Jimmy Carter
Not so fast! Obama still hasn’t shaken the Carter syndrome
Memo to the president: In 1980, the economic disasters were at least as damaging as the foreign policy debacles
Jimmy Carter in his famous "moral equivalent of war" fireside chat in 1977. “It’s Official: Barack Obama is not Jimmy Carter,” writes William Dodson at the New Republic. The Navy SEAL operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan, was “America’s Entebbe,” declares Peter Beinart in the Daily Beast, referring to the 1976 hostage rescue carried out by Israeli commandos at a Ugandan airport. Obama has “defied the Jimmy Carter caricature the right delights in,” observes Salon’s own Steve Kornacki.
These favorable (to Obama) comparisons are not without merit. Operation Eagle Claw, the failed attempt to rescue the Americans held hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Iran in April 1980, marked one the low moments in American military history. A sandstorm rendered three helicopters unable to function, and another crashed into a C-130 transport aircraft during the hasty evacuation, killing six servicemen. The debacle undoubtedly contributed in some part to Jimmy Carter’s failure to win reelection later that year. Carter didn’t personally pilot those helicopters, but his legacy has been stained with the embarrassment ever since.
The contrast with how history is likely to regard Obama’s role in killing Osama bin Laden couldn’t be sharper. The president took a big risk, and it paid off. In the short run, his poll numbers are already up sharply, and in the domain of foreign policy and national security, conservative critics have suddenly lost their footing.
But let’s not get carried away with the Carter comparisons quite yet. There’s still plenty of room for Republicans to hang the Carter albatross around Obama’s neck. The disaster in Iran wasn’t the only reason that 1980 was an awful, awful year for Jimmy Carter. There was also the not-so-trifling matter of an economy running completely off the tracks.
From mid-1979 to early 1980, gas prices rose 60 percent. By March inflation was surging at a ridiculously high rate of 18 percent. GDP growth fell by an astonishing 10.2 percent in the second quarter, unemployment spiked to 8 percent in the summer, and the bond market completely freaked out over a bigger-than-expected government budget deficit.
A cover story from Time magazine on March 24, 1980, sets the scene:
As Jimmy Carter stepped before the television cameras in the East Room of the White House last Friday, his task was not just to proclaim another new anti-inflation program but to calm a national alarm that had begun to border on panic. Inflation and interest rates, both topping 18 percent, are so far beyond anything that Americans have experienced in peacetime — and so far beyond anything that U.S. financial markets are set up to handle — as to inspire a contagion of fear. Usually confident businessmen and bankers have begun talking of Latin American-style hyperinflation, financial collapse, major bankruptcies, a drastic drop in the American standard of living.
Two months before the presidential election, the economy easily trumped international affairs as the primary concern for voters, wrote W. Carl Biven in “Jimmy Carter’s Economy: Policy in an Age of Limits.”
Reagan was not elected in 1980 because he was viewed as strong by the public in terms of solving the Iranian crisis. When respondents were asked to choose the candidate “best able to handle the Iranian situation” in a poll two months before the election, only 33 percent selected Carter, an unsurprising result; on the other hand, only 39 percent selected Reagan. But the challenger hit a sensitive nerve when he asked voters during a campaign debate whether they were better off than they were four years before. It was not Iran but inflation and unemployment that were the uppermost concerns in the minds of voters. Asked in the same survey two months before the election to identify the “most important problem facing the nation,” 61 percent named “the high cost of living,” while only 15 percent chose “international problems.”
The parallel with Obama doesn’t work perfectly: We’ve already had our financial collapse, major bankruptcies and dramatic standard-of-living drop. So-called core inflation — which excludes food and energy prices — is safely under control. So far, the bond market is shrugging off government deficits that make Carter-era numbers seem ludicrously small, and unemployment is falling instead of rising. But we still shouldn’t be quite so quick to consign the Carter-Obama comparison to the ash bin of history. The economy will tell the tale of Obama’s presidency, and right now, poll respondents think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
Unfortunately for the current occupant of the White House, our economic challenges can’t be solved by merely sending in an elite group of Navy SEALs, despite the pretensions of buffoons like Donald Trump, who told a Las Vegas audience that he would solve the problem of rising gas prices by telling Saudis “you’re not going to raise that fucking price!” That’s a nice sentiment, but falls short in the area of actual implementation. Any military attempt to force Saudi Arabia’s hand would, of course, throw the entire Middle East into utter chaos and likely spark the worst oil shock of all time.
Bivens summarizes a Theodore H. White observation to the effect that “in the Carter years, inflation and the hostage crisis were not unconnected in the minds of voters. The psychological effect on voters was similar; they both contributed to the same sense of helplessness. We couldn’t free the hostages and we couldn’t stop the inflation.”
Obama’s future prospects depend in large part on whether voters feel similarly helpless about their economic status in the next 18 months. One could ask: Why doesn’t Obama apply the decisiveness he devoted to Osama bin Laden to economic policy? But Obama’s challenge is that changing the economic status quo is hard, both because global economic trends are difficult to affect through government levers, and because government itself doesn’t work very well. Getting 60 votes in the Senate is much more formidable than getting past the obstacles presented by a walled compound in Pakistan.
But still, when Obama declared during his deficit reduction speech that he would refuse to extend Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy ever again, he sounded like the kind of guy adamant enough to launch a risky military operation; whether he has the courage to actually go through and back up his tough talk as an election campaign comes down to the wire in 2012 remains to be seen. His budget negotiation strategy with Republicans smacks a lot more of appeasement than it does ruthless decision-making in the national interest. Has he ever stared across the table at Mitch McConnell and John Boehner with the same gimlet-eyed glare that he demonstrated in the now iconic photograph showing the president and key staff members receiving updates on the Osama raid in the White House situation room? If not, why not?
If unemployment continues to fall and Obama steers his way through the endless budget showdowns without driving the economy back into recession, he has an excellent chance of getting reelected. But all those chest-pumping pundits who think the execution of Osama bin Laden has exorcised all the Democratic nightmare of Jimmy Carter ineffectiveness will be surprised to see how fast the comparisons come back if 2012 proves to be anything like 1980.
Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21. More Andrew Leonard.
How Reaganism actually started with Carter
Think Reagan was the first modern president to preach low taxes, free markets and morality?
Jimmy Carter The hundredth anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth has produced disagreement over his policies among conservatives and liberals, but agreement on one point: Reagan’s presidency marked the end of one era in American politics and the beginning of a new one. An epochal shift indeed took place — but it happened in 1976, not 1980. The Age of Reagan should be called the Age of Carter, in politics and policy alike.
In politics, both Carter and Reagan sought to exploit the “white backlash” in the aftermath of the civil rights revolution that had led many white Southerners and white Northern “ethnics” to defect from the Democrats to support third-party populist candidate George Wallace. Reagan did so by beginning his general election campaign in 1980 in Neshoba County, Miss., where white supremacists had recently fire-bombed a black church and had earlier murdered three Northern civil rights activists, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and James Chaney. In a thinly disguised appeal to white Southern racism, Reagan declared, “I believe in states’ rights.”
Continue Reading CloseMichael Lind’s new book, "Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States", will be published in April and can be pre-ordered at Amazon.com. More Michael Lind.
Jimmy Carter speaks on “earth-shaking” Egypt
The former president thinks Mubarak has to go
FILE - In this Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2010 picture, former President Jimmy Carter, left, and OPEC Fund for International Development Director General Suleiman Jasir Al-Herbish, speak in Atlanta, Ga. before signing an agreement worth $1 million to fund the Carter Center's programs to eliminate Guinea worm and river blindness diseases. (AP Photo/David Goldman, File)(Credit: AP) Former President Jimmy Carter says the political unrest and rioting in Egypt is an earth-shaking event and that President Hosni Mubarak probably will have to leave office.
The former president brokered a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt in 1978. He calls the unrest the most profound situation in the Middle East since he left office in 1981.
The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer reported Carter’s remarks to the Sunday school class he teaches at Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains.
Mubarak was vice president when the peace accord was signed and became president in 1981 when Anwar al-Sadat was assassinated by opponents of the agreement with Israel.
Carter said that as Mubarak’s 30-year rule has continued, the Egyptian leader has become more politically corrupt.
Will Carter finally defeat guinea worm?
The former president has waged war against the disease for more than two decades. The last battle is in the Sudan
In this Nov. 4, 2010 photo, Ajak Kuol Nyamchiek, 7, watches while John Lotiki, a nurse with the Carter Center, bandages the blister on her leg from where a guinea worm is slowly emerging in Abuyong, Sudan. Nyamchiek is a patient at Centers guinea worm case containment center. Nurses at this center in Abuyong, a village in Awerial County in Southern Sudans Lakes state, bandage the worms twice daily, after gently pulling the worms out several inches each time. If they break while they are being pulled out of the swollen blisters, the wounds become infected and the worms withdraw back into the body, prolonging the pain for the victims. (AP Photo/Maggie Fick)(Credit: AP) Lily pads and purple flowers dot one corner of the watering hole. Bright green algae covers another. Two women collect water in plastic jugs while a cattle herder bathes nearby.
Samuel Makoy is not interested in the bucolic scenery, though. He has an epidemic to quash.
Makoy points out to the women the fingernail-length worm-like creatures whose tails flick back and forth. Then a pond-side health lesson begins on a spaghetti-like worm that has haunted humans for centuries.
This fight against the guinea worm is a battle former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has waged for more than two decades in some of the poorest countries on earth. It is a battle he’s almost won.
Continue Reading CloseJimmy Carter’s Tea Party
An angry right-wing revolting against a Democratic president and "impure" Republicans: We've seen this before
Former president Jimmy Carter fields a question during his news conference in Washington, October 10, 1978. Jimmy Carter has an Op-Ed in the USA Today that makes an excellent point: The 1970s saw the development of a political movement very similar to the Tea Party of today. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to quite understand the nature of that movement.
In Carter’s telling, his dark horse 1976 presidential campaign became a vehicle for Tea Party-ish sentiments. “We capitalized on deep dissatisfaction with the policies and practices of government officials,” he writes, “especially those who served in Washington.” In reality, though, the Tea Party of his era sprang up from the same place and for the same basic reasons as the Tea Party of today. Then as now, the presence of a Democratic president with substantial Democratic majorities fed a conservative revolt (which was also directed at “establishment” Republicans deemed by the right to be too cooperative with Democrats).
Continue Reading Close
Steve Kornacki writes about politics for Salon. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki More Steve Kornacki.
Carter’s Washington book signing events canceled
The former president remains in Ohio hospital overnight for observation after stomach problems
Former President Jimmy Carter is canceling scheduled book signing events in Washington as doctors continue their observations following Carter’s overnight stay in Ohio for an upset stomach.
Carter had been scheduled for two events in Washington on Wednesday, including one at the Smithsonian Institution, to promote his book “White House Diary.”
Kathy Daneman, publicity manager at publisher Farrar, Straus & Giroux, said no decision had been made about an event planned at a Columbia, S.C., bookstore Thursday.
Continue Reading ClosePage 1 of 11 in Jimmy Carter