The Next Carter Presidency?
Things have been a zoo lately between work and school. But, Tuesday night I turned in my final paper and presentation and have the next two weeks off. Yippee!!
So anyway, I was in line at the local 7-11 the other day and overheard a couple of younger guys (mid 20’s) talking about the elections. **Oooh goody** My ears perked and I couldn’t help but inch my way closer for an opportunity to nudge my way into the conversation. I couldn’t really hear what they were talking about specifically but I heard the name McCain and thought, yea! My day was going slowly so why not get my political groove-on and talk-up the McMan.
Well, ixnay that; turns out they were impassioned Obama supporters.
Blimey.
He’s a visionary, they say, and he speaks for the people.
** Really? Hmm. They’re young; it’s OK. **
Newsweek calls him an “Inspirational and brilliant” leader who will lead us to “a new America”…..
** I never liked Newsweek anyway.**
Now few can argue the “awe-inspiring” success of such a brilliant campaign; even I can pay homage to that. But good marketing and presentation skills – a good President does not make. I was just a tot when Jimmy Carter was president (and in fact was born on the very day he won the election), and while he may have been a “nice guy” who wooed the people, if I weren’t such a charmingly, delightful individual – I’m sure my father, who at the time was a staunch republican - would disown me simply on association. That says a lot.
Would an Obama Presidency be another Carter Presidency? I don’t know but I’ve heard the comparison. Two smooth-talking, man-of-the-people people with zero experience, and zero political accomplishments going into the White House. For Obama, that combination may make for something different than what Carter suffered – by most accounts a failed Presidency crippled by enormously high interest rates, double-digit inflation, high unemployment, low productivity, expensive oil, gas shortage, and turtle slow economic growth (oh and wide spread labor strikes, a ballooned deficit, a weaker defense, and failed arms talks). Carter’s inexperience was his weakness which made him a prime target; countries and other world leaders took advantage. By many accounts the people took advantage too. So what if he created the sister DOE’s and was a “nice guy”....as a President, Commander-In-Chief, and the most powerful man in the world - he was a complete dudd.
Obama a visioniary? I don’t think so; in fact I think that’s an extremely bold and arrogant statement. But whatever. Anyone in the businessworld will tell you that vision without collaboration and strong execution gets you nowhere. To many degrees it really is all about execution, execution, execution. So, what are we doing with Obama? If this were a business and the people it's Board of Directors - what BOD would ever hire a CEO who just got promoted to Senior Analyst simply because he talks about the future of business?? If you’re a believer – then he’s a man with “vision” but with no evidence to support any notion that he has the ability, tenacity or political finesse to effectively execute anything. He's a senior Analyst who has yet to be promoted to management level.
Carter was a Senior Analyst. Do we really want another Carter in the WH - where inexperience, oratory skills and schmoozing are the order of the day? Obviously, we cannot afford it.
So I don’t get it - the whole Obama train. It’s just one big question mark in my head.
Will someone please explain it to me...
Labels:
News and Politics
18 comments:
Welcome back! I wondered where you had disappeared off to. So I hope you r enjoying going back to school! Kudos. Great post. I haven't heard the Obama-Carter comparisons but I get it. They both have great charisma and people skills (something sorely lacking since Reagan and maybe Clinton) and neither are the typical Washington ragtag types and that's a GOOD thing. We need more transparency in our governemtn. But the buck stops there. Obama isn't an idiot ninkumpoopp or a mental weakling. He's a nice guy but strong where strength is neeeded. I see your point but the Obama-Carter comparison is a very loose association. And I WAS around during the Carter era! Sadly.
Chris,
Obama will be worse than Jimmy Carter! At least Jimmy had 4 years as governor under his belt. I do NOT buy into the crap that Obama deals out. Who cares about his "oratory skills" - only stupid people actually BELIEVE what politicians say. Deanna said it well in her McCain post: while I can't repeat her exact words - the president can't do much of anything without the support of congress. And as usual the pundits will be wrong - Congress will gain more republican seats in this next race. Their approval rating is WORSE than GWB. Republican leadership despise Obama (and with reason) and if he becomes presidency it will be gridlock after the next congressional races
Deanna, good to finally hear from you. Your BOD/CEO analogy was dead-on. I Couldn't have said it any better. It's just baffling.
Anon, I agree with most of what you said but I lean with the pundits where congressional seats are concerned. Obama for President "and" more deadbeats in congress...the wifey and I might be smarter to buy our tickets to mexico now and sit pretty on the beach for the next four years working on our tans.
I’m not fond of this post! Mostly because it highlights your youth and inexperience, which by implication means that I am [expletive deleted] old. Bleh!
I agree: Carter was not a great President. However, conditions during his Presidency were not nearly as bad as conventional mythology suggests:
>Real GDP growth averaged a healthy 9.3% per year under Carter, with a low of 8.8% during his last year in office (a significant slowdown from the previous year). By comparison, for St. Ronnie (all praise be upon him), the average increase was 7.9% per year. Per capita measures demonstrated a similar pattern (8.2% and 6.6%).
>Productivity growth dropped dramatically pre-Carter (around 1973 – think OPEC Oil Embargo). The growth rate increased very slightly in the later Carter years (around 1979), but did not approach the higher post WW II rate until 1995.
A few other inaccuracies regarding Carter:
1) Expensive oil was caused by OPEC’s raising of oil prices. Carter eliminated production price caps was a response, intended to encourage oil exploration/production. This contributed to the oil "glut" in the 1980s.
2) Budget deficits (absolute and as a pct of GDP) rose during Ford’s Presidency, dropped slightly during Carter’s term, then shot up dramatically (ballooned) when St. Ronnie (all praise be upon him) took over.
3) Carter was a (successful) businessman, not an analyst. As a president, he was a micro-manager (probably submarine training – my opinion).
4) The SALT II agreement was negotiated and signed by Carter (1979).
The Carter years were transitional. The oil shock, which you mentioned, increased costs across all industries, but also started changes across the country as industries invested in technology to become more energy efficient (or went out of business). This was a major cause of high unemployment. In addition, the Federal Reserve mismanaged the money supply (they focused on a narrow definition of "money": M1) as they learned to live in the post Bretton-Woods world. The result was run away inflation.
Finally, the appeal of Carter was not that he was a smooth talker or charming. Yes he was a "nice guy," but he was also annoying and seemed a little sanctimonious. His appeal was that he was earnest and honest and a Washington outsider. Remember, those were the post-Watergate years.
I am not an Obama fan and agree with your points to a lesser degree but where Carter is concerned, I side with Dan.
The Carter years were a major transitional period that had us recovering from the Vietnam war and moving away from the indulgent life of the 60's and early 70's. The Carter years were pretty awful for most Americans economically, myself included, but Carter set up the Reagan administration for much of the economic recovery that followed his Presidency, not to mention so much of the defense technologies we have today due to his research programs. His foreign policy successes are understated and he brokered the humanitarian movement from the WH - efforts that he continued during his post-WH years. He was a strong President that inherited a weak government, and a week economy in a time where our culture and the culture of many parts of the world were drastically changing. Reagan took credit (as most Presidents do) for the momentum he gained as a result of Carter's smart fiscal policies, which led to much of Reagan's golden years. And he most certainly was not an "idiot ninkumpoop" as early suggested. The man was very intelligent but understated and yes, often annoying - in a more agreeable manner.
Dan/Peugot:
All valid points I'm sure.
Dan:
How does my post show my youth (aside from the fact that I clearly dated my birth and wrote in light-minded fashion)? And what do you mean when you say it shows my "inexperience.” My inexperience with what exactly?
RE: Your points..
a) It doesn’t matter that Carter was a (successful) businessman - when you’re the most powerful man in the world and responsible for leading an entire country through turmoil and change, it’s neither here nor there.
b) Real GDP: an increase of 9 % per year??? You must be on crack or you need to tweak those reading glasses.
If you’re using Real GDP as a measurement of total economic health then I would add that Real GDP increased by 8% between 74 and 77 under Ford and thus, according to the rules of the economic lag factor, since the economy was emerging out of a recession at the end of Ford’s term, any upswing experienced under Carter’s Presidency was a continuation of that momentum with albeit some slight growth over the trend (repeat: slight and slow).
c) On my comment re: the ballooned deficit. – I stand corrected. Carter did reduce the National debt - before more than doubling the deficit from $27.9B in 1979 to $59B in his last year in office.
I understand the economic lag factor between Carter and Ford but as with any, the impacts still fall under Carter’s Presidency, particularly since he was unable to resolve many of these issues by the end of his term, even while coming out from a recession.
So, was the state of country necessarily his fault? No. And I wasn’t saying that nor was I saying that the state of the economy was his "fault". But in many circumstances – the people were worse-off at the end of this Presidency from a personal, economic standpoint.
Dan says: conditions during his Presidency were not nearly as bad as conventional mythology suggests
There's no mythology involved. The state of the country was BAD during his administration - no bones about it. Anyone not in the upper class was hit and hit hard. I lived it, I REMEMBER IT. I was in MI at the time and just starting a family and things only went from bad to worse until the Reagan years. There's plenty of reason to call Carter's Presidency a failure, just as we'll call GWB's presidency a monumental FAILURE (truth, Deanna). 30 years after the fact, people look back at the Carter era and try to "re-evaluate" but it's the impact on the people that really dictates success or failure. You can have a success or two in foreign policy (as with Jimmy Carter) but if the shits kicking at home - it makes little difference. He did what he could but he had bad advisors and he made bad, uniinformed decisions.. He didn't understand the limitations of the Presidency or to what extent things could or should be done. He was ill-equipped and ill-prepared for the job.
Deanna,
I've read many of your posts and you sound like a staunch republican (and have professed being a conservative). I'm just curious, do you just oppose all democrat candidates? Even if you disapprove of Obama which it's clear that you do, Hillary is relatively conservative though a democrat.
Deanna - My meaning was that because of your tender age you had no real knowledge of the Carter years and ended up writing inaccurately about that time. But that would have been too long a set-up for my punch-line.
Re: your counter points:
a) Carter the businessman was a correction to your assertion that he was a “Senior Analyst.” I do realize this was a metaphor, I just thought it a poor one. And it was as relevant to the point as your original assertion (i.e., not at all). The real point is that there is no job or experience that can truly prepare someone for the Presidency (with the possible exception of the Vice Presidency, but it would depend on the administration); it is a job like no other. Carter had experience comparable to many of our recent Presidents (Governorship): GWB, Clinton, and St. Ronnie (all praise be upon him). Frankly, I find the record for recent Presidents who had considerable Washington, DC experience to be mixed (at best): LBJ (Medicare, Vietnam), Nixon (Watergate), and GHWB (Gulf War, S&L Debacle).
As I think about this, I realize that my previous statement should be amended. Eisenhower’s experience prepared him for the Presidency, although I don’t think the damage and price of a World War is a worthwhile tradeoff for a prepared President. Nor is it a guarantee: MacArthur would probably have been a disaster.
b) It was late; I was tired; my reading glasses were un-tweaked; we were out of chocolate-chip cookies and I was in withdrawals. You are correct, I was looking at the wrong table and quoting current-dollar, not real GDP. The correct Real GDP numbers are annualized growth of 2.53% for Ford, 3.25% for Clinton, and 3.40% for St. Ronnie (all praise be upon him).
Source: BEA
c) I’ll acknowledge that the budget deficit doubled in the last year of Carter’s term, and add that St. Ronnie (all praise be upon him) then doubled the budget deficit again and then added to that for his entire term.
I mentioned the removal of oil production controls just to demonstrate that Carter did many things that cons think of as good; another was the deregulation of the airline industry.
You and Chris make an excellent point: what really matters is how people are affected (and feel they are affected). As I mentioned before, the late 70s were a time a difficult transitions, and for people who lived in the industrial belt around the Great Lakes (like Chris) it was particularly unpleasant. (The late 70s were also a period of horrible fashion and some of the worst music imaginable -- but that is a different topic). The last year of Carter’s term saw a slow growing economy contract, unemployment rise, and inflation grow. In 1980 most people were worse off than they had been the previous year, however, most people were better off than they were four years earlier. This is true for all income groups: average household income (real dollars, I double checked this time) by quintile increased 1.4%, 3.1%, 3.4%, 4.9%, and 5.6% over that four year period.
Source: Census Bureau
Carter’s problem -- aside from all this other stuff -- was that he was a downer. He told us to change!!! We were suppose to turn down the thermostat in the winter, slow down on the highway, car pool, and even leave our car at home. In contrast, St. Ronnie (all praise be upon him), even at 97, was Mr. Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez.
This, of course, is all not the point of your post (but it’s way more fun!). Maybe tomorrow ...
Dan:
Nice post although I take issue with your point of my inexperience and any inaccuracies I made. I don't think you've proven at all that my points regarding the Carter years were in any way incorrect (except for the point on oil which, *I* don't even understand how to I got to that conclusion). Ok, and I did concede my position on the deficit for the majority of his Presidency.
Kearny-
Thanks for the question. I don't oppose all democrats/democrat candidates simply because they're democrat. Understand, I'm not a Republican because I support *a party*, I'm a Republican because I support a point of view. And the broad views of democrats and Republicans are miles and miles apart. That said, it should come as no surprise that 95% of the time I'll oppose the other side. Now Bill Clinton is the exception as he ran a much more conservative platform and compared with the majority of democrats, has historically voted on the side of conservative ideals.
**Hillary is relatively conservative though a democrat**
I can't tell you how uninformed this statement is. Ok, I will tell you.
For the record, Hillary is NOT Conservative - not even remotely conservative. Despite the fact that she's trying to run a centrist campaign, her voting record over the last 15 years has been so far to the left that she's not even in the same time zone as "relatively conservative."
Why do people think she's more conservative-ish? It's very simple. Liberal MSM has an agenda and (no offense) but people like you just eat it right up.
We really started hearing about Hillary's "conservative" record just a few months ago because at the time she was considered the front-runner and the liberal media's chosen candidate for the democratic nomination. At the same time, McCain was expected to win the Republican nomination. The pundits agreed that Hillary cannot win against McCain; if she wants to win in the general elections - she needs to win over independents and moderate conservatives - hence, the centrist campaign and media hype of being more conservative than McCain.
I don't have the time nor the inclination to list out all of the arguments to support my statement (which is all 100% true!) so I'll just cut and paste some thoughts from another blog I posted to regarding McCain versus Hillary on conservative platform issues.
**Now McCain is to the left of mainstream conservatives so comparing the two makes sense.**
Here goes:
• On tax relief – McCain has voted on the side of conservatism more than 90% of the time over the last decade with Clinton’s vote coming in at an average of just 17% over the last decade. He’s supported the interests of the American’s for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, Freedomworks and a whole host of other tax-cutting organizations. Even O’bama in his recent years voted for lower taxes more often than Clinton. All of these organizations oppose any form of tax increase and their sole purpose is to reduce taxes, protect tax payer’s rights, make the process of taxation more transparent, and more simplified – period.
• McCain's lifetime conservative rating is 82% - about 73% higher than Hillary Clinton’s.
• On government spending – Hillary Clinton yields an average rating of just 61 over the last decade by the nonpartisan Concord Coalition – a staunch advocate of fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit as well as protecting the security of Medicaid, Medicare and SS. McCain received an average rating of 87 over the last decade (and more). ** Note this record isn't more conservative than her democratic counterparts but in line with the average**
• Hillary's historic voting record barely even registers in favor of free enterprise, limited government, and free markets.
• McCain voted in favor of pro-business and pro-growth interests more than 92% of the time in the last 15 years; that’s about… 53% more than Clinton.
The list goes on and on..but those are key to conservative ideals.
I'll keep away from the religious conservative issues since that's not really how I lean but, I'll say this...she's very 'to the left'. I'm not a religious conservative but I do maintain some social conservative perspectives.
Jeez, go away for a few days and...
Deanna -- I didn't say you got it all wrong. I'd put your Carter comments at 40-60% accurate, depending on how generous I'm feeling. :-)
Kearny/Deanna -- you are both essentially correct. For conservatives, Hillary is very Liberal and McCain is kind of Liberal. Liberals, however, see Hillary as very Moderate and McCain as essentially conservative. It's because conservatives and liberals are looking at different things.
While I think those Congressional ratings (conservative, liberal, martian, whatever) are silly and usually worthless, they do illustrate this difference. For example, the American Conservative Union and the Americans for Democratic Action group both have ratings of Senators (on respectively, conservative and liberal scales). For 2006, they looked at 25 and 20 votes, only six of which were common between both groups.
Deanna -- I think I saw that for 2007, Obama has a higher ACU conservative rating than McCain. Just one of the reasons that I think those ratings are ridiculous.
Now get to some more blogging before your vacation runs out!
Dan-I wouldn't count Obama's one year voting record as anything comparable to McCain's 15-20 year record. His ACU rating in 2006 was 8. Once he gets out of his political diapers then you can talk about his ACU rating.
helloooooooo!!!
I don't think Obama is a conservative. It was a joke to demonstrate how little I think of any of these ratings: Obama has a very low conservative rating, but for 2007 McCain has no rating because he did not vote on enough of the votes they considered. Unless you want to charge John with dereliction of duty (and I do not think this to be true), it points out one of the problem with this crap.
Where's your sense of humour? :-)
Helloooooo! Yes, I know it was a joke - I just didn't think a very relevant one given the newness of Obama's voting record. Kinda like a joke comparing apples and oranges.
Wait, what's that I hear...?
*THUD*
Obviously you're jealous of my humor-makingness; I've noticed that you stop making sense when you get like that!
:-P
Now see.. THAT's a funny joke! ;-p
Thank you, thank you... and thanks for coming out tonight, and don't forget to tip your waitress!
Post a Comment