Yeah, solar panels are nice, but in spite of the different branding, “the path Carter set us on” was still neoliberalism. Carter was the beginning of the end of the unions and the postwar consensus around Keynesianism and progressive New Deal policies.
Carter was facing an economic problem known at the time as “stagflation,” where things were getting more expensive while wages remained stagnant. Keynesianism called for the government spending more when wages are low in order to stimulate the economy, and spending less only under good conditions, to balance the budget and save for a rainy day. It failed to predict stagflation because stagflation was caused by the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. But Carter chose to focus on inflation rather than stagnant wages, against the interests of unions and setting us on the path of neoliberalism.
The big difference between Carter and Reagan was that Reagan was much better at selling Americans on neoliberalism because he was willing to lie through his teeth about it. Carter’s message was that neoliberalism would mean tough times and sacrifices, but that it’s a chance to set aside crass materialism and focus on finding other forms of fulfillment, because what really matters is being a good person on an individual level. Reagan’s message was fuck all that, think of all the cheap plastic shit you’ll be able to buy, plus unions are commie shit anyway, and all that social responsibility crap is just helping black people and gays so fuck it and fuck them. But it was the same economic policy of neoliberalism under both. Americans preferred Reagan’s messaging so much that he got literally 10x the electoral votes as Carter in 1980.
The reason why we’re here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with, one neoliberal who lies and one neoliberal who tells the truth. Since neoliberalism fucking sucks, most people are going to go for the one that lies and says it’ll be good, which is why Reagan beat Carter in 1980 with 10x the electoral votes. But the solution is not to somehow convince people to vote for the more honest neoliberal, it’s to provide an alternative to neoliberalism altogether.
Yet another revisionist wanting to blame Carter for the actions of the oil industry driving world policy. Carter was not the most brilliant but he did try to do the right thing. He was trying to show the world they didn’t need to be under the complete stranglehold of the oil barrons.
Iran was a fucking mess. But it wasn’t his “fault.” He made mistakes but he didn’t betray his country to get elected.
Reagan was a traitor and should have gone to prison for what he did with Iran.
But you keep talking about how everything would be the same if we had kept Carter’s policies.
I am sure you also think the same with Harris. I am sure we would be talking about how she “should have attacked Iran and that Iran wouldn’t be crazy enough to close the strait of Hormuz.” Or “her targeted air strikes would never have happened with Trump.”
We don’t know for sure what would have happened but the character of a person is enough to at least determine their intentions even if they make mistakes. There are mistakes and there are MISTAKES.
None of that is remotely relevant to the discussion. I am not St. Peter deciding whether or not Carter deserves to go to heaven. Regardless of what was going on in his mind, whether he was acting with good or bad intentions, the policy he enacted was neoliberalism and the effects of his policy were the effects of neoliberalism.
I am sure we would be talking about how she “should have attacked Iran and that Iran wouldn’t be crazy enough to close the strait of Hormuz.”
You are completely and utterly delusional. My opposition to US imperialism does not depend on which party is doing it. I have never, and will never, criticize a president for not being aggressive or interventionist enough. A completely baseless acusation based on nothing but your own desire to play the victim.
Iran was a fucking mess. But it wasn’t his “fault.”
Granting the shah asylum absolutely was his fault.
You don’t have to be St. Peter to simply understand intent.
on granting Asylum. IIRC Kissinger and Rockerfeller were pushing to get the shah medical treatment. Carter agreed and all hell broke loose.
On the imperialism topic. OP talks about how things would be different If Carter’s policies had stuck around. You said “nah ah Carter and Reagan are basically the same”
You are the same type of revisionist who would say whatever cherry-picked anecdotes of the past to put forward the idea that both parties are the same.
Neoliberalist or not there is no realistic alternative on the menu right now. So let’s at least try to be moral in what we do.
OP was talking about how things would be better. This guy said they (Carter and Reagan) would be the same and cherry picked some data.
70s was a mix Stagflation, inflation and high unemployment meant hard choices. Carter made hard choices some very likely bad because he was too conservative.
Carter tried some questionable things and definitely shares some blame but he wasn’t a traitor and he sure isn’t the same as Reagan.
Reagan poured fuel on the fire that burned out so many of us, and started a bunch of new ones that didn’t need to be started (War on Drugs comes to mind), absolutely.
OP of comments here made a direct call out that Carter implemented policies that started us on the path of neoliberalism.
You just seem to want to argue that Reagan was worse. That’s an argument that nobody here is on the other side of.
That wasn’t all of it. Carter got blamed for both Stagflation and the high interest rates his Fed used to get it under control. And of course the Iran Hostage Crisis and oil shortages. Then Reagan got all the credit for the economy the high interest rates helped save.
Of course, that was a factor, but not the only one.
Carter’s handling of Iran was poor even accounting for Reagan’s sabotage. The hostage crisis and corresponding breakdown of relations would never have occurred in the first place if Carter hadn’t granted the shah asylum, leading the Iranians to believe the US was plotting to install him in a coup exactly as it did before.
Today? Sure. But it wasn’t normal in the context of the post war, New Deal/Great Society era, which is why they coined a new term for it, historically.
which is why Reagan beat Carter in 1980 with 10x the electoral votes.
The reason why Reagan beat Carter by such a significant margin was because reagan conspired with the Iranian revolutionaries to draw out the crisis until after the election so he could use it in his messaging against Carter.
It’s not even a conspiracy theory, it’s a historical event with a name. Iran Contra scandal, since you seem to have never heard of it…
Lol, you should probably get your facts straight before you start accusing me of not knowing history. The Iran Contra scandal was a separate thing that began 5 years after the 1980 election.
As I said to someone else, that was only one factor, and regardless, Carter could’ve avoided the whole hostage crisis if he hadn’t granted the shah asylum.
Ah, it seems I had my hostage crises mixed up. For some reason when I read “arms-for-hostages deal” in the past, I had assumed it was the hostages in Iran.
Also, the arrangements started in 1981, it just didn’t become public knowledge until 86. Your point stands about it not influencing the 1980 election, but it’s not exactly points in favor of Reagan, or him being no worse than Carter. Especially since it was done specifically to fund an anti-socialist militia in Nicaragua.
Fairly certain I remember reading about him conspiring with the nation’s adversaries in the lead-up to that election too though, but maybe it was a separate scandal…
but it’s not exactly points in favor of Reagan, or him being no worse than Carter.
I’m not sure when or where exactly I made the claim that Reagan was no worse than Carter. Clearly, I must have said it, since so many people keep trying to argue against it to me, but I just can’t seem to find it in anything I actually wrote. Maybe you could point me to it?
What I do recall saying was that Carter’s policies were neoliberal and that neoliberalism is not the answer to our problems. But I must be misremembering.
Fairly certain I remember reading about him conspiring with the nation’s adversaries in the lead-up to that election too though, but maybe it was a separate scandal…
The reason why we’re here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with, one neoliberal who lies and one neoliberal who tells the truth. Since neoliberalism fucking sucks, most people are going to go for the one that lies and says it’ll be good, which is why Reagan beat Carter in 1980 with 10x the electoral votes.
Not exactly the same thing as “both sides” -ism, but verrry close. And the main part I was countering was about ascribing the reason for the electoral outcome solely to their differing levels of honesty
Anyway, this is exactly what I was thinking of:
After the release of the hostages on January 20, 1981, minutes after Reagan’s inauguration, some charged that the Reagan campaign had made a secret deal with the Iranian government whereby the Iranians would hold the hostages until after Reagan was elected and inaugurated.[14] Gary Sick, member of the U.S. National Security Council under Presidents Ford and Carter (before being relieved of his duties weeks into Reagan’s term),[21] made the accusation in a New York Times editorial[22] in the run-up to the 1992 election.
Abolhassan Banisadr, the former President of Iran, has also stated “that the Reagan campaign struck a deal with Tehran to delay the release of the hostages in 1980”, asserting that “by the month before the American Presidential election in November 1980, many in Iran’s ruling circles were openly discussing the fact that a deal had been made between the Reagan campaign team and some Iranian religious leaders in which the hostages’ release would be delayed until after the election so as to prevent President Carter’s re-election.”
Thank you. My bad for conflating it with Iran-Contra, though. I wasn’t alive at the time.
Not exactly the same thing as “both sides” -ism, but verrry close.
Both sides were objectively neoliberals enacting neoliberal policy. “Both sides-ism” is a vacuous term. Sometimes two people have a trait in common, understanding that objective fact is not an “-ism.” Imagine if I tried to paint JD Vance as being significantly different from Trump, and when someone said they both sucked I dismissed it as “both sides-ism.” Maybe it’s true that one is worse than the other, but between Trump and Vance, it’s undeniable that both sides are bad.
Honestly impressive that you managed to miss the point so completely.
I never suggested that the differences between those two pairs was in any way similar or equivalent. The point is that the term “both sides-ism” is nonsense.
Yeah, solar panels are nice, but in spite of the different branding, “the path Carter set us on” was still neoliberalism. Carter was the beginning of the end of the unions and the postwar consensus around Keynesianism and progressive New Deal policies.
Carter was facing an economic problem known at the time as “stagflation,” where things were getting more expensive while wages remained stagnant. Keynesianism called for the government spending more when wages are low in order to stimulate the economy, and spending less only under good conditions, to balance the budget and save for a rainy day. It failed to predict stagflation because stagflation was caused by the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. But Carter chose to focus on inflation rather than stagnant wages, against the interests of unions and setting us on the path of neoliberalism.
The big difference between Carter and Reagan was that Reagan was much better at selling Americans on neoliberalism because he was willing to lie through his teeth about it. Carter’s message was that neoliberalism would mean tough times and sacrifices, but that it’s a chance to set aside crass materialism and focus on finding other forms of fulfillment, because what really matters is being a good person on an individual level. Reagan’s message was fuck all that, think of all the cheap plastic shit you’ll be able to buy, plus unions are commie shit anyway, and all that social responsibility crap is just helping black people and gays so fuck it and fuck them. But it was the same economic policy of neoliberalism under both. Americans preferred Reagan’s messaging so much that he got literally 10x the electoral votes as Carter in 1980.
The reason why we’re here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with, one neoliberal who lies and one neoliberal who tells the truth. Since neoliberalism fucking sucks, most people are going to go for the one that lies and says it’ll be good, which is why Reagan beat Carter in 1980 with 10x the electoral votes. But the solution is not to somehow convince people to vote for the more honest neoliberal, it’s to provide an alternative to neoliberalism altogether.
Yet another revisionist wanting to blame Carter for the actions of the oil industry driving world policy. Carter was not the most brilliant but he did try to do the right thing. He was trying to show the world they didn’t need to be under the complete stranglehold of the oil barrons.
Iran was a fucking mess. But it wasn’t his “fault.” He made mistakes but he didn’t betray his country to get elected.
Reagan was a traitor and should have gone to prison for what he did with Iran.
But you keep talking about how everything would be the same if we had kept Carter’s policies.
I am sure you also think the same with Harris. I am sure we would be talking about how she “should have attacked Iran and that Iran wouldn’t be crazy enough to close the strait of Hormuz.” Or “her targeted air strikes would never have happened with Trump.”
We don’t know for sure what would have happened but the character of a person is enough to at least determine their intentions even if they make mistakes. There are mistakes and there are MISTAKES.
None of that is remotely relevant to the discussion. I am not St. Peter deciding whether or not Carter deserves to go to heaven. Regardless of what was going on in his mind, whether he was acting with good or bad intentions, the policy he enacted was neoliberalism and the effects of his policy were the effects of neoliberalism.
You are completely and utterly delusional. My opposition to US imperialism does not depend on which party is doing it. I have never, and will never, criticize a president for not being aggressive or interventionist enough. A completely baseless acusation based on nothing but your own desire to play the victim.
Granting the shah asylum absolutely was his fault.
You don’t have to be St. Peter to simply understand intent.
on granting Asylum. IIRC Kissinger and Rockerfeller were pushing to get the shah medical treatment. Carter agreed and all hell broke loose.
On the imperialism topic. OP talks about how things would be different If Carter’s policies had stuck around. You said “nah ah Carter and Reagan are basically the same”
You are the same type of revisionist who would say whatever cherry-picked anecdotes of the past to put forward the idea that both parties are the same.
Neoliberalist or not there is no realistic alternative on the menu right now. So let’s at least try to be moral in what we do.
So what are some of Carter’s policies?
Are you arguing in bad faith, or just failing to see how you just failed to address any of this guys points?
So saying mumbo thing would have changed everything would be the same is a point?
What?
Uhhh what points?
Ah. You can’t even see the point. Got it.
Question: What do you think about the policies that Carter implemented to address stagflation of the 70s?
EDIT: to be clear, I’m not trying to argue one side or the other. I’m just trying to point out that your posts appear to be arguing in bad faith.
That’s not relevant to OP’s post.
OP was talking about how things would be better. This guy said they (Carter and Reagan) would be the same and cherry picked some data.
70s was a mix Stagflation, inflation and high unemployment meant hard choices. Carter made hard choices some very likely bad because he was too conservative.
Carter tried some questionable things and definitely shares some blame but he wasn’t a traitor and he sure isn’t the same as Reagan.
FWIW, I generally agree with you.
Reagan poured fuel on the fire that burned out so many of us, and started a bunch of new ones that didn’t need to be started (War on Drugs comes to mind), absolutely.
OP of comments here made a direct call out that Carter implemented policies that started us on the path of neoliberalism.
You just seem to want to argue that Reagan was worse. That’s an argument that nobody here is on the other side of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise#Secret_deal_accusation
That wasn’t all of it. Carter got blamed for both Stagflation and the high interest rates his Fed used to get it under control. And of course the Iran Hostage Crisis and oil shortages. Then Reagan got all the credit for the economy the high interest rates helped save.
Of course, that was a factor, but not the only one.
Carter’s handling of Iran was poor even accounting for Reagan’s sabotage. The hostage crisis and corresponding breakdown of relations would never have occurred in the first place if Carter hadn’t granted the shah asylum, leading the Iranians to believe the US was plotting to install him in a coup exactly as it did before.
I think we just call that “normal” in America.
Today? Sure. But it wasn’t normal in the context of the post war, New Deal/Great Society era, which is why they coined a new term for it, historically.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I would recommend the podcast “Hell of Presidents,” which talks about this era in episode 12.
The reason why Reagan beat Carter by such a significant margin was because reagan conspired with the Iranian revolutionaries to draw out the crisis until after the election so he could use it in his messaging against Carter.
It’s not even a conspiracy theory, it’s a historical event with a name. Iran Contra scandal, since you seem to have never heard of it…
Lol, you should probably get your facts straight before you start accusing me of not knowing history. The Iran Contra scandal was a separate thing that began 5 years after the 1980 election.
As I said to someone else, that was only one factor, and regardless, Carter could’ve avoided the whole hostage crisis if he hadn’t granted the shah asylum.
Ah, it seems I had my hostage crises mixed up. For some reason when I read “arms-for-hostages deal” in the past, I had assumed it was the hostages in Iran.
Also, the arrangements started in 1981, it just didn’t become public knowledge until 86. Your point stands about it not influencing the 1980 election, but it’s not exactly points in favor of Reagan, or him being no worse than Carter. Especially since it was done specifically to fund an anti-socialist militia in Nicaragua.
Fairly certain I remember reading about him conspiring with the nation’s adversaries in the lead-up to that election too though, but maybe it was a separate scandal…
I’m not sure when or where exactly I made the claim that Reagan was no worse than Carter. Clearly, I must have said it, since so many people keep trying to argue against it to me, but I just can’t seem to find it in anything I actually wrote. Maybe you could point me to it?
What I do recall saying was that Carter’s policies were neoliberal and that neoliberalism is not the answer to our problems. But I must be misremembering.
What you are thinking of is known as an “October Surprise.”
For me it was in response to this:
Not exactly the same thing as “both sides” -ism, but verrry close. And the main part I was countering was about ascribing the reason for the electoral outcome solely to their differing levels of honesty
Anyway, this is exactly what I was thinking of:
Thank you. My bad for conflating it with Iran-Contra, though. I wasn’t alive at the time.
Both sides were objectively neoliberals enacting neoliberal policy. “Both sides-ism” is a vacuous term. Sometimes two people have a trait in common, understanding that objective fact is not an “-ism.” Imagine if I tried to paint JD Vance as being significantly different from Trump, and when someone said they both sucked I dismissed it as “both sides-ism.” Maybe it’s true that one is worse than the other, but between Trump and Vance, it’s undeniable that both sides are bad.
Comparing “Carter & Reagan” diffs to “Trump & Vance” diffs has got to be a disingenuous argument.
You didn’t really expect me to bite that obvious bait, did you?
Honestly impressive that you managed to miss the point so completely.
I never suggested that the differences between those two pairs was in any way similar or equivalent. The point is that the term “both sides-ism” is nonsense.