When Jimmy Carter was elected... worst

[Hygro]

When Jimmy Carter was elected I thought he was the worst president (USA) ever. Reduction of the armed forces,

Colin Powell credits much of the so called Reagan buildup with Carter, in particular by ushering in an era of new weapon systems that the Soviet Union stood no chance at fighting. All of those weapons of course came online during the 1980s. Other than that, I'm not particularly familiar with Carter's military policy.

 

[r16]

carter's primary thing happens to be the green light for the Green Belt , hence "domination of the Islam" by the Saudis . After the shock of 1973 where the "secular" hence "friendly to the Soviets" kind of Arabs showed they actually could . Iran's "slide" to Shia would then create a reason for a "Sunni Awakening" . Hence the eye watering performance by Washington that backstabbed the Iranian Army that could have bloodily surprassed another upheaval without blinking an eye . Washington made sure there was nothing that could stopped the "Mullahs" ; made their power all too clear .

 

[Cutlass]

Colin Powell credits much of the so called Reagan buildup with Carter, in particular by ushering in an era of new weapon systems that the Soviet Union stood no chance at fighting. All of those weapons of course came online during the 1980s. Other than that, I'm not particularly familiar with Carter's military policy.

David Stockman, Reagan's budget director and one if the ideological leaders of the Reaganomics movements, credits most of Reagan's military buildup to Carter and the 1978-1980 (Democratic) Congress. He said that Carter had proposed significant military increases for the 1980 budget, Congress took Carter's plan and increased it further. Reagan and his budget team took Congress's number, thought it was Carter's number, and then just arbitrarily tacked on another 5%, just because Reagan's budget had to be 5% bigger than Carter's number. Not, notably, because they had an actual plan for a buildup which called for that level of spending.

So Reagan's final military budget was an arbitrary increase on the top of an increase which was on top of a thoughtful increase.

All of that extra spending was funded by deficit spending, and all of that money went to waste in the long run, because it was all spent on things which were unneeded and eventually gotten rid of.

Source, "The Triumph of Politics" by David Stockman.

 

[Leifmk]

There were a bunch of bad presidents in the 19th century. People need to knock off the hyperbole.

Even after the 19th century. For example you'd be hard-pressed to find something more corrupt and scandal-ridden than the Harding administration.

 

[onejayhawk]

Even after the 19th century. For example you'd be hard-pressed to find something more corrupt and scandal-ridden than the Harding administration.

Carter was incompetent. What was worse, he thought he could cure this condition by doing everyting himself. It caused him to blunder badly. Harding did things wrong on purpose. He's the reason Carter is worst on the list, not simply worst.

J

 

[Berzerker]

Carter's the best foreign policy prez we've had in decades, compare the 70s with the early 80s. We were licking our wounds over Vietnam and the Commies were riding their highpoint and Carter turned that around in less than 1 term by inducing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He kept us out of more wars and got the Russians stuck in a hellhole.

 

[Ajidica]

Carter's the best foreign policy prez we've had in decades, compare the 70s with the early 80s. We were licking our wounds over Vietnam and the Commies were riding their highpoint and Carter turned that around in less than 1 term by inducing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He kept us out of more wars and got the Russians stuck in a hellhole.

In what sense did Carter induce the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? As far as I understand it, we had more or less given up Afghanistan to a Communist backed government but that Iran was ours. (I don't remember off the top of my head whether we had started backing Pakistan yet, or if that was a part of the 'Reagan Revolution'.) The Soviets occupied Afghanistan after they got fed up with the complete collapse of authority and faith in the Communist government due to inter-party feuds.

 

[Berzerker]

Carter started covertly arming the Afghan resistance in '79, thats why the Russians had to go in to defend the government

 

[MilesGregarius]

Jimmy Carter seems to have killed less people than any other US Presidents in the 20th century, which has to be worth something. Surely?

Gerald Ford wins in that department.

 

[Formaldehyde]

David Stockman, Reagan's budget director and one if the ideological leaders of the Reaganomics movements, credits most of Reagan's military buildup to Carter and the 1978-1980 (Democratic) Congress. He said that Carter had proposed significant military increases for the 1980 budget, Congress took Carter's plan and increased it further. Reagan and his budget team took Congress's number, thought it was Carter's number, and then just arbitrarily tacked on another 5%, just because Reagan's budget had to be 5% bigger than Carter's number. Not, notably, because they had an actual plan for a buildup which called for that level of spending.

So Reagan's final military budget was an arbitrary increase on the top of an increase which was on top of a thoughtful increase.

All of that extra spending was funded by deficit spending, and all of that money went to waste in the long run, because it was all spent on things which were unneeded and eventually gotten rid of.

Source, "The Triumph of Politics" by David Stockman.

Carter had little influence over congressional spending during his tenure. Not to mention that the increases during his presidency were nominal:

 

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Wasn't Carter behind the worst of the stagflation in the 70s? He pushed the federal reserve to increase the money supply and ended up causing a 13% inflation rate.

 

[Cutlass]

Wasn't Carter behind the worst of the stagflation in the 70s? He pushed the federal reserve to increase the money supply and ended up causing a 13% inflation rate.

Umm, no. That did not happen. Nixon pushed the Fed to accommodate inflation which was caused by oil prices. But Nixon also had a Fed chairman who was partisan political and worked deliberately for Nixon's advantage. Carter appointed the Fed chairman who eventually strangled inflation. But the problem for him there is that the standard term of the Fed chairman starts in the 3rd year of a presidential administration. So since Carter lost reelection, the Fed's work by the Fed chairman Carter appointed actually took place after Carter left office and Reagan was in office.

 

[Core Imposter]

There was a sense of misery in the country during the Carter years which cut across social class. I saw fear and panic in the eyes of my parents generation.

They had been raised during the Great Depression and having endured that and World War 2 had been convinced that things could never go so wrong again. By the end of Reagan's first term we all thought that we had dodged the bullet.

Now that things are worse than ever before and we stand on the edge of the next great war, the sense of it is that the people are simply ignorant of what is about to befall them.

 

[Tahuti]

the group overthrowing that despot is pretty much always going to see the supporters of the former despot as their enemies.

Not at all. Samuel Doe deposed Liberia's Pro-American rulers. He became Pro-American as well, nevertheless. It is only likely when a leader is deposed by dissident groups supported by foreign governments because of his foreign policy (i.e. Salvador Allende's deposal by Pinochet, supported by the CIA) though this wasn't the case in Iran: America actually disowned the Shah without supporting any significant opposition force.

 

[onejayhawk]

Wasn't Carter behind the worst of the stagflation in the 70s? He pushed the federal reserve to increase the money supply and ended up causing a 13% inflation rate.

The approach that worked, under Reagan, was decreasing the money supply. Interestingly, this was with Volker, Carter appointee. To give credit where due, Carter appointed some good people. Had he listened to them more, things would have been better.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

There was a sense of misery in the country during the Carter years which cut across social class. I saw fear and panic in the eyes of my parents generation.

They had been raised during the Great Depression and having endured that and World War 2 had been convinced that things could never go so wrong again. By the end of Reagan's first term we all thought that we had dodged the bullet.

Now that things are worse than ever before and we stand on the edge of the next great war, the sense of it is that the people are simply ignorant of what is about to befall them.

This is why Reagan is remembered as a Great Man. He brought confidence back.

J

 

[Cutlass]

This is why Reagan is remembered as a Great Man. He brought confidence back.

J

in a classic victory of style over substance.....

 

[Core Imposter]

in a classic victory of style over substance.....

Well, that is the way human society works. Do the girls not always go for the bad boys?

Was Mandela not a rebel before he was a saint?

 

[Cutlass]

Well, that is the way human society works. Do the girls not always go for the bad boys?

Was Mandela not a rebel before he was a saint?

That's certainly true a lot in how people are remembered. Particularly how they are remembered while the people of the time are still alive.

This actually effects how many people rate most of the presidents from FDR on up either higher or lower than a really objective view would give them, while at the same time the majority of the 19th century presidents aren't really considered at all. And that was mostly a poor to mediocre group at best. But they are also not a well remembered group to most people, with a few standout exceptions. Likewise most of the 20th century presidents before FDR, most people don't even remember all of their names, much less can give a decent evaluation of them. From FDR to the present time, most Americans (and many people worldwide) have some memory of the either directly, or at least from their general knowledge of the time period. This means that they have at least heard of them to have some opinion. But it also means that their opinion is often colored with ideology as well, so the presidents are favored or not based on that as much as on their accomplishments. And personality as well, and few would dispute that Reagan's public persona was a better, or more attractive, one for a leader than Carter.

Both Carter and Reagan were poor managers and executives. Carter was better at policy. Reagan was better at politics.

 

[Hygro]

Wasn't Carter behind the worst of the stagflation in the 70s? He pushed the federal reserve to increase the money supply and ended up causing a 13% inflation rate.

No. That's a popular misconception.