“His four-year tenure is said to be a mishmash of screw-ups, from high energy prices and even higher inflation to low economic growth and a very public, very embarrassing hostage rescue attempt in Iran.”
We never have more than a superficial understanding of events. Inflation was a big problem throughout the 1970s. The Fed failed to contain it several times. Oil too…
Carter actually appointed Volcker, which solved inflation.
The Iranian hostage crisis was not solved until the end of his presidency. The country was demoralized over the failed rescue attempt but some things are beyond the control of president.
I was only a teenager at the time and was excited by Reagan. However, looking back I think we often give too much credit and blame to a President.
We would be much better off if we understood events, etc at a deeper level.
This piece reminds immediately of Taft, "the first to use the Presidency to climb to the Supreme Court", or the very active political life of John Quincy Adams after his mandate.
But it is an interesting and nice perspective in general - "even more after the top", or "substantive top after the formal top". Whatever that "top" may be.
After he left office, Jimmy Carter set back the pace of nuclear arms reduction by quite a bit by telling the Soviets that Ronald Reagan was not serious about reducing them. Despite Carter's meddling, Reagan was eventually able to get a whole class of nuclear weapons abolished, and greatly reduced others.
Carter also sandbagged Clinton. Tapped to go to N Korea to see if there was a way to preserve peace and a non-nuclear Korea, Clinton found out by watching a CNN broadcast that Carter had greatly exceeded his authority and had a deal in hand that would avert war, keep the Kims in power in N Korea, pretty much ensure that N Korea got nukes, and would require the US to pay for it. Clinton was understandably furious.
Daniel DePretis, the author of the article, is from New York. His articles are published in Chicago, NY and Washington. His job is within an organization with the purpose
> to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military - used more judiciously to protect America's narrowly defined national interests - and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security
I cannot see what in the article may suggest the parent comment.
We never have more than a superficial understanding of events. Inflation was a big problem throughout the 1970s. The Fed failed to contain it several times. Oil too…
8 million jobs were created in his 4 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presi...
Carter actually appointed Volcker, which solved inflation.
The Iranian hostage crisis was not solved until the end of his presidency. The country was demoralized over the failed rescue attempt but some things are beyond the control of president.
I was only a teenager at the time and was excited by Reagan. However, looking back I think we often give too much credit and blame to a President.
We would be much better off if we understood events, etc at a deeper level.