Good Article on Jimmy Carter's Presidency in TIME Magazine

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
7,175
Reaction score
4,282
Points
1,085
Location
Virginia
About two weeks ago, Time magazine published a good article on Jimmy Carter's presidency titled "Jimmy Carter Was the Most Successful Conservative President of the Last Five Decades." It focuses on Carter's domestic policies.


A few excerpts:

Carter was neither as ineffective a president as his critics allege, nor as liberal a politician as his new fans believe. Instead, the 39th president scored enormous policy successes—but observers often missed them because they didn’t grasp that Carter was one of the most substantively conservative presidents of the last half-century. In some ways, Carter actually did more to push American economic policy to the right than his Republican successors Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. Understanding this reality paints Carter’s presidency in a totally different light.

Carter’s success with airline deregulation in 1978—and Republican pickups in the midterm elections—lowered the political barriers to further deregulation. Carter pounced on the opportunity and went far beyond what liberals found tolerable. The administration worked to free scores of industries, from energy to trucking to rail, in subtle, yet significant ways. For example, after passage of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980—which allowed trucking companies to choose their own routes—500,000 new truckers flooded the market. The new efficiencies and additional competition ultimately reduced carriage costs by a third, benefiting every category of good produced or sold in America.

Yet, perhaps the most underrated front in Carter’s war on regulation reshaped broadcasting, politics, and entertainment. Charles Ferris, Carter’s Federal Communications Commission Chair, was a zealous deregulator, who called the FCC’s thicket of regulations “ossified” and a “dead shell.” He repealed regulations that had stunted cable television’s growth, and acquiesced to the courts limiting FCC oversight. As a result, cable grew rapidly; by the mid-1980s, the share of households with cable subscriptions had tripled to nearly 60 percent.

Yet, Carter’s conservative victories compare favorably to the accomplishments of his Republican successors. Reagan decreased the power of unionized air traffic controllers; but Carter deregulated the entire airline industry with profound results. Americans today fly four times as many miles at less than half the cost per mile as they did when Carter was president, while as many Americans now fly each year (an average of 49% from 2015-2019) as the percentage in 1971 who had ever flown before.

During Trump’s presidency, the federal debt to GDP ratio broke the record previously set during World War II, whereas Carter reduced that ratio to its lowest point since the beginning of the New Deal.


The whole article is worth reading.

I've long been a Carter fan mainly because he was an honorable, decent man. In addition, he pursued many conservative domestic policies and was more fiscally conservative than Reagan, Bush, or Trump. I acknowledge that many of Carter's foreign policy moves were regrettable and misguided, sometimes fatally so. However, we should remember that he did increase defense spending and became rather hawkish after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
 
Thankyou! Great article. I and my entire large extended family was all for Jimmy Carter we need more democrats in the Party like him.:)
 
About two weeks ago, Time magazine published a good article on Jimmy Carter's presidency titled "Jimmy Carter Was the Most Successful Conservative President of the Last Five Decades." It focuses on Carter's domestic policies.


A few excerpts:

Carter was neither as ineffective a president as his critics allege, nor as liberal a politician as his new fans believe. Instead, the 39th president scored enormous policy successes—but observers often missed them because they didn’t grasp that Carter was one of the most substantively conservative presidents of the last half-century. In some ways, Carter actually did more to push American economic policy to the right than his Republican successors Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. Understanding this reality paints Carter’s presidency in a totally different light.

Carter’s success with airline deregulation in 1978—and Republican pickups in the midterm elections—lowered the political barriers to further deregulation. Carter pounced on the opportunity and went far beyond what liberals found tolerable. The administration worked to free scores of industries, from energy to trucking to rail, in subtle, yet significant ways. For example, after passage of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980—which allowed trucking companies to choose their own routes—500,000 new truckers flooded the market. The new efficiencies and additional competition ultimately reduced carriage costs by a third, benefiting every category of good produced or sold in America.

Yet, perhaps the most underrated front in Carter’s war on regulation reshaped broadcasting, politics, and entertainment. Charles Ferris, Carter’s Federal Communications Commission Chair, was a zealous deregulator, who called the FCC’s thicket of regulations “ossified” and a “dead shell.” He repealed regulations that had stunted cable television’s growth, and acquiesced to the courts limiting FCC oversight. As a result, cable grew rapidly; by the mid-1980s, the share of households with cable subscriptions had tripled to nearly 60 percent.

Yet, Carter’s conservative victories compare favorably to the accomplishments of his Republican successors. Reagan decreased the power of unionized air traffic controllers; but Carter deregulated the entire airline industry with profound results. Americans today fly four times as many miles at less than half the cost per mile as they did when Carter was president, while as many Americans now fly each year (an average of 49% from 2015-2019) as the percentage in 1971 who had ever flown before.

During Trump’s presidency, the federal debt to GDP ratio broke the record previously set during World War II, whereas Carter reduced that ratio to its lowest point since the beginning of the New Deal.


The whole article is worth reading.

I've long been a Carter fan mainly because he was an honorable, decent man. In addition, he pursued many conservative domestic policies and was more fiscally conservative than Reagan, Bush, or Trump. I acknowledge that many of Carter's foreign policy moves were regrettable and misguided, sometimes fatally so. However, we should remember that he did increase defense spending and became rather hawkish after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
Probably his biggest accomplishment that gets completely ignored is that he incentivized non-traditional energy sources be that solar or fracking. He reignited the pilot light under fracking in particular that has made us less dependent on foreign oil should such become necessary.
 
Thankyou! Great article. I and my entire large extended family was all for Jimmy Carter we need more democrats in the Party like him.:)
That's not going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future. Sadly, the woke left has a firm grip on the party.
 
Iran released the hostages when Reagan was elected. That's all you need to know about the weak administration of the Peanut Man.
The hostages' release had already been essentially arranged via the Algiers Accords--under Jimmy Carter. The mullahs just decided to delay the release until just after Reagan took office, in order to snub Carter.

We should also remember that Jimmy Carter oversaw the development of the B-2 stealth bomber, that Carter pushed for sizable hikes in defense spending, and that his defense team laid the groundwork for several weapon systems that were fielded under Reagan. Also, it was Carter who began supplying arms to the anti-Soviet Afghani rebels after the Soviet invasion.
 
The hostages' release had already been essentially arranged via the Algiers Accords--under Jimmy Carter. The mullahs just decided to delay the release until just after Reagan took office, in order to snub Carter.

We should also remember that Jimmy Carter oversaw the development of the B-2 stealth bomber, that Carter pushed for sizable hikes in defense spending, and that his defense team laid the groundwork for several weapon systems that were fielded under Reagan. Also, it was Carter who began supplying arms to the anti-Soviet Afghani rebels after the Soviet invasion.
Why in the world would the Mullahs want to snub Carter? That's typical media B.S.. Iran was used to dealing with a weak president (the freaking guy gave away the Panama Canal) and like every bully the Iran jihad was afraid of a strong leader.
 
Thankyou! Great article. I and my entire large extended family was all for Jimmy Carter we need more democrats in the Party like him.:)

One term failures? Yes, you do.
 
Like Bush senior? Carter was sabotaged with in his own party as with D.C. insiders in both parties and the press.
 
During the Vietnam War, Carter spoke out against violent anti-war protests. In 1971, then-Governor Carter accused anti-war groups of using the My Lai Massacre and the Lt. Calley conviction "to cheapen and shame the reputation of American servicemen." Carter proclaimed April 5, 1971, "American Fighting Men's Day" in Georgia. Anti-war leaders condemned Carter for "pandering to pro-war voters."

Yes, yes, as president, Carter pardoned Vietnam War draft dodgers, in an effort to heal wounds and move forward. I still disagree with the pardon, but I understand his motivation. In any case, his defense of the honor of our servicemen during the war should not be overlooked.
 
The hostages' release had already been essentially arranged via the Algiers Accords--under Jimmy Carter. The mullahs just decided to delay the release until just after Reagan took office, in order to snub Carter.

We should also remember that Jimmy Carter oversaw the development of the B-2 stealth bomber, that Carter pushed for sizable hikes in defense spending, and that his defense team laid the groundwork for several weapon systems that were fielded under Reagan. Also, it was Carter who began supplying arms to the anti-Soviet Afghani rebels after the Soviet invasion.

:thankusmile:
Whitehall to no surprise like most Americans,doesnt have a clue about what The October Surprise was. :rolleyes-41:
 
Why in the world would the Mullahs want to snub Carter? That's typical media B.S.. Iran was used to dealing with a weak president (the freaking guy gave away the Panama Canal) and like every bully the Iran jihad was afraid of a strong leader.
what was not near as treasonous as Reagans October surprise or Iran contra afffair.:rolleyes-41:
 
whitehall said:
Why in the world would the Mullahs want to snub Carter? That's typical media B.S.
No, it's not at all. The Iranian condemnations of Carter in response to the news of his death are a matter of public record. They did not come from our news media. Some of them came from Iran's official state TV channel.

Why would the Mullahs want to publicly snub Carter in response to the news of his death? Because Carter decimated Iran's economy with severe sanctions, including the banning of Iranian oil and the freezing of all Iranian assets held in the U.S. Those assets totaled $8 billion in 1980 dollars ($30 billion in today's dollars), which was a huge amount of money to Iran--it equaled nearly 10% of Iran's entire GDP.

Carter also tried to rescue the American hostages by force, but the attempt failed due to poor planning, bad maintenance, and bad weather. In addition, Carter publicly warned Iran that there would be "severe consequences" if the hostages were harmed, and the mullahs did not appreciate being publicly threatened.
 
Another positive/favorable fact about Jimmy Carter. He rejected the liberal view that we should feel guilty over the Vietnam War. In a March 1977 press conference, he said, "We went to Vietnam without any desire to capture territory or to impose American will on other people. We went there to defend the freedom of the South Vietnamese. I don't feel that we ought to apologize or castigate ourselves or to assume the status of culpability."

 
I feel more at home with the conservative Democratic and Republican members of the Congress than I do with the others.

Guess who said this? Jimmy Carter, in his diary, January 19, 1978 (Kai Bird, The Outlier: The Unfinished Presidency of Jimmy Carter, Crown Publishers, 2021, p. 289).
 
Like Bush senior? Carter was sabotaged with in his own party as with D.C. insiders in both parties and the press.
:thankusmile: You nailed it and took dumbass Whitehall to school.:thup:

That’s a fact dumbass Whitehall is obviously not aware of. :thup:
 
Last edited:
"Time" magazine never saw a democrat it didn't support.
And Whitehall never in his life admitted a GOOD Democrat who was not a Demonrat like jfk not part of the corrupt two party err one one party system of republicrats and demopublicans was a good president.:uhoh3:
 
Last edited:
No, it's not at all. The Iranian condemnations of Carter in response to the news of his death are a matter of public record. They did not come from our news media. Some of them came from Iran's official state TV channel.

Why would the Mullahs want to publicly snub Carter in response to the news of his death? Because Carter decimated Iran's economy with severe sanctions, including the banning of Iranian oil and the freezing of all Iranian assets held in the U.S. Those assets totaled $8 billion in 1980 dollars ($30 billion in today's dollars), which was a huge amount of money to Iran--it equaled nearly 10% of Iran's entire GDP.

Carter also tried to rescue the American hostages by force, but the attempt failed due to poor planning, bad maintenance, and bad weather. In addition, Carter publicly warned Iran that there would be "severe consequences" if the hostages were harmed, and the mullahs did not appreciate being publicly threatened.
It’s always fun watching Whitehall get his ass owned even if it’s from Mike Griffith who mixes lies with truths, :biggrin:
 
Back
Top Bottom