democrat
which is partly why Kennedy ran against him.

But they are also wrong about no politician since then having the courage to tell the truth. Mondale ran in 1984 on the necessity of tax increases. His shellacking and the massive defeat of Dukakis is perhaps part of the reason why new Democrats like Clinton, Gore, and Obama have run as Reaganites, promising tax cuts too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:49 AM
Response to Reply #32
68. Jobycom's right, and I AM old enough to remember back then. The
Pubs HATED Carter, considered him weak, silly, cowardly, etc. I will never forget how they ridiculed him for wearing a sweater during a national address about conservation issues. And now they're saying "Carter was right!" Honestly, these people all need to be herded into one state somewhere and left to fend for themselves.

And the fact is, they were, and still are, so rapacious and greedy that their 'philosophy' regularly blows up in their faces, and claiming to believe what Carter talked about back then is just repulsive. These are greedy, repulsive assholes. They always remind me of the Ferengi on Star Trek.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
14thColony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #68
77. This seems to be a bit of a Catch-22
that you and Jobycom present, assuming I am not misinterpreting you.

Choice 1 - Some Conservatives continue to hate and reject Carter and all he stood for, in which case they are all despicable liars.
Choice 2 - Some Conservatives admit that Carter's course was right and Reagan's was wrong, in which case they are all despicable liars.

I would suggest that perhaps we should consider not alienating people who are showing some signs of acknowledging that they were wrong, and who might now be seeking a path separate from that of the modern Republican Party.

I see this article as asking Conservatives of today "do you even know what the hell a Conservative really is?" Maybe that is a question we should be actively encouraging them to ask themselves. Of course the hardcore 20% of the base that still hope for a Cheney presidency will never change, but perhaps they might end up abandoned if more introspection along these lines occurs. I trust you would see that as a positive development, regardless of their views 30+ years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No More Bushbots Donating Member (192 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #68
86. Same here
They continued to ridicule the Carter Administration until the massive oil price surge last summer, when suddenly people remembered that Carter had warned that this would happen back in the late 70's.
And now Buchanan has the balls to tell people that he is not a Republican, but an independent conservative?
And the Republicans elected an African American to be their party leader?
Sorry, pinheads. The American public isn't going to buy it. You can't regain power by pretending to be Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #23
75. That was around the time that actual conservatism, for all its flaws, was being corrupted
by corporate interests.

There was a strong infusion of the military/corporate agenda into the Republican party, and Reagan became its mascot. Had Carter been a conservative Republican, it would admittedly have been harder to push the military/corporate agenda through the Democratic party, but don't assume they couldn't have corrupted Liberalism the way they did Conservatism had things been different.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dantyrant Donating Member (278 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #17
55. Yup, you got it right.
Glad to see someone here got past the name of the journal. I don't agree with AmCon on everything, but I always try to read it. It's not a Republican rag like Commentary or the Weekly Standard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TygrBright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #17
81. No, they're not intellectually honest.
This is the giveaway, the money shot, as it were:

>>Instead, government grew, in part through a neat trick called supply-side economics in which the New Deal, the New Frontier, and even the Great Society could be offered at low cost to taxpayers through massive levels of borrowing.<<

No, that was NOT what supply-side economics was about. Supply-side economics was about REPLACING the New Deal, etc., with an unfettered, dog-eat-dog economic Darwinism that was supposed to somehow "trickle down" prosperity upon us all and render all of those "nanny-state" programs obsolete.

Of course, as we all know, what came down did not so much "trickle" as "plop." And so, the GOP had to resort to brute force, propaganda, and manipulation to destroy the programs that were standing in the way of their oligarchic utopia of unfettered greed and capitalist "energy and innovation and independence and self-sufficiency."

These folks may be old-fashioned Conservatives, and there are valid elements to the old-style Conservative ideology and program, but it remains CONSERVATIVE, and ultimately, opposed to any attempts by the people to use the government as a tool to level playing fields, redress economic injustice, or ensure equity of opportunity for all.

The fact that they are just now "discovering" that Carter's message can be manipulated in favor of their own agenda illustrates, not intellectual honesty, but the eel-like spinning and twisting and distortion characteristic of modern Conservative propaganda. It reveals the level of their desperation in the face of America's abandonment.

disputatiously,
Bright
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Downwinder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #14
56. Goldwater went against the fundies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. He supported Reagan and opposed Carter.
Yes, he eventually turned against the neocon branch of the Republicans, and even during Reagan's era he had begun to oppose Falwell and Robertson and their involvement in politics. But that doesn't change the point I made about them opposing Carter while he was in office.

Barry Goldwater also opposed Civil Rights and LBJ's war on poverty.

In retrospect, he changed his support and began to see how extremist his followers were, but retrospective politics is rarely useful. He was an opponent of Carter during his presidency, and any conservative trying to claim the legacies of both Goldwater and Carter is being disingenuous. Carter was right because he was a liberal, and because his liberal views made him right from the beginning. Goldwater and his proteges were wrong, and even if they now look back and say "Hey, maybe we were kinda hard on that Carter fellow," it doesn't change that they were wrong then, and that makes them untrustworthy now. Maybe they are being more "intellectually honest" in their revisionism, but it's still revisionism that elevates them to a position they never earned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EJSTES2005 Donating Member (261 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #9
82. I use to be a subscriber
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 10:27 AM by EJSTES2005
And you hit the nail on the head. They had a lot of great right wing antiwar commentary. It was very useful in my daily arguments with all my Bush loving co-workers. Sometimes I wish I still got it. They have a lot of the articles on their website for free. Found them while reading antiwar.com, the editor at antiwar.com Justin Raimondo who I love to read most of the time use to have an article in there like every other month. Some really good insight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #82
102. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
tama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Not quite so
Carter's classic speach about - yup, limits of growth - has nothing to do with liberalism or progressivism, which besides some sociocultural issues are all about materialistic exponential growth (middle class wannabe aristocrats and poor wannabe middleclass - consumerism & wage slavery).

Carter just spoke from wisdom and heart what his conscience told him - and that's the reason Americans didn't listen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
61. There is a convergence of true conservatives and true liberals
occurring on the issues of national self-reliance, of self-sufficiency, of conservation of resources, of returning to the values of the Founding Fathers.

As a liberal, I appreciate the differences between my views on issues like privacy, community action through democratic government and many other issues and those of conservatives. But on certain very fundamental issues like conservation, rejection of knee-jerk instant gratification, of crass consumerism, ending reliance on foreign oil and other foreign energy sources, of reducing imports of consumer goods and on quite a few other issues, conservatives and liberals agree today.

I think many of us agree that the bank bailout schemes are unwise. We probably disagree on healthcare, funding for education, managing schools and education, abortion, gun regulation and a lot of other issues, but we agree on a lot more issues than we did during the 1960s or 1980s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poboyross Donating Member (63 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #61
76. Yep, sums it up.
I originally came on here to see how people think and how similar, if at all, I was to my perception of DU'ers. While there are those on here who go as apeshiz as those on the far right, I've been pleased to see people and posts like yours and many others. Like my sig says, I consider myself to be a Teddy Roosevelt conservative and am in line with what you say we agree on, but not as much that you think we don't. I think that while there are people on extremes on both sides, it's a shame that those pure ideologies are passed as the standard bearers. The country is more polarized than ever politically, but I think that a significant number of people fit somewhere between my views and yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #76
95. I consider myself to be a Teddy Roosevelt liberal. So there.
I like Teddy Roosevelt's trust-breaking, progressive fervor. He saw the corruption of the Gilded Age and responded by proposing rational limits on monopolies and promoting competition. As then, today trusts, monopolies and mega-corporations are manipulating the markets and blocking the creativity that is the great strength of capitalism. More than ever, we need to revive Teddy Roosevelt's progressive campaign to stop unfair competition and monopolies. I'm not so enthusiastic about some of Teddy Roosevelt's foreign policy. But then, maybe the world was simpler back then. Teddy Roosevelt did not have to worry about rogue states getting nuclear weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
72. conservatives, at best, are liberals 20+ years later ... after the liberal
ideas worked and have become "old hat" ...

hence ... Sarah Palin ... 24 years after Geraldine Ferrarro was Walter Mondale's VP choice ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #72
87. That's exactly what Mark Shields says, and I agree.
"A conservative is someone who supports liberal policy twenty years after it becomes law." (paraphrasing)

:dem:


-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. Repukes just kill me....
when common sense finally makes it to their pea sized brains, they taint it by claiming it as their own, calling it "conservatism".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
28. Beautifully stated
They're desperate. They can't call on Reagan, Bush or Bush. After their nastiness to Carter they now want to claim his thoughts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
34. Now see....
You can say that and you get complimentary responses, and I say it and I get gang bashed! How'd that happen? :rofl:

Well said, btw. Better than mine, apparently. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lutefisk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
3. Carter might have been our last hope. It's been almost 30 years since he was "put on ignore"
And look what's happened.

He was right about the Middle East, energy, and our place in the world. He didn't have a chance against the criminals that took power in 1980.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. I've always wondered if there was a Bushco connection to
Khomeini returning to Iran, which ultimately set the stage for the 'reagan revolution' and the demise of Carter's presidency.

Kind of like the Kaiser getting Lenin sent back to Russia to take the Russians out of the war in 1916.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. I just assume there is a Bushco connection to everything
Read Russ Baker's book on the Bush Crime Family. Their fine hand is in almost every dirty deed since the Business Plot of 1934.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
90. OT
You so got me with your avatar. Doh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RubyDuby in GA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. Suck it neocons! I knew there would come a day when Carter would be proven right.
He's far too much of a gentleman to rub their noses in it like he should, but I am more than happy to rub it in for him.

We would be a far more secure nation today if his policies had been left in place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grace0418 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. I was just a kid when he was president, but to this day I never understood what made Carter
such a "failure". His work since leaving office has only strengthened my opinion of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
5. Well then the clear inference to draw from this is that Reagan was WRONG...
:P

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faryn Balyncd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. That Reagan was wrong is clear indeed....Carter's speech ranks with Eisenhower's Farewell Address...
Edited on Wed Apr-08-09 12:02 PM by Faryn Balyncd



...in vision & wisdom, (while Reagan mouthed the words the deniers lusted to hear.)


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5407.htm








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
7. Apparently we've gone from disavowing Bush to disavowing Reagan. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. 'bout time n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faryn Balyncd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. Reality bites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laststeamtrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
8. Anti-imperialism good; imperialism bad.
Throw in a dash of protectionism & voila! you might have something worth voting for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
13.  big victim of the media elite and the corporate masters
aka, the house of saud.
and it was so easy then. jeez. having a brother that was a beer drinking redneck was about all it took. that and some hostages that seemed, oddly, to be under the control of the next president. things that sure the hell ought to make everybody go hmmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mopar151 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Yup!Jimma was set up to fail
There are things that happened that I'll always wonder about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lutefisk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. 20 years later, the media sells the idea of a redneck "you'd like to have a beer with" as POTUS
And ironically enough, the "redneck" is the elite son of one of the main players (Poppy) in the destruction of Carter's chances in 1980. What a coincidence!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
38. I agree and the magnification of that redneck stereotype served a dual purpose.
1. As a whipping tool to be used against an extremely intelligent and thoughtful President; who never quite fit in to the arrogant, imperialistic Washington Elite/Corporate Media Bubble.

2. A Machiavellian regional divide and conquer strategy, thereby weakening the people along emotional lines for the benefit of oligarch/corporate supremacy.

Humility, vision, sustainability, a just reward for hard work and human rights all gave way to pride, arrogance, short sighted greed, corruption and subliminal racism.

President Carter is a good man and could have been a great President, but the corporate media wasn't good and decided either that true national greatness; was unobtainable or the nation didn't deserve it and thus settled for an actor's depiction of such.

The corporate media portrayed greatness as the fiction of camouflaged prosperity wherein escalating debt substituted for higher wages while the planet proceeded toward melt down without regard for tomorrow. Bullying foreign policy, replacing that of global cooperation, and shredding the Constitution were portrayed in patriotic colors as signs of strength, not weakness and corruption.

Bush the Least and current economic conditions are simply the culmination of Reagen's pseudo vision come true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
18. One of our most-intelligent presidents ever.
But now we have an intelligent president who also appears to be politically effective.

And true to conservatism, it takes even conservatives with open eyes (an endangered species) about 30 years to recognize wisdom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
26. Boy, did President Carter have a crystal ball, or what?
"There are two paths to choose. One is a path I’ve warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. … "

Carter saw what was coming. And when he cried on Election Night 1980, I really doubt he was crying for himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #26
70. actually he commissioned a study on the future
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_2000_Report_to_the_President

This is the second study after The Limits to Growth that started discussion about possible future trends like global warming, energy scarcity, explosive population growth, plant and fauna species eradication, genetic diversity extinction, and a global economic system based on unlimited wants with earth's immutably limited resources, etc.

It concluded with:

If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. Serious stresses involving population, resources, and environment are clearly visible ahead. Despite greater material output, the worlds people will be poorer in many ways than they are today.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
27. I'm a well known Carter supporter on DU
I didn't like the church and state part but he was correct about everything else.

Should be fun watching the Rushicans now deify Carter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. " ... Rushicans now deify Carter."
:wow: :spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vinylsolution Donating Member (807 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
30. I really hope President Obama....
... is listening to, and taking advice from President Carter.

So much wisdom to be passed on, and put into practice.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nycusa15 Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. No Carter
I don't think Obama should listen to Carter. Carter does not have a good track record
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. Me too
I believe Obama could only benefit from the knowledge of Carter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nycusa15 Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
35. Carter?
I don't think Cater was a very good president
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. But he was a good speller.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. He didn't care for pizza though...seems this particular OP has an affinity for them
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Delivered cold and quick.
It's for the best. Can't let the poor thing suffer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NBachers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #41
53. No- But I remember when he had a vegetarian Thanksgiving
Boy, did the Meat Carcass Lobby have a fit over that one!

Contrast that to Palin's pardon at the Turkey Grinder Necropolis.

Yeah, glad that little virus is gone . . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
42. So if I see someone wearing an Obama T-shirt that says "Welcome Back Carter", should I...
thank that person for supporting the President, or criticize for not being a real American Conservative? What's the best way to fuck with someone like that?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #42
78. Hand them a copy of that article. (nt)
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 09:14 AM by redqueen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #78
96. That would be sweet. I can just imagine their face.
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
48. Hmmm, Imagine That!

Some conservatives are able to read and put 2 + 2 together!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #48
79. Well... they also needed 30 years of thinkin time to catch up with us...
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 09:15 AM by redqueen
but yeah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beartracks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
49. Prudence, caution, and sustainability
I've long thought that conservatives had become perfect examples of the kind of things about which they accuse liberals so often, so loudly, and so self-righteously.

What ever did happen to prudence, caution, and sustainability?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:24 AM
Response to Reply #49
69. yes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #49
84. It's classical projection.
At some level, they know that their ideology is fundamentally reckless. To reconcile that cognitive dissonance, they must find a way to attribute even worse character flaws to liberals.

That's the root cause of all the paranoia and hyperbole. Many of them, like Glenn Beck, know that they are absolutely bugfuck crazy. If they've gotten to that state, the logic goes, then my opponents must be unimaginably bad. Their only barometer of anyone else's mental health is their own.

That's what drove the unitarian church shooter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sasquatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
51. And the Boomers stabbed him in the back
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #51
71. "the Boomers" ah yes, that hive-mind collecive entity that always acts in unison
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NBachers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
52. Read this Carter speech and weep
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 12:22 AM by NBachers
Jimmy Carter delivered a major, televised address on April 18th, 1977. I remember watching it, and feeling like, "Hell Yeah!" Read all of this speech and see what could have been. Know what the traitors have done to us. And feel the bile rising in your throat over those who have maligned President Carter all these years:

"Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.

Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.

The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.

Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy.

I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages. The 1973 gasoline lines are gone, and our homes are warm again. But our energy problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973 or a few weeks ago in the dead of winter. It is worse because more waste has occurred, and more time has passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we act.

The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce.

The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day and demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. Obviously, this cannot continue.

We must look back in history to understand our energy problem. Twice in the last several hundred years there has been a transition in the way people use energy.

The first was about 200 years ago, away from wood -- which had provided about 90 percent of all fuel -- to coal, which was more efficient. This change became the basis of the Industrial Revolution.

The second change took place in this century, with the growing use of oil and natural gas. They were more convenient and cheaper than coal, and the supply seemed to be almost without limit. They made possible the age of automobile and airplane travel. Nearly everyone who is alive today grew up during this age and we have never known anything different.

Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.

The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history.

World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.

I know that many of you have suspected that some supplies of oil and gas are being withheld. You may be right, but suspicions about oil companies cannot change the fact that we are running out of petroleum.

All of us have heard about the large oil fields on Alaska's North Slope. In a few years when the North Slope is producing fully, its total output will be just about equal to two years' increase in our nation's energy demand.

Each new inventory of world oil reserves has been more disturbing than the last. World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can't go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.

But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden.

One choice is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years.

Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste.

We can continue using scarce oil and natural to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process.

If we do not act, then by 1985 we will be using 33 percent more energy than we do today.

We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $37 billion -- nearly ten times as much -- and this year we may spend over $45 billion.

Unless we act, we will spend more than $550 billion for imported oil by 1985 -- more than $2,500 a year for every man, woman, and child in America. Along with that money we will continue losing American jobs and becoming increasingly vulnerable to supply interruptions.

Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil -- from any country, at any acceptable price.

If we wait, and do not act, then our factories will not be able to keep our people on the job with reduced supplies of fuel. Too few of our utilities will have switched to coal, our most abundant energy source.

We will not be ready to keep our transportation system running with smaller, more efficient cars and a better network of buses, trains and public transportation.

We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country.

If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.

But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time.

That is the concept of the energy policy we will present on Wednesday. Our national energy plan is based on ten fundamental principles.

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

These ten principles have guided the development of the policy I would describe to you and the Congress on Wednesday.

Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals, to measure our progress toward a stable energy system.

These are the goals we set for 1985:

--Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

--Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

--Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

--Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.

--Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

--Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

--Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

We will monitor our progress toward these goals year by year. Our plan will call for stricter conservation measures if we fall behind.

I cant tell you that these measures will be easy, nor will they be popular. But I think most of you realize that a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy.

This plan is essential to protect our jobs, our environment, our standard of living, and our future.

Whether this plan truly makes a difference will be decided not here in Washington, but in every town and every factory, in every home an don every highway and every farm.

I believe this can be a positive challenge. There is something especially American in the kinds of changes we have to make. We have been proud, through our history of being efficient people.

We have been proud of our leadership in the world. Now we have a chance again to give the world a positive example.

And we have been proud of our vision of the future. We have always wanted to give our children and grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we've had. They are the ones we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don't act.

I've given you some of the principles of the plan.

I am sure each of you will find something you don't like about the specifics of our proposal. It will demand that we make sacrifices and changes in our lives. To some degree, the sacrifices will be painful -- but so is any meaningful sacrifice. It will lead to some higher costs, and to some greater inconveniences for everyone.

But the sacrifices will be gradual, realistic and necessary. Above all, they will be fair. No one will gain an unfair advantage through this plan. No one will be asked to bear an unfair burden. We will monitor the accuracy of data from the oil and natural gas companies, so that we will know their true production, supplies, reserves, and profits.

The citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.

We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing.

There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country.

Other generation of Americans have faced and mastered great challenges. I have faith that meeting this challenge will make our own lives even richer. If you will join me so that we can work together with patriotism and courage, we will again prove that our great nation can lead the world into an age of peace, independence and freedom."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #52
91. Excellent speech. Thanks for posting it. n/t
:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
condoleeza Donating Member (464 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #52
92. What a great speech, I've always loved Carter, thx for posting this.
Prior to Obama, Carter was the most intelligent President in my lifetime, something still to be decided, I guess.

The Republicans went after Carter because he WAS actually right, and was a real threat to their agenda. We should keep that in mind as we watch them go after Obama. Good to have grownups in the White House again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
62. If Conservatives adopt Carter as a model instead of Reagan,
I would call that progress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. Hell, yes. Progress indeed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:55 AM
Response to Original message
64. Jimmy Carter was an oddball in Washington.
He was guided by principles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. He tackled as much with Tip as he did with the Repugs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:44 AM
Response to Original message
67. Thanks for posting
I will be forwarding the link to a good Republican that I exchange emails and barbs with along the way.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
73. I thought that David Stockman proved it years ago ...
that Carter's budget, that Reagan threw out the window, actually reduced the debt, not exploded it like Reagan's did ... because nobody in Reagan's admin had the ... to tell him no ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #73
80. Seriously?
Seemed to me he was another figurehead/puppet like Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No More Bushbots Donating Member (192 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #73
89. The problem with Raygun
He was more concerned with destroying organized labor and the Soviet Union, then he was with balancing the budget.
He believed the propaganda movies that he made in the 50's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
74. K&R. I have always believed that history would be kind to Jimmy Carter.
I admired his wisdom and hard work when he was president and he's never let me down. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antimatter98 Donating Member (537 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
83. It's going to take another generation for Americans to get up and change things.
Americans today are still in denial, and are debating 'what Obama means' when
he backs down on FISA, uses an obscure Patriot Act clause to argue for telecom
immunity (this week), sides with the banks (even today we read of his admin.
suggesting that Americans invest in toxic asset pools), and blows off health care
as off the table (remember he said in the campaign that his answer was to give
the same healthcare to Americans as Congress gets).

It's going to take a generation or more for Americans (our kids and their kids) to
realize what has happened to America and if they even have any power left, for them
to make moves to change things.

We've lived under the Reagan 'destroy America and its workers' for 30 years almost..
and are just figuring it out. Just.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
85. imagine if Carter's progressive energy policy had been sustained
instead of being immediately gutted by Ray-gun.
We would be looking at a different world today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlingBlade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
88. Carter walks the walk, Always has
He's a fine man and a great American, We could learn much from his many examples :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #88
94. Yes, and he saw UFOs :
Like me and DK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
93. Jimmy Carter- still the best president since FDR.
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #93
98. I think so, too.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #98
100. I don't understand all the Kennedy-love. I'd pick Carter over JFK any day.
Just imagine how different the world would look today had Carter been re-elected instead of Reagan...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. Kennedy was good at inspiring the Americans of his day
Better than Carter ever was.

But Carter was more honest, probably smarter, and stuck to 'lusting in his heart' rather than having affairs. In this day and age, Kennedy's dalliances would have brought him down.

Carter has done more good for humanity post-White House than any other president although we can hardly make a fair comparison with Kennedy on that one.

Back in the eighties, I remember a poll: "Which president are most happy having voted for?" or words to that effect. Kennedy won easily even though it was highly unlikely that most of the poll's respondents had been old enough to vote in 1960.

A lot of it is just myth.

Then too, death is always a good career move.

But, yeah, Carter was the best and I can't even begin to imaging the differences if he'd kept the office for a second term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
condoleeza Donating Member (464 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
97. You can listen to this speech here...worth hearing it from the man himself
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dollface Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
99. The Dems help do him in. They didn't support him in anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CubicleGuy Donating Member (271 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
103. If I remember correctly...
... Jimmy Carter was the one President who told us he'd never lie to us and kept his word on it.

Most Americans, unfortunately, want and expect their President to lie to them. That's why we have an annual lie-fest known as the "State of the Union" address.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC