Is it 1976 all over again? Is Obama the new Jimmy Carter?
I get this idea from, of all people, Democratic strategist Bob Beckel. Beckel was on TV the other day saying that Obama was looking a bit like Jimmy Carter in 1976. Beckel intended this as a compliment. After all, Carter came out of nowhere to steal the Democratic nomination and then went on to win the election. Obama too has vanquished a woman who was thought to be invincible for the Democratic nomination.
I think Beckel has a point with his Carter analogy, although Beckel does not seem to have thought it through deeply enough. Actually it goes even further than he imagines. Obama, like Carter, has had no preparation for the high office he seeks. Carter's background was in peanut farming; Obama's is in community activism. Yes, Carter was governor of Georgia and Obama has served briefly in the Senate. But no one can seriously argue that either brings to Washington anything like the experience necessary to run the United States of America.
Second, Obama, like Carter, tries to be all things to all people. Carter campaigned largely on vacuities like "change" and "cleaning out Washington." Sound familiar? Of course Americans after Watergate wanted Washington cleaned up and they wanted change. And of course Carter gave it to them, although it wasn't exactly the change they sought: stagflation, economic recession, runaway interest rates, U.S. hostages in Iran, a Soviet bear on the prowl, and what Carter himself called a national "malaise."
Obama is hoping that once again Americans will fall for his content-free campaign. And so far he seems to have the white liberal intelligentsia completely fooled. A classic example is my former debate opponent Alan Wolfe, who has endorsed Obama on the sole grounds that it's about time America let a black man into the Oval Office. Wolfe is not the brightest light in the academic firmament--I think of him as white America's answer to Cornel West--but he is one of the biggest opportunists this side of the Nile. Consequently his support of Obama shows which way this academic weatherman thinks the wind is blowing.
I don't know if Obama, like Carter, will make it to the White House in November. But the best thing about Carter was that, by being a complete disaster, he helped Reagan get elected in 1980. Even so, America paid a high price for Carter's foolishness--several countries fell into the Soviet orbit, and Iran fell into the clutches of the radical mullahs. Who knows how costly an Obama presidency could be? I for one hope it's not 1976 all over again.
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 25)
46. Glad to see you got your GOP talking point for the month: compare Obama to Carter. All the GOP pols are saying it, including McCain, which is a sure sign the suggestion has no merit. Just to be fair, now ask your readers if McCain is the New George W. Bush. Remind them that McCain eagerly accepted Bush's endorsement, has allowed himself to be seen at campaign stops with Bush, and has taken on the Bush causes like continuing Bush's unwinnable war of choice in Iraq, placating the oil lobby in Washington, and supporting tax benefits for the rich at the expense of the middle class. This guy has Bush inscribed on his forehead! On the other side of the coin, Obama hasn't spent much if any time with Carter, has never touted Carter proposals, and until the GOP stumbled on it as a campaign tactic, has never even been associated with Carter. For someone who thinks he's so smart, your logic on this one is paper thin.
Ugotta B. Kiddingme at 12:53PM on Jun 18th 2008
47. 40. I can't wait for the debates when people will see McBush for the out of touch old fool he is. It's going to be fun.
Larry at 12:43PM on Jun 18th 2008
-----------------------------------------
Me either! It will be hysterical!
Hey, New Polling Data! Obama's 4 points ahead in frikking FLORIDA!!! Nobody expected that!
Godless Heathen Brian at 12:50PM on Jun 18th 2008
48. reply to: 38
Good post Janesophie. An excellent book on the subject was written by Hernando DeSoto called: The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West but fails everywhere else. Corruption and war is an issue, but property rights and legally enforcable contracts have far more to do with it. The problem with Iraq or any other developing nation lies primarily in their conception of capital and the necessary requirements needed to tap into that capitial.
Monty at 12:50PM on Jun 18th 2008
49. With regard to Obama--and Democrats in general--I see the words 'Communist' and 'Socialist' bandied about way too freely--and innaccurately.
First of all, we must realize that in this day and age, those words are not reflective of McCarthy-era realities because none of us are so naive. Rather, these words are kept in circulation by the rich to keep us afraid of actively pursuing a real solution to the problems of our economy. I'm taking about economic parity. IF America is about equality, then we must all prosper at the same rate. What has happened over the last several years is that we've been sold a bad bill of goods. One that says that, for some reason, the rich are simply 'entitled' to get richer and the working class should have to get by on less. If you refuse to accept this, they call you a Communist. Let me remind you of how things have changed:
1) Thirty years ago, the average CEO made 10 times what the average employee of a given corporation made. Today, they make 400 times the average employee's salary. What happened in thirty years that increased the value of the CEO at a rate 40 times faster than the employee?
2) When I was 4 (1970), my father was a second year, Jersey City Police Officer at a time when police officers made 18K a year. He was from a poor family and had just gotton out of the Army so, you know he had no money. My mother didn't work (most housewives didn't back then) and she was preganant with my brother. What did my dad do? Bought a two-family house! Today, police officers make three times what he did and that same scenario couldn't play out!! Was my father a Communist?? He made much less but his dollar went so much farther. The gap between the rich and the working class wasn't the chasm that it is today. Today, a working class man can work himself to DEATH and have NOTHING to show for it. Is THAT the equality envisioned by our forefathers? We are not 'Communists' because we want a level playing field. We don't want the State to take care of us but we do want and deserve the same chance at securing our future that is enjoyed by the rich.
The way to accomplish this is by adopting the following economic reforms:
1) Our money has be based on something. I beleive the best thing to base our money on is what we have an ever-increasing supply of: Labor. By basing the value of money on a 'labor standard', business and Government become locked in a symbiotic relationship as it becomes in business' best interests that to create jobs which will then increase the value of the dollar. In turn, with each dollar having more buying power, companies will be able to pay less of these dollars to attract and retain the quantity and caliber of employees needed to be competitive. Government, will be compelled to increase the value of the American workforce by lowering the cost of higher education so that it is accessible to the working class.
2a) Economic parity: Begins with where our money comes from. Sincer Corporate America is unable or unwilling to police itself to treat the working class fairly, we must pass legislation that demands that executive salaries cannot be increased at a faster rate than non-executive salaries. (i.e., if 30 years from now, the CEO is making 40 times what he does today, so will the employees.
2b) Has to do with what we do with our money once we get it. Banks. What is it about Corporate America's dollar that makes it 800 times more valuable than ours? On top of the disparity in interest rates, they get to charge fees, penalties, etc. that are not given to us when they 'borrow' our money to invest. In an equitable society, the rate of interest charged by banks when borrow money should be no more than twice what they pay us when they 'borrow' ours. That way, people will have more incentive to keep a larger percentage of their money in banks which increases the amount of cash banks have on hand to invest.
3)Why should the working class man invest when he is virtually guaranteed of losing his money? The way the system is now, I can give you better odds in Vegas!! To counter this, A NATIONAL PORTFOLIO should be created and paid for by our taxes. This portfolio would montior and mirror the investments made by the wealthiest entities in America and and would thus suffer the same fate. Government would tax this portfolio at 10 cents for every dollar of profit thus paying for the administration of the portfolio, increasing the holdings of the treasury and keeping our taxes LOW. In this way, if the rich are getting richer (and they always are), so will we. Our forefathers did not envision an America where only the rich could profit and we should not accept it either.
4) Because individual initiative is essential for a democracy, the rules of the game need to be changed so that the profitability of the stock market is available to everyone. To do this, Wall Street needs to start operating by Main Street standards. If I owned a business and I wanted you to invest in it, you might ask me about my company and, if I told you that I just had to lay off 25% of my employees, would you want to invest? Would you not see that such a layoff means less productivity, reflects a low (and getting lower) demand for the product or service my company produces, and translates into a lower market share? Hence, the value of my company would be diminished in your eyes--and that makes sense. But, when publically traded companies lay-off, their stock price goes up? We need the same rules of common sense on both streets. Otherwise, what we are really saying about the stock market is that the 'profits' of Wall Street and rich investors are entirely dependent upon the bad investments of the working class. That is not profit--that is Pyramiding!!!
Anyone wishing to comment back to me may do so at skrr123@aol.com
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 1:50AM on Sep 3rd 2008
50. Funny you mentioned how the best thing to come from Carter's presidency was the election of Reagan.
So.....if Obama is so bad and useless...why is he almost the president? and why was this the year we almost elected a female president?
Because your hero, you dope, your hero, bush, is so bad, his administration so harmful, treasonous and criminal in its actions and neglect of people and the constitution and the very country; that our social timetable has been moved up about a decade or two. Yes, thank your treasonous hero for the choices we have, double dope. Oh, and using the logic that is used against Obama, linking him with others' actions and views, merely by association...bush being treasonous makes you treasonous as well. How do you like that, you illogical, ill-informed, pseudo-intellectual?
America's Most Gangsta at 1:00PM on Jun 18th 2008
51. The debates will be like a black JFK versus the old guy on the muppets show...
Godless Heathen Brian at 12:56PM on Jun 18th 2008
52. By the way, Mr. Good Christian Man, d'dopa, how do you feel about your president dancing and cracking jokes at his numerous dinners, and just generally having a good time...while we are at war (and a senseless disastrous one at that)?
I find that extremely offensive, and lacking in character and morals. To a fault, Carter was so affected by our held hostages that he couldn't bear to leave the white house. Not that Carter was so good, but a little humility, feeling, and credibility from this president that you worship would be refreshing. He displays NONE!
America's Most Gangsta at 1:01PM on Jun 18th 2008
53. Hey, New Polling Data! Obama's 4 points ahead in frikking FLORIDA!!! Nobody expected that!
Godless Heathen Brian at 12:50PM on Jun 18th 2008
You certainly bring good tidings today.
Jerry Brown at 1:01PM on Jun 18th 2008
54. Amen, Keith!
Now, if only Obama has people as cogent as you- or for that matter you yourself in his Econ circle, then we can finally get ahead, or at least, get back to where we should be.
P.S. Are you angling for a job? You should!
Robert at 1:07PM on Jun 18th 2008
55. Is Dinesh D'Souza the new Al Jolson?
not-pboyfloyd at 1:11PM on Jun 18th 2008
56. As if- at least Jolson could sing...
Robert at 1:17PM on Jun 18th 2008
57. Is it not ironic that the economy bounced back in no time after Jimmy left office, which indicates that with Jimmy in office the economy was fundamentally sound, which made Reagan look like a brilliant economist, Reagan was not brilliant anything. Lets look at the situation now: how long before the housing crisis ends, how do we pay down the national debt, when will the price of fuel stabalize (we know its never going down? This nation's fundmanentals are broken and will be for years to come, thanks to people like Dinesh who support Bush.
Robb at 1:24PM on Jun 18th 2008
58. Carter on Fraudbama's best day. At least Carter was a governor and lead a state. this media created fraud has led nothing and his lack of economic and foreign knowledge is staggeringly lacking, much as his speeches lately.
This fake is a disaster. By the way I have voted DEM for over 40 years. No way this time!
Budo at 1:42PM on Jun 18th 2008
59. Actually, I think Bobby Jindal is the new Max Von Sydow.
America's Most Gangsta at 1:36PM on Jun 18th 2008
60. Keith J. Mohrhoff
I would like to know more details about the money backed by labor. Maybe you could recommend good books on the subject.
I think as long as we have competition instead of co-operation in our marketplace other ideas appear as bandages. Band-aids are often better than nothing. Will money backed by labor lead to more co-operation?
Jerry Brown at 1:37PM on Jun 18th 2008