blatham wrote:hi george, nice to see you.
I missed the King interview (I can no longer abide the fellow for his celebrity ass-kissing, his sink-to-the-bottom guests, and his lazyness as regards anything like journalism) but did see Carter in several other interviews.
I'm quite curious and quite mesmerized as to the evolved notions held about Carter by so many folks on the right in the US. I don't know a single Canadian, for example, who carries such negative ideas of the man. I suspect that it has much to do with the campaign by Reagan's people pre the election and then the divisive propagandist dynamic that went into full swing after.
Good to speak with you as well.
I believe that Jimmy Carter may be the most admirable person alive who was once President of the country, but he was also one of our least effective Presidents. He was wise and understanding in many ways, but he failed to make that wisdom and understanding count in meeting his responsibilities as a leader.
He failed to address the economic stagnation that had been developing before he arrived on the scene until late in his term when he appointed Paul Volker to the Federal Reserve.
His handling of the Oil Crisis was feckless in the extreme - he called the "Energy Crisis" the "moral equivalent of war" (whatever that truly weird phrase might mean), and then did what ? -- Created the Department of Energy, by any measure the worst conceived bureaucracy in an already overinflated government, whose "solution" to the problem was millions into the Synfuels Program - an environmentally disastrous program that failed both technically and economically. This was the moment to instead impose higher taxes on gasoline consumption to curtail demand and seize control of the price from an OPEC that even then was detectably unable to control the supply.
His response to the outrages of the Iranian revolution was to betray both the dying Shah and the interests of the country in the face of the radical ragheads who seized our embassy. He overcontroled the military rescue attempt in a misplaced concern about collateral damage and excessive use of force, achieving the worst outcome of all -- force with no result.
Even his handling of the peace negotiations between Israel and Egypt was more of a response to the initiatives of Sadat than an expression of the real understanding he voices today. When he had the ability to do so, he put no pressure on the Likud party in Israel to forego their expressed (and misguided) ambitions to expropriate the territory (but not the people) of the West Bank. The occupation was only ten years old then, and decisive action by Carter might have made the difference, particularly in the wake of peace with Egypt. He failed to followup on the opening Sadat gave him.
In short, good man, but miserable, ineffective leader. He also occasionally exhibits a mean, vindictive streak in his odd and misplaced actions in support of folks like Hugo Chavez, and others. He is not above the most partisan of backbiting, and is, in my view a bit self-righteous as well.
