Quote:Perhaps the man was just too moralistic to be an evil politician.

Of all the presidents I have seen in my lifetime, I think Carter to be the one who truly had the best interest of America in his heart. He is a decent man. That is a heck of a lot more than you can say about the rest of them!

Exactly Rick!

I think Carter was just too durn good to be a president. Presidents have to do bad things and I think that bothered Carter psychologically.

So, Carter was a good man, just didn't have what it took to deal with the responsibilities of the presidency. So then ask yourselves, what in him made him seek that which he could not do? What in him makes him seek vindication despite his incompetence in that job? Why is it that he rails against others in that job, despite the fact that he was not up to it?

Wryword Wrote:So, Carter was a good man, just didn't have what it took to deal with the responsibilities of the presidency. So then ask yourselves, what in him made him seek that which he could not do? What in him makes him seek vindication despite his incompetence in that job? Why is it that he rails against others in that job, despite the fact that he was not up to it?

Without knowing Carter or really having read anything he's written in the past 15 years or so (my knowledge of Carter goes all the way back to his years as president and the few years after his only term).
I will say this and that is Carter was mainly driven by his faith. Within his faith is an inclination toward Kantian duty-driven ethics. Of all the presidents I've studied, Carter was the most ethical in his personal life, to the point that he criticized and examined every little thing he did.
From the stuff I've read by the man and about the man, I'd venture to say that Carter wanted to be president because he wanted to change some things. Idealistically, he felt it was his duty to achieve the highest office of the land so he could initiate reforms that would affect the ethical direction of our country and society.
Once Carter got into office, he realized the limits of the power of the Presidency. While it is the highest office a politician can assume, the office is also seriously limited in power. Some of the limits are Constitutional in nature, and some are political limits (i.e. being the head of a national party). Other limits to the president's power would be the media and even further down the trough, the people (the electorate) limits the power of the president.
I know that Carter agonized on every little decision. He wanted to make decisions that were ethical and he wanted his decisions to have the approval of all concerned. This was hardly the case, though. In fact, many of his decisions were unethical and hardly anyone approved of them. This disillusioned the man and in that, I think he realized exactly how far gone our government is and for that reason, I think the man was happy Reagan beat him.

So the short answer to a question that has no legitimate answer short of talking to Carter is he wanted to change from within. Change the direction of our nation, the direction of the office of president and he realized quite quickly that he could do none of these things as the cheif exec.

Wry, I really posted my opinions on Carter simply because I don't realize why the man is so hated in today's society. There have been far worse presidents in the past 45 years. Why aren't those presidents ridiculed and why aren't myths developed around those other poor presidents?
Here's a list of some of the worst presidents in the last 45 years.
Bill Clinton
Bush I and II
Ronald Reagan
Jimmy Carter
Gerald Ford
Richard Nixon
LBJ
Kennedy
Eisenhower
Truman
FDR
Yep, all of our past presidents in 45 years have been pretty bad and quite ineffective while in office. Ike and Reagan being a little more effective in working with Congress but they have their shortcomings just like everyone on the list.

So all presidents since the deified Franklin have stunk? Was Herbert Hoover a good one,or do we have to go back further? What about Woodrow Wilson? Taft? Cousin Roosevelt?

It is actually a pity that these people who become president attract so much attention. They were not intended to have so much power, but over the years, beginning with the frankly unconstititional actions by the Abraham the Great, so called savior of the Union, the course has been steady.

Plato may have forseen in general terms how these things go in Republics, and indeed we have yet to see an example in history otherwise, but I prefer to regard this sad slouch toward one form or another of tyranny as yet another proof that mankind,as a design, was an extremely poor idea. It seems we never learn, just keep going round in a circle, like a mule tied to a post, repeating errors made previously, but because we are so stupid, we think it is all something new.

Wryword Wrote:So all presidents since the deified Franklin have stunk? Was Herbert Hoover a good one,or do we have to go back further? What about Woodrow Wilson? Taft? Cousin Roosevelt?

It is actually a pity that these people who become president attract so much attention. They were not intended to have so much power, but over the years, beginning with the frankly unconstititional actions by the Abraham the Great, so called savior of the Union, the course has been steady.

Plato may have forseen in general terms how these things go in Republics, and indeed we have yet to see an example in history otherwise, but I prefer to regard this sad slouch toward one form or another of tyranny as yet another proof that mankind,as a design, was an extremely poor idea. It seems we never learn, just keep going round in a circle, like a mule tied to a post, repeating errors made previously, but because we are so stupid, we think it is all something new.

Yeah, all of the presidents of the last two centuries have stunk. Back in the nineteenth century, candidates did not actually campaign for the presidency. They basically looked for bribed votes and campaigns turned into large parties with fights, drinking and gunslinging (consider that women and minorities were disenfranchised). That said, we can't firmly declare that the people chose the president.

In the 20th century, most U.S. presidents represented their respective Parties and not the American people. Campaigns have become less brutal but still, very little substance is discussed. Once in office the chief exec. throws bones and worries about their legacy. What I'm saying maybe cynical but I believe our government is broken. Our elected officials do not represent the people and I could make a very long and complex argument that our government has never represented the people.

Lincoln was a good president in my opinion for two very important reasons (although he was not elected by the people).
1. He unwavered in his desire to keep the Union together.
2. He was a shrewd politician.

If you have problems with the Union president during the Civil War, then you would likely disapprove of his confederate counterpart as well. Before Lincoln violated the U.S. constitution, Jeff Davis violated both the U.S. and C.S. constitutions.

Since Plato's time, there have only been aesthetic changes in the way mankind interacts with one another.