| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Obama, Clinton, and Carter |
| 2009-08-25 |
| Some have analogized Barack Obama's current situation with that of Bill Clinton, who pushed a wholesale revision of the country's health-care system in 1993 with results that should have served as a warning to Obama. But the more relevant analogy is with Jimmy Carter in 1977. We are watching a replay of what happened with Carter, elected in 1976 as a repudiation of the hated Richard Nixon and his selected successor (and pardoner) Gerald Ford. Carter misinterpreted the election results as a mandate for sweeping change he thought he (an Annapolis graduate, nuclear engineer, and published author) was uniquely qualified to enact. On December 17, 1977, reviewing Carter's first year, Russell Baker wrote that: When voting for Presidents . . . even learned persons seem temporarily to suspend disbelief in miracles. During the Carter campaign it was common to meet men and women who had marinated a quarter-century and more in politics and should, therefore, have been beyond innocence, yet who insisted, often with passion, that the Democrat Carter in harness with a Democratic Congress would do marvels for the Republic.Hedrick Smith, in a long analysis in the January 8, 1978, New York Times, summarized what had happened: Jimmy Carter first surprised and impressed the professional pols in 1976 with the cold, cocksure, methodical manner with which he stalked the Presidency. The surprise of 1977 was that Jimmy Carter was actually not the master politician they had imagined. . . . President Carter's exaggerated aspirations and his profusion of proposals invited inevitable disappointment.Four years later, Carter published his memoirs, which (in the words of Times reviewer Terrence Smith in 1982) admitted he had "overloaded the legislative agenda" in his early months in office and "the result was that his most cherished domestic initiatives--welfare and tax reform and a national health program--went down to early defeat." His presidency never fully recovered. How had the American people elected someone with seemingly so much promise who fizzled so quickly? The day after Carter's 1976 election, the Times explained how a one-term governor, with no significant record, had secured the nomination from more experienced rivals and defeated a sitting president. He did it with the same techniques that Obama would use 32 years later. First, a slogan--repeated ad nauseam--promising voters a "government as good as the American people," which not only promised change but made voters think that by voting for him it reflected well on them. Second, presentation of himself as a unifier--a reconciliation of North and South, white and black, conservatives and liberals. He was certified as The One at the Democratic Convention, with the closing benediction of the father of Martin Luther King Jr., who told the delegates and the entire country watching on all three networks that "Surely the Lord sent Jimmy Carter to come on out and bring America back where she belongs." Third, the use of a new technique in American politics--the well-written autobiography as a substitute for prior accomplishments. The Times review, written by a member of the editorial board, called the book a blend of "personal history, social description and political philosophy that makes fascinating reading" and that assertedly showed that Carter was reminiscent of Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy in his commitment to "governing." After a year in office, it became apparent that a great slogan, image, and autobiography were not by themselves sufficient for an inexperienced politician with grandiose ideas to govern the United States. And Carter's foreign-policy disasters were still ahead of him. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #8 Eric, call no man or nation happy until they're dead. There's always the chance of some future Buchanan smashing the country up to such an extent that his successor can't hammer the pieces back into place. Not that I expect Obama to be that future Buchanan. He doesn't have the experience Buchanan had, for one thing. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2009-08-25 18:19 |
| #7 The South Side of Chicago does, however, have LEON'S BBQ - enough to make one drool. BTW, the takeout restaurant is dvides the employee cooking side from the customer side with bullet-proof glass. Money and food are slid through a small revolving bullet proof arrangement. Tough city...Tough people. Former Southsider borgboy... |
| Posted by: borgboy 2009-08-25 11:49 |
| #6 Bobby, I was only hoping for worst president during my lifetime. Oh, well, guess I'll owe the peanut farmer a semi-apology in 2012. There is one other similarity between the two, though: breathtaking arrogance. |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2009-08-25 08:43 |
| #5 We will review that assessment in 2012, Eric. |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2009-08-25 08:30 |
| #4 Bobby, the title of Worst President Ever was permanently claimed by James Buchanan. There is no possible contest. |
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2009-08-25 08:20 |
| #3 I agree that Obama is like Carter. On the other hand, we are still suffering from Carter's f*ck ups, almost thirty years later. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2009-08-25 07:31 |
| #2 the use of a new technique in American politics--the well-written autobiography as a substitute for prior accomplishments To a postmodernist, this is perfectly 'reasonable'. The narrative IS the reality, to a postmodernist. Facts on the ground really don't matter as much as the preservation of a desired narrative. Environment and nature don't define reality, desire does. So, to the left, which has largely bought into postmodernist philosophical models, the pretty autobiography is not a subsitute for actual accomplishment, it is SUPERIOR to them. Mass insanity. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2009-08-25 06:20 |
| #1 You really didn't think Carter would be the worst president ever. I had a lot more hope for Carter's change in 1977 than I do for this One, even after I'd seen Carter as Governor of Georgia. The One has even less experience. The US of A ain't da sout side community. (da sout sida Chicago, dat is.) |
| Posted by: Bobby 2009-08-25 06:12 |