August 11, 2005
AWFUL LUCKY
Briefing Book Baloney (George F. Will, Washington Post, 8/11/05)
A quarter of a century has passed since 44 states said "No, thanks" to Jimmy Carter's offer to serve a second term, yet he still evidently thinks his loss is explained not by foreign policy debacles, such as invading Iran with eight helicopters, and a misery index -- inflation plus unemployment -- of 22, almost triple today's index. Rather, he seems to think approximately this:It is hard to remember, now, how radical Ronald Reagan was in 1980, and how out-of-step with mainstream politics. His candidacy benefited from the lousy economy, and from a perfect storm of then-new political factors -- the blooming of the southern strategy as southern Democrats moved to the Republican party, the power of Roe to pull the religious into politics and over to the right, and the middle-class' fierce attachment to American exceptionalism and its resulting disdain for the left.Ronald Reagan won because he won the only debate. He won it not because of Carter's debate performance ("I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day, before I came here, to ask her what the most important issue was. She said she thought nuclear weaponry . . .") but only because Reagan had Carter's briefing book. And Reagan had it because this columnist gave it to him.
But the central factor is Reagan's win is that he was running against Jimmy Carter, a bitter incompetent who had, against all conventional wisdom, managed to make things worse after Watergate. Carter, an ego-maniac who believes to this day that the fault was in his stars, not in himself, was one of the few Democratic incumbents who could have lost to Reagan, if only because almost any other Democrat would have responded to Iran's act-of-war with war. And thus those of us who revere Reagan and the country he remade owe a debt of twisted gratitude to Jimmy Carter, the worst president in history.
Posted by David Cohen at August 11, 2005 9:53 AMBingo. Carter was driven by something, and not the 'goodness' he tried to burnish every chance he had. He wasn't an actor like Clinton, but an angry man trying to prove something (probably to some Navy commander who rebuked him back in the early 50s). But the anger came out as the 1980 campaign went on, until he was practically foaming by the end.
Posted by: jim hamlen at August 11, 2005 10:05 AMSee this book and this Internet column for gobs of well-researched dirt on the man once dubbed by The Simpsons as "History's Greatest Monster."
Posted by: Matt Murphy at August 11, 2005 10:24 AMI shudder to think where we would be had he won reelection.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at August 11, 2005 10:48 AMProvidential.
Posted by: Luciferous at August 11, 2005 11:24 AMThere were plenty of worse Presidents - Buchanan and Hoover at least. Not necessarily bad men, but people not equal to the challenge. They all let the country go into the toilet.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at August 11, 2005 11:33 AMMaybe. He's a more mainstream Democrat now than he was then, simply because the party's tracked him to the left. The Sam Nunns and Scoop Jacksons are long gone.
Posted by: joe shropshire at August 11, 2005 11:33 AMAnybody want to take a stab at what Calvin Coolidge's nickname for Hoover was?
Posted by: Bartman at August 11, 2005 11:44 AMChris: Hoover wasn't a bad president at all although, as a technocrat, he did share some of Carter's foibles.
I find it impossible to blame Buchanan for what happened on his watch. First of all, the government was much more Congress-led at that time. Second, the flood was coming, the waters had been rising since ratification and the various temporary dikes put up in the past just ensured that the flood would be that much worse when it came. Even if Buchanan could have put it off still longer, it just would have gotten worse and the country wouldn't have survived much worse.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 11, 2005 11:49 AMJoe: Other than his anti-semitism, in which he led the left by a couple decades, Carter was mainstream at the time, and was even considered somewhat center-right. It's just that, before Reagan, center-right was pretty far left.
This actually goes back to Jim's point about the effect of Carter's Navy career on his presidential incompetence. There's some story I don't remember about Carter and Rickover. Rickover chose Carter to be an early nuclear sub guy, but then, if memory serves, they had some falling out. (In fairness, as a candidate and president Carter always said nice things about Rickover and even used him as inspiration for the title of his campaign autobiography.) The theory has always been that Carter's animosity towards Israel and Jews came out of his experience with Rickover.
Posted by: David Cohen at August 11, 2005 11:56 AMIf Hoover had just stayed in office until WWII started he'd be considered to have saved capitalism.
Posted by: oj at August 11, 2005 12:16 PMI have often said that I thank Jimmy Carter for making me the conservative I am today.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at August 11, 2005 12:20 PMThe powers and prominence of 19th century presidents pale when compared to post New Deal/WW2 presidents. Buchanan wielded far less power and influence than Carter and the US was certainly less powerful. It is like comparing a AAA player to a Major Leaguer.
Posted by: Bob at August 11, 2005 2:05 PM"(In fairness, as a candidate and president Carter always said nice things about Rickover and even used him as inspiration for the title of his campaign autobiography.) The theory has always been that Carter's animosity towards Israel and Jews came out of his experience with Rickover."
I happened to watch the commissioning of the USS Jimmy Carter last winter. Carter made a nice speech; the bit I remember is Carter saying, "Would all of you who've been influenced by Admiral Rickover please raise your hands ... Thank you. Now let me explain to the rest of you, why you're wrong."
Posted by: Bill Woods at August 11, 2005 3:28 PM