Dead Pool 2024

[Josquius]

With all the stuff about carter lately - best president in 60 years who merely drew a bad lot?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I just learned Colin Renfrew died.

Aw shucks.
Spent more than a few hours working my way through 'archaeology: theories,methods and practice' at uni.

[Josephus]

So passes histories greatest monster.

I know you're trolling but explain

It's a Simpsons reference.  When Springfield builds a statue of Jimmy Carter with the plaque reading 'Malaise Forever', the crowd erupts into a riot, with a character shouting 'He's history's greatest monster!'.

Aaaaaah....Havent watched The Simpsons since Season 5. Miss anything?

I think it ground to a halt in terms of comic value around season 10 or 12. 

That said, this is a season 4 episode, so you've been caught not knowing something that you should know.  I don't know how things work around here right now, but back in the day we'd all tee off on you mercilessly, pointing and laughing at your lack of omniscience.  We'd call it a 'Languish-a-roo'. 

 

[Maladict]

I just learned Colin Renfrew died.

Aw shucks.
Spent more than a few hours working my way through 'archaeology: theories,methods and practice' at uni.

Same. I think I still have it somewhere.

[mongers]

I just learned Colin Renfrew died.

Aw shucks.
Spent more than a few hours working my way through 'archaeology: theories,methods and practice' at uni.

Same. I think I still have it somewhere.

Yeps same here.

Also fondly remember the 'Renfrew and Barnes'* from A-level, stuck me as the first really modern text book I used, rather than making do with post-war cast-offs.


* was that the other author?
Edit:
It was Paul Bahn.

[Barrister]

RIP Mr. Carter.  Not a successful President but by all accounts a thoroughly successful human being.

Not sucessful in what way? I mean I get he will always be tarnished by Iran; and inflation, which wasn't really his fault.  But he did get Israel and Egypt together, probably one of the most successful peace treaties ever.

Iran
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
energy crisis
inflation
1980 recession
pretty much no legislative successes of note

Israel-Egypt - first of all you have to give a lot of credit to the parties who actually made peace - in particular Sadat.  And it's been the coldest peace you're probably going to find since then.

Carter should get credit for the Panama Canal treaty - but even there he kicked the can down the road 20 years.

Even just judging by electoral success - he faced a significant primary challenge from Ted Kennedy, and lost quite solidly to Reagan.

Obviously the USA didn't collapse into a giant pit never to be seen again during his presidency, and you can definitely find worse Presidents.  But I think "not successful" is a fair assessment.

Plus I did come to praise Carter, not bury him.  By every single account he was a thoroughly decent man.

[Sheilbh]

Iran
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
energy crisis
inflation
1980 recession
pretty much no legislative successes of note

Israel-Egypt - first of all you have to give a lot of credit to the parties who actually made peace - in particular Sadat.  And it's been the coldest peace you're probably going to find since then.

Carter should get credit for the Panama Canal treaty - but even there he kicked the can down the road 20 years.

I basically agree.

The one other success I'd add which I think Americans underestimate is his centring of human rights. I think building on the Helsinki Accords and the shift from detente to a more confrontational position (as someone who prefers Zbig to Kissinger ), I think was really important for Eastern European dissidents. The Helsinki Watch groups, Charter 77 and Vaclav Havel as well as other groups throughout the Eastern Bloc, I think Carter is actually really important in giving those groups a framework and almost manifesto with which to attack the Soviets after the more pragmatic early 70s.

The thing that's striking, as with his economic and defence policies, is the extent to which what becomes Reaganism is already starting under Carter. There's a similar process with Callaghan and Thatcher in the UK. I think Thatcher and Reagan perhaps go further and make a stronger rhetorical argument, but on substance I think there is less difference than we imagine for all that it's seen as a stark break.

Even just judging by electoral success - he faced a significant primary challenge from Ted Kennedy, and lost quite solidly to Reagan.

I think the electoral success is the most interesting and the perception of his politics.

From my understanding in the context of the Democratic Party of the 70s he was seen as a candidate on the right. He ran populist campaigns in Georgia which, from my understanding, appealed to segregationists. I think the common story is that the policies were different than the campaign in Georgia which I understand is right, but that campaigning style didn't entirely go away, even in 1976 there were pieces about him appealing to the George Wallace vote. It was the New South but still with shadings of the Old South.

Add to that his record in the White House with the Volcker shock, the starts of deregulation and military reforms and I think it's interesting how much his post-Presidency has shaped perceptions of him. I think now looking back people see him as a figure on the left of the Democrats which wasn't true at the time and I'm not sure was ever - and I think the Carter to Clinton story and model is really interesting and striking. Again perhaps especially because you have a man deeply motivated by religious belief and profoundly moral and Bill Clinton.

Obviously the USA didn't collapse into a giant pit never to be seen again during his presidency, and you can definitely find worse Presidents.  But I think "not successful" is a fair assessment.

Yeah I agree. I think "not successful" is about right. Not even the worst post-war, but not good and certainly not successful on his own terms.

[Barrister]

The one other success I'd add which I think Americans underestimate is his centring of human rights. I think building on the Helsinki Accords and the shift from detente to a more confrontational position (as someone who prefers Zbig to Kissinger ), I think was really important for Eastern European dissidents. The Helsinki Watch groups, Charter 77 and Vaclav Havel as well as other groups throughout the Eastern Bloc, I think Carter is actually really important in giving those groups a framework and almost manifesto with which to attack the Soviets after the more pragmatic early 70s.

The thing that's striking, as with his economic and defence policies, is the extent to which what becomes Reaganism is already starting under Carter. There's a similar process with Callaghan and Thatcher in the UK. I think Thatcher and Reagan perhaps go further and make a stronger rhetorical argument, but on substance I think there is less difference than we imagine for all that it's seen as a stark break.

As I understand it (because while I'm old, Carter's Presidency is not something I have any meaningful memory of), Carter came in wanting to continue with detente and rapprochement with the USSR, but ongoing Soviet intransigence (maybe from a feeling by the Soviets that Carter was a lightweight) meant he pivoted halfway through to a harder line and more defence spending, which of course was continued by Reagan.

So much like, say, the 2006 surge, you should give a President credit for knowing that what he was doing wasn't working and changing directions, but still gets the blame for the earlier bad decisions.

Even just judging by electoral success - he faced a significant primary challenge from Ted Kennedy, and lost quite solidly to Reagan.

I think the electoral success is the most interesting and the perception of his politics.

From my understanding in the context of the Democratic Party of the 70s he was seen as a candidate on the right. He ran populist campaigns in Georgia which, from my understanding, appealed to segregationists. I think the common story is that the policies were different than the campaign in Georgia which I understand is right, but that campaigning style didn't entirely go away, even in 1976 there were pieces about him appealing to the George Wallace vote. It was the New South but still with shadings of the Old South.

Add to that his record in the White House with the Volcker shock, the starts of deregulation and military reforms and I think it's interesting how much his post-Presidency has shaped perceptions of him. I think now looking back people see him as a figure on the left of the Democrats which wasn't true at the time and I'm not sure was ever - and I think the Carter to Clinton story and model is really interesting and striking. Again perhaps especially because you have a man deeply motivated by religious belief and profoundly moral and Bill Clinton.
[/quote]

Interesting.  I hadn't heard that - of Carter running more as "of the Democratic right" in 1976.  I knew his was a seemingly unlikely Presidential bid at first, but was in an era where the Primaries were spread out, election campaigns cost less, and you could build on earlier successes to take an unlikely bid all the way to success.