Carter and Bush: Not So Different After All
By Steve Chapman
Jimmy Carter has backtracked from his comment suggesting that George W. Bush is the worst president in history, and let's hope his gesture soothes relations between the two. Because if there is a place in the next world where unsuccessful presidents go to pay for their sins, Carter and Bush will be sharing a cell for a long, long time.
Bush had a Carteresque moment the other day when a bird left a calling card on his sleeve during an outdoor news conference. Like his predecessor's 1979 confrontation with a killer rabbit, it suggested the president is so unpopular that even lower species are turning against him.
Failing at the job and suffering low approval ratings are not the only things the two have in common. In fact, beyond surface differences like party and ideology, there is ample evidence that Bush is to Carter what Mary-Kate is to Ashley.
Carter presided over a country wracked by economic chaos, violence, political disarray and a sense of national decline. Bush does as well -- though this time, the country is Iraq rather than the United States. Carter stood helpless as Iran took Americans hostage at our embassy in Tehran. Bush has stood helpless while Iran pursues the means to hold its neighbors hostage with nuclear weapons.
Carter was responsible for a military debacle, the 1980 effort to rescue our Iran hostages, that killed eight American service personnel. Bush is responsible for a military debacle, the occupation of Iraq, that has killed more than 3,300 American service personnel. Under Carter, Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan bled the Soviet military. Under Bush, Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan bleed the U.S. military.
Carter, as an ex-president, helped negotiate a nuclear deal with North Korea that the other side failed to live up to. Bush negotiated a nuclear deal with North Korea that the other side has failed to live up to. Carter acquired a reputation as stubborn, self-righteous and unwilling to listen to anyone outside his inner circle. Notice a pattern here?
Both men had life-altering religious experiences as adults, and both profited from the support of evangelicals. Both campaigned in favor of a more modest foreign policy. Bush's 2000 declaration that we should be "a humble nation" echoed what Carter said in 1976: "A strong nation, like a strong person, can afford to be gentle, firm, thoughtful and restrained."
Once in office, though, their restraint abated. In its place emerged a messianic dream of remaking the world in our image. The former thought we could spread democracy and human rights by moral suasion. The latter thought we could spread democracy and human rights by invasion. They were surprised by the world's resistance to reform.
Jeane Kirkpatrick, who later served as President Reagan's ambassador to the United Nations, wrote in 1979 that the Carter administration had fallen victim to three misconceptions about governments it didn't like, such as those of Iran and Nicaragua: "first, the belief that there existed at the moment of crisis a democratic alternative to the incumbent government; second, the belief that the continuation of the status quo was not possible; third, the belief that any change . . . was preferable to the present government." Bush took those errors and applied them to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Oil prices soared under Carter as the economy stagnated. Oil prices have soared under Bush as the economy prospers. Carter preached fiscal discipline but let federal spending rise by 17 percent more than inflation during his four years. Bush preached tax cuts but let federal spending rise by 19 percent more than inflation during his first four years.
The two illustrate the dangers of taking a reasonable approach too far. The 39th president was overly eager to negotiate and thus let other countries get away with actions that harmed our interests. The 43rd president is overly reluctant to negotiate and thus lets other nations get away with actions that harm our interests.
Both found that their policies in the Persian Gulf had the unintended consequence of inflaming Islamic extremism. Both found their trust in Russian leaders to be unwarranted. Both caused their parties to lose control of at least one house of Congress.
The Bush experience proves that philosopher George Santayana was too optimistic. Even those who remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
schapman@tribune.com
Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.
Carter did not bring about the end of this country as we know it.
ReplyDeleteBush may well.
He may well already have set enough things in motion to do just that.
---
Meanwhile, France sets about DOING something about their past mistakes wrt immigration.
While we are still making things worse.
What's interesting to explore is the mindset that both Carter and Bush have concerning our sovereignty. Both men believe that Americans must LOOSE it in order to participate in the “new economy”.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is we’ve had a “world” economy from day one. The very definition of trade includes the idea of assimilating with different cultures as we conduct trade. The difference nowadays is the pace at which we assimilate. It’s too fast, much too fast. At this rate our cultures will disappear, thus eradicating the very traits that have made us successful.
Bush wishes to import, at a dramatic rate, Mexico's (primarily) culture, not only for business interest, but because, I believe, he actually hates his own culture!
Remember the British Privateers? Remember Britain, France, Holland, and Spain in their "world trade" efforts? Eventually Britain, the initiator of the Privateers, became the hunters of the Privateers turned Pirates.
ReplyDeleteWe can trade without losing our sovereignty!
Here's more world trade for ya, as if we needed more proof of Iran's involvement: Taliban uses weapons made in China, Iran
Wow! I don't believe I'm saying this! Maybe we should be more like France.
ReplyDeleteFrance gets tough on illegal immigration, setting quotas for arrests, expulsions
Bush gets even worse. Goodbye Voice of America
ReplyDelete-Eliminate virtually all English-language VOA broadcasts world-wide, apart from Africa, which would see its service cut nearly in half. This is occurring at the same time as governments in Russia and China that are increasingly assertive have launched 24/7 propaganda radio services in our native language.
-Reduce by a third RFE/RL’s Russian-language broadcasts to Russia from 24- to 18- hours a day, and take VOA’s Russian-language radio off the air altogether. This would come at a time when the authoritarian Vladimir Putin is making a comprehensive effort to deny his people access to truthful information about their country and the world. What is more, Putin’s repressive measures could end the Voice of America’s remaining TV broadcasts in Russian at any moment.
-Drop altogether broadcasts by: the VOA in Cantonese, Croatian, Greek,
Georgian, Thai and Uzbek; RFE/RL’s Macedonian service; and Radio Free Asia’s broadcasts in Cantonese. American interests in China, Southeastern Europe, Central and Southeast Asia would be negatively affected.
-Eliminate the VOA’s radio broadcasts in Ukrainian, Serbian, Albanian, Bosnian, Macedonian, Hindi. Given the ongoing turmoil in Ukraine, the Balkans and Kashmir can we afford to do anything that might reduce our presence or influence there?
-Reduce radio broadcasts by: the Voice of America to China in Tibetan and to Africa in Portuguese; RFE/RL’s services in Ukrainian, Romanian, Kazakh and South Slavic languages in Kazakh; and RFA’s broadcasts in Tibetan.
In fact, like the Privateer/Pirates of old, we will become the traget.
ReplyDeleteMilitary positioned to launch action – here
Columnist's exposé reveals planning for 'domestic emergencies'
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWar without conflict
ReplyDeleteSo Orwellian, so post-modern.
Just right for the Americas
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd once in, they can never leave, held to the Republican Empire by force of arms, historical precedent enugh for that,
ReplyDeleteBack to Tampico!
To the Halls of Montezuema boys, to the Halls!!
For the liberation of all those true Americans south of the Rio Grande, bringing to them the Universal Rights of Man, granted by God, delivered by GW Bush.
For the good of YOUR soul.
What is missing is perspective, to defeat Mexico we must first drain them of their best people, a brain and labor drain. Once the two county's people are mixed, we will assimilate Mexico, not just it's people in the old United States, but their entire country.
ReplyDeleteIt's a "Long Conquest", but not without peril. Perhaps San Diego, Santa Anna, and other California cities will be in contention for a while, but those cities are on already conquered territory.
No Two or Three State solution for North America, not in the long term.
Adjust your thinkings, brothers, the dominion of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA includes all of North America, at the least.
To fall short of that, defames Mr Jefferson, and his push to the Pacific.
We most see the truth of the master poker player's wisdom, the expansion of those unalienable Rights, to all of North America.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It is our duty, our cause, our future!
One Land! One People! One Future!
Together Forever, Amen!
Or, in relationship to other current and historical perspectives.
ReplyDeleteThe refugees that left California and Texas, after the Wars, fled to Mexico, fearing the demonized Anglos, their decendents began to exercise their "Right of Return" to their historical and ancesteral homeland.
The Government of the United States welcomed these returnees, ending a centuries long dispute between the peoples of the Region.
Proportionatly, in regards Israel, there are as many Palitiniam "refugees" in Lebanon waiting to excercise their "Right of Return" as illegals have already entered the United States.
Using US Government and UN estimates.
300,000 to 6 million
15 million to 300 million.
The Israeli should start admitting those Palistinians immediately, it'd take pressure off a corrupt Lebanon, which would ensure the status que, there.
Israel will manage, just like US do.
Good for US, good for them.
Their souls need some work, as well.
Become illuminated, my brothers, open your minds, see the strengths of our diversity.
ReplyDeleteFreedom, liberty, the pursuit of property, these things are not to be hemmed in, by lines drawn, by men, on a map.
The US lights the way, from atop the pyramid, our all seeing eye knows the way forward.
We continue on the path set forth by the Founders.
Liberating the mind of man.
Open the borders?
Brothers, there are no borders to our souls.
All you need to open are your minds.
Timothy Leary lives!
Carter wasn't exactly beloved by the farmers. Embargoes, gas lines, interest rates hovering around 20%, all because of our own malaise. It's true too, after a couple years of that, one did tend to develope a kind of 'I just don't give a shit anymore' attitude. These were the years too, when we had 'Billy' has roving ambassador around the world, and around southern Georgia. Good old Billy, he knew at least as much as his brother, but less than Amy.
ReplyDeleteQuick now, what was the name of Amy Carter's cat that lived in the White House--mmyy
ReplyDeleteDidn't Carter's son run for something out in Nevada this last time around? Wonder how that came out, if I am not dreaming it. One bad thing about all these politicians, they all seem to have children, to 'carry on'.
ReplyDeleteAttack of the Killer Rabbit, as it really happened
ReplyDeleteA young, well-educated man on a business trip gets on the plane to find himself seated next to an older, weathered man in a western snap shirt, **faded** jeans and a cowboy hat. Thinking himself above the old cowboy, the young man decides to make sport of him.
ReplyDelete"You know," he says, "I've heard these flights go much more quickly if you >strike up a conversation with a fellow passenger. So, let's talk."
The cowboy looks at him wryly and says, "Well I s'pose that'd be all
right. What would you like to discuss?"
"Oh, I don't know, "says the young man with a hint of sarcasm, "How about nuclear proliferation?"
"Hmm," says the cowboy, sensing the young man's attempt to belittle him, "That could be an interesting topic. But, let me ask you a question first - horses, cows, and deer all eat the same stuff--grass. Yet, a deer passes little pellets, a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse makes muffins of dried poop. Why do you suppose that is?"
Dumbfounded, the young man replies, "I haven't the slightest idea."
"So tell me then,"says the cowboy with a smile, "How is it that you feel qualified to discuss nuclear proliferation when you don't know shit?"
"Open the borders?
ReplyDeleteBrothers, there are no borders to our souls.
All you need to open are your minds.
Timothy Leary lives! "
---
YES!
That is the current state of play, ladies and gentlemen:
Hard-headed-results oriented "realists" with Harvard MBAs, compassionate "conservative" REPUBLICANS of today are as drug addled, Harvard tenured, messianic, Cult leader wannabes of the 60's.
Like some "Feminist" cigarette add from the 70's,
WE'VE COME A LONG WAYS BABY!
been down so long, and etc.
F...... 1 inch deep LOSER.
Whatever truth there is to Tiger's take that he "actually hates his own culture!"
I think there is also truth to the fact that despite the good old boyfriends, the Cowboy Hat, the feigned down-homenedness of the entity, we are not his culture.
We are not Skull and Boners.
'Rat was right all along.
Deal with it!
---
Whatever.
You can be sure the hatred is real:
Look at the results.
The Full Story of the killer rabbit attack, for those with the attention span to handle it. Grab a beer or two amd a bag of chips. In depth reporting in the best tradition.
ReplyDeleteI need to switch technologies from my current proton pusher devices, which aren't working well, to the electron bridge device, which has much more potential.
I'll get outta here yet.
Deuce,
ReplyDeleteWhere I come from, bird droppings are considered good luck. My car has been a particularly lucky recipient, though I wish some of that good luck would rub on me.
I remember when my good friend Emory got a full load of pigeon top of his head, right after class. He didn't deserve that. Had to go take a shower in the gym.
ReplyDeleteDidn't seem to bring him good luck though, as he died in a car crash the next year.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteThe effect is transient. He could have been killed a year earlier. :D
Looked up how to spell "addled" on Google.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I got from SLATE:
---
"Meanwhile, the estimated cost of this plan that no one likes has already more than doubled and is now projected at more than $1 trillion over the next decade.
With the Medicare drug bill, politically attuned but government-detesting conservatives resolved the inherent conflict between the interests of beneficiaries and the affected industries in favor of everyone.
Crucial aspects of the plan were characteristically delegated to insurance and pharmaceutical companies, while the senior-citizens' lobby was appeased in various ways.
But in fact, there's an even more basic problem with Bush's Medicare prescription-drug plan that cannot be laid solely at the doorstep of Republicans.
Over the past quarter-century, governments the world over have evolved away from statist solutions and toward programs that rely to a greater degree on markets and incentives.
This has been, by and large, a positive evolution. In much of the public sector, privatization and regulated markets work well.
But the mixed public-private programs now in vogue have a big disadvantage.
They are inherently more complex, sometimes so much so that they simply won't take.
Whatever the advantages of Medicare D in theory, it has an overwhelming drawback common to all recent presidential proposals for health-care reform:
It's too damn complicated."
Conservative Indeed.
Compassionate Indeed.
Destructive as Hell,
Determined to disguise his disgust/hatred of us as "compassion."
F...... LIBERAL!
Know the man by his works.
ReplyDeleteUnkind as that may be.