Certainly my heart and prayers go out to Jimmy Carter in his fight with cancer. There at least seems to be some hope from new drugs developed in the last four years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/health/new-methods-for-cancer-may-benefit-jimmy-carters-fight.html
Carter is certainly inspiring in the way he's handled it. In the demeanor and tone of his recent public statement you'd never know these are the words and smile of a man who may be dying.
No one can any longer deny that he is a very fine man-he told us that he's planning to teach Sunday school this week and he seems more concerned about doing more good work for Habitat for Humanity than anything else even facing such a health scare.
What kind of President was he? This question hits close to home for me personally as 1980 was my first election and I was totally for President Carter I was just nine at the time.
I do remember watching the debate and the camapaign and I was never a Reagan fan to say the least. I remember Carter as a really good guy ans thoughtful too but Reagan got the better of him at every turn. It was a painful early lesson for me that nice guys at least sometimes do finish last.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8YxFc_1b_0
However, President Obama shows not always.
But as to Carter's actual administration how does he stack up to the great Reagan?
Well pretty well.
"Jimmy Carter is our most unfairly reviled president since Herbert Hoover. He doesn’t deserve the rap he’s gotten as one of our worst presidents ever."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jimmy-carter-deserves-our-thanks-not-our-scorn-2015-08-20?dist=lcountdown
Is he really so reviled today? For a number of years after his loss this was the case but my impression is his standing as increased in recent years. I don't know that he's reviled now-I believe he's pretty popular among polls of former Presidents.
Most people I think agree he's a great guy persoally. Perhaps many think 'Good man, bad President.'
"For many people (especially on the right), Carter is seen as a president whose weakness ruined the economy and whose appeasement destroyed America’s standing in the world."
"To his critics, Carter is nearly the antithesis of Ronald Reagan, who defeated him in a landslide in 1980. Reagan swaggered with the certainty that he and America were infallible, while Carter was humble, thoughtful and said he cared about people, even foreigners. He was honest to a fault (which is not to say he never told a lie)."
"None of Carter’s qualities suited him for the office of the president. He was not the strong leader we crave. But Carter’s actual accomplishments in the White House are much stronger than his reputation."
"The economy destroyed him, but for most of his presidency the economy performed relatively well, in some ways as well as it did under Reagan and nearly as well as under Bill Clinton.
(I’m not saying that Carter was responsible in any significant way for the economy while he was in the White House; no president is. But, by the same token, Carter shouldn’t be blamed for an economy that was actually pretty good for most of his presidency.)"
"Well sure. But if we can't give Carter credit for the good economy through most of his term then how does Reagan get credit for the economy under his term? I agree that most Presidents get too much credit/blame for the economy but then we're told that this is the most important factor as to whether an incumbent party and it's presidential candidate get re-elected or not. :
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=john+sides
http://www.amazon.com/Political-Polarization-American-Politics-Sides/dp/1501306278/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1440344612&sr=8-2&keywords=john+sides&pebp=1440344645140&perid=11Q0QB5RNVSGXH4GG1HB
So if this is the case does that mean that in the act of voting, voters would do no worse to just flip a coin?
"Even with a bad recession in 1980 to bring down the averages, employment rose sharply, the economy expanded at a healthy clip, personal incomes rose and federal deficits declined during Carter’s four years in office."
"Of the presidents who’ve served in the past 40 years, only Clinton’s presidency saw faster job growth than Carter’s, and only Clinton had lower federal deficits."
"Carter also took the first steps in deregulating the economy — such as the trucking, airlines, energy and banking industries — and was the first to propose that the United States ought to have an energy policy that would include strong conservation efforts and renewable energy sources."
So two things about Reagan's question in 1980 that were seen as being so damning to Carter: Are you better off now than you were before?
1. The objective answer was yes. But of course, voters don't judge things objectively.
2. The whole question is wrong and misleading assuming as economists do that the President has minimal impact on the economy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/health/new-methods-for-cancer-may-benefit-jimmy-carters-fight.html
Carter is certainly inspiring in the way he's handled it. In the demeanor and tone of his recent public statement you'd never know these are the words and smile of a man who may be dying.
No one can any longer deny that he is a very fine man-he told us that he's planning to teach Sunday school this week and he seems more concerned about doing more good work for Habitat for Humanity than anything else even facing such a health scare.
What kind of President was he? This question hits close to home for me personally as 1980 was my first election and I was totally for President Carter I was just nine at the time.
I do remember watching the debate and the camapaign and I was never a Reagan fan to say the least. I remember Carter as a really good guy ans thoughtful too but Reagan got the better of him at every turn. It was a painful early lesson for me that nice guys at least sometimes do finish last.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8YxFc_1b_0
However, President Obama shows not always.
But as to Carter's actual administration how does he stack up to the great Reagan?
Well pretty well.
"Jimmy Carter is our most unfairly reviled president since Herbert Hoover. He doesn’t deserve the rap he’s gotten as one of our worst presidents ever."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jimmy-carter-deserves-our-thanks-not-our-scorn-2015-08-20?dist=lcountdown
Is he really so reviled today? For a number of years after his loss this was the case but my impression is his standing as increased in recent years. I don't know that he's reviled now-I believe he's pretty popular among polls of former Presidents.
Most people I think agree he's a great guy persoally. Perhaps many think 'Good man, bad President.'
"For many people (especially on the right), Carter is seen as a president whose weakness ruined the economy and whose appeasement destroyed America’s standing in the world."
"To his critics, Carter is nearly the antithesis of Ronald Reagan, who defeated him in a landslide in 1980. Reagan swaggered with the certainty that he and America were infallible, while Carter was humble, thoughtful and said he cared about people, even foreigners. He was honest to a fault (which is not to say he never told a lie)."
"None of Carter’s qualities suited him for the office of the president. He was not the strong leader we crave. But Carter’s actual accomplishments in the White House are much stronger than his reputation."
"The economy destroyed him, but for most of his presidency the economy performed relatively well, in some ways as well as it did under Reagan and nearly as well as under Bill Clinton.
(I’m not saying that Carter was responsible in any significant way for the economy while he was in the White House; no president is. But, by the same token, Carter shouldn’t be blamed for an economy that was actually pretty good for most of his presidency.)"
"Well sure. But if we can't give Carter credit for the good economy through most of his term then how does Reagan get credit for the economy under his term? I agree that most Presidents get too much credit/blame for the economy but then we're told that this is the most important factor as to whether an incumbent party and it's presidential candidate get re-elected or not. :
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=john+sides
http://www.amazon.com/Political-Polarization-American-Politics-Sides/dp/1501306278/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1440344612&sr=8-2&keywords=john+sides&pebp=1440344645140&perid=11Q0QB5RNVSGXH4GG1HB
So if this is the case does that mean that in the act of voting, voters would do no worse to just flip a coin?
"Even with a bad recession in 1980 to bring down the averages, employment rose sharply, the economy expanded at a healthy clip, personal incomes rose and federal deficits declined during Carter’s four years in office."
"Of the presidents who’ve served in the past 40 years, only Clinton’s presidency saw faster job growth than Carter’s, and only Clinton had lower federal deficits."
"Carter also took the first steps in deregulating the economy — such as the trucking, airlines, energy and banking industries — and was the first to propose that the United States ought to have an energy policy that would include strong conservation efforts and renewable energy sources."
So two things about Reagan's question in 1980 that were seen as being so damning to Carter: Are you better off now than you were before?
1. The objective answer was yes. But of course, voters don't judge things objectively.
2. The whole question is wrong and misleading assuming as economists do that the President has minimal impact on the economy.
Agreed, the Carter economy was not so bad, except for some 'scary inflation' (which does not really matter, as the evidence shows money is neutral), compared to the Reagan economy. In fact, in the 1970s, except for inflation volatility, real GDP was actually slight higher than in the 1980s and 90s (see: http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/902/fiduc.htm)
ReplyDeleteOf course I'm not suggesting Carter was responsible for real GDP, but just pointing out he's not as bad as people thought. As for Reagan, he was a populist, i.e., "borrow and spend" (Republican Santa Claus) vs "Tax and spend" (Democrat Santa Claus).
And note this:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/the-new-republican-tax-policy/?_r=0
By the time Reagan left office the spending/G.D.P. ratio was about the same as it was in Jimmy Carter’s last year: 21.7 percent in 1980 vs. 21.3 percent in 1988.
In short, same as it ever was (politics enjoys a sort of 'money neutrality' in that it doesn't matter, we votes still get the shaft).
So basically Reagan ran under almost entirely false pretenses. The Carter economy wasn't that bad, the Reagan economy wasn't that good and in any case the President is giving way too much credit/ blame for it.
ReplyDeleteBut if it's true that
1. Presidential elections are all about the economy
2. The President has little effect on the economy then it follows that:
3. Voters may as well flip a coin.