Effectual Man, Ineffectual President

The Presidential Series – Jimmy Carter, the 39^th President of the United States
                                         Democrat, 1977-81

Let us learn together and laugh together and work together and pray together, confident that in the end we will triumph together in the right.

            President Jimmy Carter, Inaugural Address, 20 January 1977

In committing to do a series on various U.S. presidents, it might seem odd and ideologically backwards (considering my blog’s orientation) to begin with the 39^th president.  However, Jimmy Carter as president from 1977 until 1981 is one of our more interesting chief executives.  He was a one-term governor of a small southern state who promised to bring a more decent and morally guided focus to the job of the presidency.  His administration is equally considered one of unprecedented diplomatic success and an abject failure.  Love him or hate him, I’ve met few who are indifferent regarding President Jimmy Carter. 

Most presidents are products of events beyond their control – Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War; Grover Cleveland and the Panic of 1893; Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression; Jimmy Carter and…well…pick one.  Upon entering office, he swore to bring honesty and integrity back to the White House after the tumultuous and frequently illegal administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.  He said that if he were ever caught in a lie, he wanted to be escorted out of the White House immediately.  He was true to his roots as seen during the 1976 campaign when he would return to Georgia every weekend to teach Sunday School class at his home church.  He was different from any other president who took that mantle of responsibility.    

As president, he struggled with domestic issues.  The energy crisis that first perplexed Richard Nixon caused increased grumbling and discontent with a population waiting in line for gas.  He further aggravated the masses with a speech that lectured the Americans on their role in the crisis.  It did not go over well.  His “malaise speech” is one of the defining moments of his presidency.  Later, his presidency was challenged with a nuclear power plant meltdown on Three Mile Island in the middle of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania.  Much was made of his navy training as a nuclear engineer but his hands were largely tied as various experts desperately tried to determine what was wrong.  Bravely or foolhardily, he went to the nuclear power plant to speak with experts, giving the impression that things were under control.  A core meltdown was avoided but nuclear energy would suffer a setback it is only now crawling out from under.

Yet, it would be President Carter’s actions in foreign policy that would cement his legacy.  While he was instrumental in the historical Camp David Accords, bringing together Egypt and Israel, a point that cannot be dismissed lightly, and pushing through a divided Congress the Panama Canal treaty, he is remembered by historians as being weak when Iranian revolutionaries took 56 American hostages in Tehran and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan.  He attempted to negotiate with the Iranians but giving asylum to the former shah of Iran poisoned the negotiations.  It seemed Mr. Carter could not muster a response other than strongly-worded missives.  His one attempt at rescue was an overthought, overcomplicated plan that fell apart in the Iranian desert.  Threats and boycotts of Soviet action in Afghanistan had little impact.  The Russians were simply not listening. 

President Carter’s trouble was on display this past week during an interview with Charlie Rose.  Commenting on the situation in the Ukraine and responding to the question of whether President Putin would make a grab for eastern Ukraine, the soon 90-year-old President Carter said it would not happen.  “Mr. Putin said he would not move on eastern Ukraine.  Why would he lie?”  Nothing could better illustrate the president’s naïveté – an attitude that hampered his efforts as president.  His moral compass failed to see the duplicity in others.  Why would they lie?  Why wouldn’t they?  

Reading a list of his achievements prior to and after his presidency, it is easy to see what a decent individual Mr. Carter is. Indeed, if that alone were enough, he could have been one of our greatest presidents.  Yet like Woodrow Wilson, he thought his moral paradigm would influence others – it did as less scrupulous men took advantage of what they perceived as weakness.  Jimmy Carter was trounced in the 1980 campaign by Ronald Reagan and he soon left the lime light.  However, he did not stop working.  President Carter is a good man.  He was just an ineffectual president.

The Original Evil Empire

Watching the Olympics as I have over the last week, one could be forgiven for not knowing the nature of the Soviet Union.  As Jonah Goldberg recently wrote for the National Review, the sins of the Russian past are casually dismissed by the network and writers covering the Games.  Yet, Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the evil empire for a reason.  One does not acquire a moniker of “evil” unless it is truly earned.  From the oppression of the masses to the persecution of the dissidents to the slaughter of the innocents, the Russia that exists today has distanced from the past but the Soviet Union of old can still be seen in the rear view mirror. 

From a czar to a premier, Russian history has been a story of one dictatorial ruler after another.  Vladimir Lenin was the first leader in the aftermath of the revolution and the defeat of the anti-Communist White Russians.  As leader of the Soviet Union, he spent most of his early years crushing any dissent within his party while taking measures to ensure the longevity of his new government.  So horrible were his policies against those he originally led, he faced an assassination attempt and wide spread discontent from all over the country.  However, as ruthlessly pragmatic as Lenin was, he could not compare to the man who would follow after his in 1924 – Josef Stalin. 

A man of humble beginnings, Josef Stalin proved his cruelty by eliminating those who sought to lead the country after Lenin’s death, including most famously Leon Trotsky.  He wiped out the peasant farming class, who hoped to make profits from their efforts.  Afterwards, he introduced the shockingly destructive economic policy of the Five Year Plan which collectivized Russian farms, forced millions into horrible factory conditions and destroyed any semblance of religious authority or devotion.  Stalin was fearful of the Russian Orthodox Church’s hold on the population.  Simultaneously, he established a secret police force to spy on the populace and purposefully created wide-spread starvation.  His special gulags for political prisoners were infamous for its brutality and conditions.  It is widely estimated by historians that Stalin represents one of the greatest mass murderers of his century – though that might be too limiting a characterization.  Numbers of those who died by his policies range from the millions to the tens of millions.  

Throughout the history of the Soviet Union, its leadership created a society that dwarfed the worst imaginations of George Orwell.  Soviet society was one based on fear and suspicion.  Depravation and drudgery defined lives spent in factories and in lines for disappearing supplies.  So complete was the hold the government had, when Mikhail Gorbachev sought to loosen the binds that tied the Russians into intellectual paralysis, many did not trust it.  So paranoid of the government’s intention were the Russians, they simply could not believe the change.  Literature and art, music and style were regimented and society was browbeaten into conformity.  Soviet society was so damaged, it was constant fodder for Hollywood films and historical studies.   

All of this said, the Russians have something for which they can be justly proud – themselves.  Seldom in human history has a people endured and ultimately thrived after such oppression.  The fact that Russian culture remains at all is a minor miracle.  While it has traditionally been characterized as backward and primitive, it has nevertheless achieved great things in spite of the barriers and limitations placed before them.  And as for those obstacles, they represent one of the worst, most dangerous, deadliest governments ever conceived.  Despite the attempts at whitewashing Russian history, its crimes are incontrovertible.  Facts do have a nasty way of getting in the way of revisionism.   

The Instinctual (Ineffectual?) President

Russian president Vladimir Putin has been juggling a great deal of late – Syria, the Ukraine, domestic dissenters, terrorist attacks, the Olympics, treason and gay rights.  He has inserted himself into these issues like a man without enough to do.  Advantageously or not, he has entered into frays in an attempt to bring Russia once more to the fore.  As Benito Mussolini sought to re-create the Roman Empire, Mr. Putin wants to bring back the glory and the relevance of the Soviet Union.  What has emerged is a portrait of a man who does not have a master plan so much as an instinctual drive to matter once more.

In the Ukraine, it has been a battle between a government who is beholden to and admiring of the heavy-handed example of Russian rule while its people are desperate to be a part of the European Union.  The people have been staging one massive demonstration after another to demand entrance into the more economically prosperous West.  Mr. Putin doled out $15 billion that he will likely never see again, saving the Ukraine for the moment, but to what end? 

Concurrently, gay activists are primed to make their point with the upcoming Olympics but the president’s anti-gay stance is not controversial in a largely conservative country.  Additionally, while the Russians may be attacked by the more liberal West on the subject, few other countries are making waves on the subject, so why stir the pot?  The moral litmus test that Mr. Putin seems to be suggesting was made after the fact and is further proof that no grand master plan exists for the president.  

The Edward Snowden affair has made more than a few observers and leaders scratch their heads as the incident does nothing for Mr. Putin.  There may be a deep-seated Russian DNA that requires agitating and embarrassing the Americans but Mr. Snowden is no Kim Philby or Alger Hiss.  In the world of international relations and espionage, it would appear that only the naïve Mr. Snowden thought he had something noteworthy on his hands.  The fact that the conscious-stricken traitor has taken or tried to take refuge with three oppressive regimes (Russia, China and Venezuela) further diminishes his importance and message.  

However, the two things the Russian leadership knows about are dealing with internal dissention and throwing a parade.  Yet, the world has changed and even this has proven difficult.  First, Russia made headlines with the imprisonment of the crude, albeit impactful message of the punk band Pussy Riot.  While the Russians have traveled through the cauldron of glasnost, the government has limits.  Back in the day, the three young women would have disappeared and no one would have been wiser but the women have gone viral and they have become impossible to ignore.  Their recent release from jail by the “benevolent” Mr. Putin was seen as the cynical gesture it was and further proof that the president had little idea how to cope.   

Then, there are the Olympics.  Twentieth-century Russian/Soviet history has shown the importance of putting on a show.  Yet, the terrorist attacks in Volgograd threaten to bring down in horrific fashion Russia’s plans to present an athletically dominant and culturally significant image to the world.  No doubt, Mr. Putin, a la Captain Renault, is rounding up the usual suspects but the fact that fears linger and uncertainties are rising is proof that the Russians are not quite as efficient at crushing dissent and “troublemakers” as before.  While one may assume that the lack of more recent attacks is a sign of Russia’s determination, the Chechens are not known for sustained violence – only attacks that are sporadic and spectacular.  An attack at the Olympics would certainly fit the modus operandi. 

Vladimir Putin is an anachronism who is trying to portray his measures under the guise of a modern veneer.  Much like to tax and to please, this tactic is quite untenable.  If the president can have a safe and, for the Russians, a successful Olympics, the country will no doubt benefit but it will not be based on any grand master plan on the part of Mr. Putin.  As Julia Ioffe of the New Republic put it, this is a man thinking and acting instinctively, not deliberately.  While he is hoping that is enough, hope alone has seldom accomplished great things.   

Fifty Years On

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.
            President John F. Kennedy

Fifty years ago today, in the city of Dallas, the president of the United States died.  From a historian point of view, births and deaths are seldom discussed or noteworthy.  Yet, a man holding the most powerful position in the world, a man whose greatest promise was his youth and the time he possibly had in office, draws people in and invites them to delve into his achievements, his beliefs and his legacy.  I have my opinion on conspiracy theories, especially those related to the death of the president, however, they are beyond the point and not relevant.  What is relevant is what President John Fitzgerald Kennedy meant as a part of the American story and his role in the history he made and world he helped create.  

Among historians, it is often said that forty to fifty years are required to properly assess an event or individual.  So, it is with some historical certainty that I offer these thoughts.  From the beginning, John Kennedy was a classic New England liberal but one with conservative fiscal policies – today, what we would call the kind of left-leaning centrist that was instrumental to the approach of President Bill Clinton.  He had a compelling personal story as a member of one of the richest, most powerful American families.  He was a World War II veteran who served the dangerous duty of captain of a PT boat in the Pacific patrolling against the Japanese navy.  He had a beautiful family, including a glamorous wife and adorable children.  While southern Democrats bemoaned the Catholic, northern liberal, he made inroads into the South thanks to his vice presidential candidate, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. 

Politically, he is most discussed on two levels – his relationship with the Soviet Union and his actions dealing with civil rights.  President Kennedy’s record against Nikita Khrushchev was spotty at best.  His greatest highlight against the Soviets is undoubtedly the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis where the president displayed an intestinal fortitude greater than many of his critics imaged.  However, he flubbed horribly during the Bay of Pigs incident the year before and in a showdown with the Soviets over Berlin that led to the creation of a wall.  With regards to civil rights, he was reluctant to join the fray, fearing a backlash of southern discontent in the 1964 re-election bid.  He balked at James Meredith’s attempt to enter Ole Miss and he was not supportive of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on the capital.  It was this failing that led to some of his dreadful approval numbers prior to his death. 

In hindsight, his presidency when taken as a whole was not terribly productive.  One could say he did not have enough time and that is certainly a valid point but some presidents have done much more with less time.  Yet, his death created a mystique and aura that may only be available to us wrapped in nostalgia and our wonder of what could have been.  Some say that he was interested in scaling back in Vietnam but his increase of military advisors to the South’s government does not suggest he was making any serious exit strategies.  It is interesting to speculate how different his legacy would have been had he survived and won re-election.  Without the threat of another election, he could have been more decisive with civil rights, unions (part of a general centrist/right leaning fiscal stance) and other important aspects of his philosophy.  

This anniversary of President Kennedy’s death, unfortunately, will be misdirected.  It has been said that more people visit the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas than visit his presidential library in Boston.  In that is not just a morbid curiosity of his dramatic death but a disregard or misrepresentation of his record.  His promise was never fully realized but that is not a criticism.  Many good men have filled the Oval Office and failed to manifest their greatest hopes and aspirations.  John F. Kennedy is simply one.  Today does not need to be a saturnine remembrance but a reminder of our best intentions. 

Ave Atque Vale

I am not a consensus politician.  I am a conviction politician.
            Margaret Thatcher

This past week, the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died at the age of 87.  From an international perspective, she is most known as Ronald Reagan’s conservative doppelganger but the shopkeeper’s daughter was much more.  Over the course of her career, she defied traditions, conventions and perceptions about politics, women and the role of the latter within the former.  Her time in office, like Ronald Reagan, coincided with economic difficulties and international skirmishes.  She is, therefore, despised in some corners of the kingdom and the world and beloved in others.  However, despite the differences in how people view her achievements, one cannot question her guts and conviction, nor should one question her impact on the 20^th century.   

In parts of Great Britain this past week, there were cheers and chants, parties and pontifications on the death of Mrs. Thatcher but very little understanding of where the country was in the 1970s.  The British government owned a great deal of the industries that employed Britons, from transportation to manufacturing and it faced economic ruin.  Coming from the same class that would later deplore her and celebrate her death, the prime minister challenged the role of government in the economy.  She sought, in her short time in office, to reverse decades of socialist maneuverings and nationalization, understanding that people had the ability to control their own fate and run their own shops.  Private ownership of industry and businesses were needed to reverse Britain’s economic fortune and she withstood the attacks, the vile insults and self-interested posturing.   She said, “I can’t bear Britain in decline.  I just can’t.”  She remembered a different Britain and she battled first the Heath government in opposition and then both Labour and the Tories to drag the island nation from the precipice.  

Internationally, she was just as fierce and her actions based on a pride of what England was and could be again.  Her most controversial move, one that many observers at the time felt would never happen, was her defense of the Falkland Islands.  While she is often criticized for the defense of British sovereignty and its citizens, it was the action of a military Argentinian junta that made this an issue and she, in classic form, finished it.  Her government was a constant target by the Irish Republican Army and though it managed to kill many close friends and colleagues during the Brighton bombing in 1984, she refused to back down.  She reminded her fellow citizens that the Russians were people to observe and combat.  So strident were her attacks on the Soviet government, as part of a larger Cold War democratic sortie, it was an article in a Russian paper that first gave her the sobriquet most associated with her – “the iron lady.”  During Europe’s discussions on the budget for the European Economic Community’s financial affairs, Mrs. Thatcher’s obdurate and fierce nature led French President Francois Mitterrand to declare her has having the lips of Marilyn Monroe and the eyes of Caligula. 

Economically, she challenged her people to see the long view and tried to teach them the importance of their participation in the economy rather than allowing for government control.  She turned around rampant inflation and labor unrest.  She was an unabashed champion of Victorian values like hard work, self-reliance, patriotism and frugality.  She was a fierce international figure that world leaders ignored or dismissed at their own peril.  However, the most shocking thing about Mrs. Thatcher’s legacy is the fact that American conservatives have not chosen to follow her lead. 

Conservative thinker Bill Kristol mentioned that her greatest achievement was her role in opposition prior to ascending to 10 Downing Street.  She gave a rudderless Tory party direction and cleared a path towards stability and prosperity by first shining a light on the depravity and ultimate failure of statism.  The departure from such governance by former communist eastern European countries validates Mrs. Thatcher’s actions.  Only the United States moves toward it with our new nationalized health care system.  As we distance from the vitriolic and ad hominem attacks of modern European liberals, old unionists and Argentinians, perhaps we can learn the true greatness of Margaret Thatcher.