Carter did the best job possible considering what he was facing when he took office. Studying his presidency and the late seventies and eighties in general, I've deduced that many presidents had many shortcomings, not just Jimmy Carter. Perhaps the man was just too moralistic to be an evil politician.
So many people blame Carter for the hostages, but he didn't detain them, the Iranians did and they were doing so in protest of our foreign policies regarding their country.
I think in some of Wry's and Rick's posts, I can firmly determine what they enjoy and they really like it when we kick arse. They like to see us display our military might. Why is that, y'all?
Anyway, Johnson was the worst president that I have studied and George W. Bush has succeeded him on that distinction. Carter was unfit for the presidency based on moral inventory, as I previously stated. While people like Bush (Jr.) and Clinton have absolutely no ethical fortitude, Carter had too much. Reagan had his problems, namely circumventing a federal law here and there, but hey, Nixon did the same thing. H.W. Bush was basically out of touch with the electorate, but no one seems to remember that. H.W. Bush could have taken that Iraqi oil 13 years ago, but he failed in that endeavor. No one seems truly upset about that.
It just perplexes me that so many people, conservatives and democrats alike, love to remember what a failure Carter was but they will not remember the shortcomings of other U.S. presidents. Why?
One thing here, Carter might have been a suck-arse president, but I know folks who got rich off of the skyrocketing interest rates of the late 1970s. I also know some Republicans that refer to the Carter years as a "golden age" in reference to those rates and inflation.
Lastly, like I said in an above post, we can't really blame presidents (except when they wage unnecessary wars), we must blame voters, or ourselves, for the predicaments we elect!
|