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.

The dinner party is never the same when the crazy old uncle who has been asked to stay in his room in the basement suddenly emerges and starts breaking the family china and chasing the teenage girls around the house. When the guests have left, the unavoidable question is: who let Uncle Jimmy out?

I've been thinking about this question in connection with former president Jimmy Carter's recent visit with the Islamic radical group Hamas. Condoleeza Rice says that the U.S. State department made it clear to Carter that Hamas is a terrorist group. U.S. policy is not to talk to terrorists. Carter says he got no clear message, since his telegram was not composed in all capital letters. And so Uncle Jimmy put on his best Sunday suit and decided to pay his Muslim friends a visit.

Actually, I don't agree with America's policy of "not talking" to these groups. Hamas won a free election in Gaza. If you want to address the issue of a Palestinian state, it's hard to exclude Hamas from the equation. Carter, however, is hardly the guy you want doing the negotiating. He hasn't been in office for a quarter of a century. He has no authority to speak for America. This tourism was entirely Uncle Jimmy's idea.

Carter says he was on a "fact finding" mission. And he did indeed return from the Middle East having learned some important new facts. 1) Hamas is made up of Muslims. 2) Hamas kills people. 3) Hamas doesn't like the state of Israel. I recall Carter's memoir written after his presidency which was full of similar great discoveries. Carter recalled the early days of his presidency when he got to do all kinds of exciting things: "Today I got to ride in my own White House airplane!" "Yippee! On Friday I get to meet Anwar Sadat!"

We all want to be nice to old Uncle Jimmy, given that he's in the sunset of his years and his judgment isn't so good. But then his judgment never was any good. Let's remember that it was Carter who, in the name of human rights, began in the late 1970s to withdraw American support for our ally the Shah of Iran. When the mullahs became emboldened, it was the Carter State Department that refused to sell the Shah tear gas to get these fanatics off the street. When the Shah's position weakened, it was Carter who encouraged him to abdicate. In trying to get rid of the bad guy--the Shah--America got the worse guy: Khomeini. This blunder gave radical Islam control of its first major state.

Are we going to make the same mistake again in Iraq? Yes, it's a bad situation over there, but are we going to try and solve the problem by pulling out and finding that the situation gets worse for them and for us? Carter is back at home and on his pills, but there is a new fellow running for president who sounds a lot like Jimmy. He's new and untested. His slogan is "change." He wants to wipe the slate clean in Washington, to purify us from our sinful past. He sounds more than a little self-righteous. The media and his followers think he wears a halo. And yet early indications are that he is not what he seems, and his political judgment can be immature and reckless. History may be repeating itself.

We had President Jimmy Carter on The Young Turks this morning. He said that this Bush administration is far more radical than anything Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush ever did. So, I asked him if he would rather re-do his 1980 loss to Ronald Reagan or the 2000 election where George Bush beat Al Gore.

His answer is right here:




Cenk Uygur: If you had to redo the 1980 election, where Ronald Reagan won, of course up against you, or redo the 2000 election where George Bush defeated Al Gore, which one would you redo?

President Carter: Well knowing what I know now, and knowing the wonderful experiences I've had at the Carter Center in the last 25 years, I would say I would redo the 2000 election. That, you know, I think has had a profoundly adverse effect on our country, and I've had a personal gratifying experience with my wife and many other people at the Carter Center. That in time, that has healed the disappointment that we felt in not getting elected in 1980.


You can watch the whole interview here.

President Carter is right. This is not about being a Republican or a Democrat. This is a truly radical administration that has gone far beyond anything we've seen in this country. It is amazing and profoundly disappointing that the press, and apparently the opposition party, can't see this as clear as the American people (that's why Bush is the most consistently unpopular president of all time) and those outside DC.

Watch More Young Turks Clips Here

Bill Maher wrapped up the season of Real Time with this New Rule for Jimmy Carter.

I have nothing to add on this topic but I like this title for a soap opera about the two presidents. (Previous posts on the topic here and here.

Mo deserves credit for acknowledging that President Bush and his staff handled Jimmy Carter's attack well. He also deserves credit for risking the wrath of his fellow Manhattanites by criticizing the Carter administration. However, I'm surprised to learn that there is any place in American where Carter's presidency is viewed as other than a failure. As Dinesh notes, even Katrina vanden Heuvel is not eager to defend the Carter administration. And in ultra-liberal Bethesda, Maryland where I live (and where I understand Mo once did) it's enough to say that Carter is our greatest ex-president. Unfortunately, I can't say even that, since I consider him one of the worst.

I kind of enjoy living where liberal orthodoxy prevails. Casual friends and acquaintances just assume I'm a liberal Democrat. For example, when I told someone in 2004 that my wife was about to become a U.S. citizen, that person (a Kerry supporter) said to me "I trust she'll vote the right way." I responded that I certainly hoped she would.

As this exchange shows, I'm happy, in a social setting, to let liberals assume I'm one of them. Only if asked a direct question do I offer my opinion, and only if pressed hard do I defend it. I don't go to parties to argue about politics; that's what blogs are for.

Sometimes, though, I'll attempt irony. Early in the Bush presidency, a very smart acquaintance was spinning a theory under which some not terribly controversial administration policy turned out to be an elaborate subterfuge to help the rich. I deadpanned that this sounded like the work of an evil genius. The speaker quickly tried to process where this remark was coming from. Concluding that I was just dumb, not adversarial, he said "well, I wouldn't use the word genius."

I find, by the way, that it's usually the nicest people who jump to the conclusion that I'm a liberal. This makes sense if you think about it. Nice people tend to assume the best about others. To an ardent liberal, "the best" means opposing the guy in the White House who is doing all those evil things.

All right, all right. Paul Mirengoff points out that Bush did not cast aspersion on the Carter presidency. (The White House statement that Carter is "irrelevant" was the proper, really the only, response to Carter's attack.)

I do think that the two men occupy the two bottom slots among our post-WWII presidents. With respect to Bush, his intentions in invading Iraq may have been good. They were certainly visionary. But the war was a mistake. A colossal mistake. And the Commander-in-Chief bears responsibility for prosecuting a war of choice that falls catastrophically short of its goals.

In any case, Paul, give me credit. I live in Manhattan and work in entertainment. Carter is a sacred cow among my people. Do you know how much crap I'll get for trashing him?

In his post below, Mo Rocca weighs in on what he takes to be a "spat" between President Bush and former President Carter about their comparative merit as president. Mo writes this piece in his characteristically humerous manner, but I assume he's at least semi-serious.

Unfortunately, the premise of the piece appears to be erroneous. Mo claims that Bush and Carter are "fight[ing] publicly over who deserves the coveted second-to-worst-president title." He finds this "very un-Christian."

In truth, while Carter has called Bush our worst president, Bush has not responded by disrespecting Carter to my knowledge (and I double-checked with news hound Coates Bateman, the proprietor of this space, so it must be true).

Carter and Bush both are acting in character. Carter is a bitter hatchet man who seldom can muster a good word about anyone with whom he disagrees. Bush, while an aggressive campaigner, rarely has a bad word to say about any American otherwise, much less a former president. For example, Bush has been extremely gracious to Bill Clinton.

Mo is also wrong in his assessment of the Bush presidency. I'll get to that in my next post.

UPDATE: This is what President Bush said about Carter's comment during his news conference: "I get criticized a lot from different quarters, and that's just what happens when you're president. And I will continue to make decisions that I think are necessary to protect the American people from harm." According to the Washington Post, Bush made no mention of Carter's name, and certainly cast no aspersions on Carter's presidency. The Post described Bush's response as "turn[ing] the other cheek." That sounds pretty Christain to me.

Choosing the worst between two awful alternatives is not easy.

Deciding between Bush and Carter is like asking ...

What's worse: Diarrhea or Vomiting? Measles or Mumps? Eczema or Psoriasis?

Of course there are other non-health related comparisons of crappy things that help illuminate the complexity of the Bush-Carter "Who's the Worst President?" debate. Watch below, then read my message to both presidents.

Yesterday was a spa day for me, so I didn't have a chance to weigh in on the Carter-Bush "Who's the Worst President Ever?" spat. Here's what I'd like to say to them:

Gentlemen, I'm aghast. It's beneath you both to fight so publicly over who deserves the coveted second-to-worst-president title. And very un-Christian, I might add. Remember: Pride goeth before a fall. And historians will punish the more arrogant of you with a ranking at the very bottom. (Warren Harding must be pleased as punch, doing a little dance in his Marion, Ohio mausoleum: "I'm the third-to-worst! Movin' on up! Yippeee!")

There are differences, of course, in the terrible jobs you did (and continue to do) as Commander-in-Chief. In essence:

President Carter, you let terrible things happen. You came to Washington as a smug preacher, elected to clean up Washington post-Watergate, and never let up on the act. Your fellow Democrats on the Hill, Speaker Tip O'Neill chief among them, couldn't stand you and your unwillingness to compromise. (Politics is about compromise!) You in your cardigan sweater, priggishly checking the White House tennis court sign-in sheets, always interested in appearing righteous, rather than actually acting, doing. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan what did you do? You ordered a boycott of the Moscow Olympics! That showed them! No wonder we couldn't recover the American hostages held in Iran on your watch. The image of you in a fishing boat in Plains, Georgia, swatting at a "killer rabbit" with your oar, sums up your ineffectiveness.

Now wipe that smirk off your face, President Bush. You're not off the hook - not by a long shot. President Carter let bad things happen. You've actually made bad things happen. You must know the spiritual "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands." If you're God's instrument, as you seem to believe, then you'll agree that the American people put the whole world in your hands, if only for these two presidential terms. Well guess what? You dropped it. You got elected, took the world in your two hands, and with the invasion of Iraq, dropped it. (If I were uncharitable, I'd say you spiked it. I don't believe that's the case. I don't think you intended to break the world.) Unlike President Carter, you've been proactive. I'll give you that. It's just that you've made terrible decisions. Maybe history's not on America's side. Maybe we were destined to recede in importance on the world stage. But you've accelerated the process

Right now, President Bush, you are the worst. But be careful, President Carter. You are so smug that we might be tempted to strip you of your second-to-worst-president-in-history title. Now behave!