Nancy Reagan has died

[rubato]

Carter was famously bad as a politician. The first example came as soon as he took office; he cancelled spending already approved by the previous administration (so it would not count against him) in order to cut the deficit. Even though a lot of it was in districts with democratic representatives and senators who were immediately ticked off. Carter believed people should do the right thing because it was the right thing and would do the right thing once they knew it; and didn't understand that was not how you persuaded people. The next example was his infamous (today) speech about the energy crisis where he tried to set a good example by turning down the thermostats in the WH and wearing sweaters. Yet another example was his refusal to serve alcohol in the WH. (what was he thinking!?)

One of the best presidents as a 'policy wonk', which is why he broke the back of OPEC by getting rid of oil price controls and killed the spiking high inflation from the Nixon-Ford era by appointing Paul Volcker to the Fed. Both of these things were the right things to do, but both of them cost him politically. No president since him has had as much rectitude, courage, or political naivete.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Carter believed people should do the right thing because it was the right thing and would do the right thing once they knew it; and didn't understand that was not how you persuaded people.

I agree to a point; he also had the annoying characteristic of believing he knew what was right every time, which meant he rarely reached out to others. He was a pretty skilled negotiator/mediator (the Camp David Accords alone showed that) and knew how to persuade others, but apparently felt Congress and the American people should just listen to him because he was "right". In this way he was a lot like LBJ--if Johnson had even tried to sell the Vietnam escalation to the public things might have been different, but he apparently didn't feel he had to. IMHO he forgot the first rule of the presidency, which is that you are there to persuade and build consensus, not rule unilaterally.

Now granted he did try to sell some things--like when he sat sweating in a heavy sweater under hot lights in front of a blazing fire to tell people they should follow his lead and turn their thermostats down, but his heart wasn't in it and people saw right through it.

[rubato]

Carter believed people should do the right thing because it was the right thing and would do the right thing once they knew it; and didn't understand that was not how you persuaded people.

I agree to a point; he also had the annoying characteristic of believing he knew what was right every time, which meant he rarely reached out to others. He was a pretty skilled negotiator/mediator (the Camp David Accords alone showed that) and knew how to persuade others, but apparently felt Congress and the American people should just listen to him because he was "right". In this way he was a lot like LBJ--if Johnson had even tried to sell the Vietnam escalation to the public things might have been different, but he apparently didn't feel he had to. IMHO he forgot the first rule of the presidency, which is that you are there to persuade and build consensus, not rule unilaterally.

Now granted he did try to sell some things--like when he sat sweating in a heavy sweater under hot lights in front of a blazing fire to tell people they should follow his lead and turn their thermostats down, but his heart wasn't in it and people saw right through it.

Part of the problem is that he was right, both morally and practically, a lot more often than anyone else. And thought that once you knew the right thing you should do it. While everyone else was asking what they wanted first and only getting to what was right when it lined up the same way.



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

I think what motivated the policy (and everything I have seen that has been written about it by those who were involved backs this up) was frustration over the fact that the then liberal, Democratic Congress would not go along with authorizing direct funds to fight against Soviet backed regimes (like the Sandinista stooges in Nicaragua) and Soviet-backed insurgent operations in other countries in Central America...(like El Salvador)

One of the guiding principles that Ronald Reagan came into Office with was, "We're not just going to 'contain' the Soviet Union (a fight we seemed to be slowly losing) we're going to roll them back"...

And Nicaragua became ground zero for laying that marker down...

As history has played out, as an overall strategy, it was the right approach (there's a reason that my daughter only knows about "The Soviet Union" from my telling her about it and her studying about it in her history class...I'm very grateful for that...whatever threats we may face today, at least she and her brother will never know the threat of "total nuclear annihilation"... one miscalculation away, that was an ever present back-drop to my growing up... )

But all of that having been said, there were unquestionably some people in Mr. Reagan's Administration who "pushed the envelope" legally (and perhaps morally) in the interest of advancing this larger goal...

But there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever, that Oliver North or anyone else had some sort of "agenda" in mind that involved trying to destroy African American families...

Nor is their any evidence that agents of the United States government were ever directly involved in importing drugs into this country...

And the notion that there was some sort of "plot" carried out by CIA agents to import drugs into this country for the purpose of destroying black communities, belongs in the same category as "Barack Obama is a Muslim" and "George W. Bush was behind 9/11" and "the moon landing was faked" in the pantheon of crackpot theories...

[Big RR]

rubato--Perhaps, perhaps not (and IMHO in many cases he was right) ; but in any event, he still had the job of persuading congress and the people that he was right. And that he did not do.

Jim--or maybe the crackpot theory that the CIA tortures persons it interrogates, or has secret prisons where people are held without charge, or participates in the assassination of foreign leaders, or ... A lot of things we would have things we would have called BS only a few years ago have turned out to be fact.

Again, I am not saying it is true, but in an environment where people can run unchecked, a lot of things can and do happen.

[Lord Jim]

Carter was famously bad as a politician.

No, he was demonstrably incredibly effective as a politician...the record clearly shows that...as I have demonstrated, drawing on historical facts...(surely you must have heard about "facts" somewhere rube... at least somebody must have told you about their existence when you were a child)

both morally and practically,

No, on those two scores, he's been pretty much a complete failure...

I'm not at all surprised rube, that you are such a great fan of Carter's...

A self-righteous ignoramus with a grossly inflated (to the point of being comically delusional) belief in his knowledge, abilities, and wisdom...

all evidence to the contrary not withstanding...

(And oh yes, also an anti-semite, just like you... )

You two could have been separated at birth...

[Big RR]

Come now Jim, how can someone be a "self-righteous ignoramus with a grossly inflated (to the point of being comically delusional) belief in his knowledge, abilities, and wisdom" and then be an effective politician--the two are mutually exclusive. Granted he was not an abysmal politician, but he eschewed working with others and generating a consensus within the legislature (which wouldn't have been that difficult in 1976-80) in favor of trying to do everything himself. IMHO, a good politician would have known better.

and as for his being an anti-Semite--are you serious (and if so, do you have any historical facts showing that)?

[Lord Jim]

Again, I am not saying it is true, but in an environment where people can run unchecked, a lot of things can and do happen.

Yes, that's always true but if you look at the history of the thing...

The US government agents who looked the other way when the Contras or other US allies were importing drugs into the US really weren't giving a single thought to where those drugs would ultimately wind up...

...an economically depressed black community, or an upper middle class white community...(I suspect that back in the 80s, I had occasion to snort coke provided by both the Contras and the Sandinistas... ) all the same from their perspective...

Sorting that out wasn't part of their job description...

What they were thinking about was, "I may not like this, but it's going to provide money for people who are fighting our enemies"...

Who the "end users" for the drugs might be, didn't even enter into their thinking; it wasn't a consideration...

[Lord Jim]

how can someone be a "self-righteous ignoramus with a grossly inflated (to the point of being comically delusional) belief in his knowledge, abilities, and wisdom" and then be an effective politician--the two are mutually exclusive.

Really?

[Big RR]

Well Jim, I guess that's where we differ, I would not be surprised if some saw providing drugs that may well end up in minority communities (or free up other drugs to end up there) gave an added bonus. Face it, these people are trained to consider a number of variables when pursuing any strategy; I just don't think they were as sanguine about the domestic effects as you do.

Not much more to be said.

As for Trump, do you really think he's a good politician. Maybe we define the term differently, but I think of a politician as someone who can sell his ideas and get them through the legislature, something I think Trump would be unable to do (which is why I don't think a Trump presidency would be as bad as, e.g., a Cruz one). Add to that, in a democracy the politician must also sell the most people on his course of action--whether Trump can do that in the long run is doubtful IMHO.

FWIW, I think LBJ embodied the former (I don't think there is any other politician at that time who could have gotten the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress--and this was a time when we still had a lot of great statesmen in Congress), but sucked at the latter (which is why he withdrew in 1968); Carter might have been capable of doing both but, once elected, felt he didn't have to (and he was particularly bad at working with those in even his own party).

[Lord Jim]

Well Jim, I guess that's where we differ,

Okay, well fine, perhaps we have reached "agree to disagree"...

Which I never have a problem with...

But one thing I assume we can agree on, is that while you may believe that there might have been some plot on the part of agents of the US government to import drugs into this country for the racist purpose of undermining African-American communities, no actual proof or evidence of such a plot has ever been shown to exist....

Can we at least agree on that?

Even if you believe it might have happened, do you accept the fact that no proof for such a theory has ever been brought forward?

[Big RR]

I am not aware of any such proof; but I will also say that I have never tried to search for it so I do not know if any sch proof was ever "brought forward".

[Econoline]

As for Trump, do you really think he's a good politician. Maybe we define the term differently, but I think of a politician as someone who can sell his ideas and get them through the legislature, something I think Trump would be unable to do (which is why I don't think a Trump presidency would be as bad as, e.g., a Cruz one). Add to that, in a democracy the politician must also sell the most people on his course of action--whether Trump can do that in the long run is doubtful IMHO.

FWIW, I think LBJ embodied the former (I don't think there is any other politician at that time who could have gotten the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress--and this was a time when we still had a lot of great statesmen in Congress), but sucked at the latter (which is why he withdrew in 1968); Carter might have been capable of doing both but, once elected, felt he didn't have to (and he was particularly bad at working with those in even his own party).

I agree. “Getting elected to office” and “getting things accomplished within the system” are two separate components of being a good politician; unless a politician can do *BOTH* they will never be considered a good politician—nor should they be. (And as for Trump, he hasn't yet shown an ability to do *EITHER* of those two things: “getting the Republican nomination” is not the same as “getting elected to office”...not by a long shot.)