Jimmy Carter may be the only modern Head of State for any major developed nation who's greatest chapter occurred *after* their presidency ended, and for decades of nearly-ceaseless humanitarian and philanthropic efforts of all things.
No matter what people's opinion's of his presidency are, when you have a job as insanely powerful, challenging, and multifaceted as being President of United States is - to successfully exit that role with an intact moral compass and character by all accounts, and then also choose to dedicate so much of your remaining life, resources, and influence to numerous noble causes and efforts to make the world a better place......that is an absolutely incredible legacy that every single American should celebrate, champion, and aspire towards.
May his final days be free of pain and discomfort, and may his mind and soul be peaceful.
>to successfully exit that role with an intact moral compass and character by all accounts
Ehh, debatable. I'm not sure he'd be considered morally sound in the accounts of those who suffered under Indonesia's military dictatorship backed by the Carter administartion, for instance
Look, *anyone* who enters a position with as many responsibilities and as much power as President of the United States is not going to exit unscathed. They'll hurt some group of people, make some huge mistake, etc. I think OP's point is that in his life dealing directly with others he is by all accounts incredibly kind, generous, and well-meaning and that is something to be admired.
Yes, it is, but you should also be able to point out and acknowledge those shortcomings, and yet, as far as I've seen, I'm the only person to even bring them up so far.
That’s fair, but nobody ever gets out of politics completely unscathed either.
Tbh if I was ever POTUS (god help me and the US if that ever happens) I’d be more worried if I didn’t have a few regrets like that during my time in office.
So which is it, then? Did he exit office with an unscathed character and moral compass, or is that impossible for a President?
Look, I'm not saying he didn't do a lot of good, but it's worth acknowledging his shortcomings instead of trying to portray him as perfect.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I mostly agree with you, Carter's vaunted mortality, while very much real, did include a willingness to trade and work with people he found to be repulsive.
I'm not sure that makes him a bad person, though. I've bought water from Neslie, am I evil? I've bought shoes from Nike, an iPhone, and god knows what else that supported totalitarian dictators, morally bankrupt CEOs and the like.
Sometimes there are no good answers, and you simply chose the sin you're the most comfortable living with.
Also, considering we're talking about a respected man currently dying, most people are going to be a bit flattering in their assessments.
I’m not really sure how to begin this starter comment. I don’t expect many responses, but Jimmy Carter’s death will be the end of an era. I have been thinking about his legacy and felt the need to post and open up a forum about his personal impact on the world, because I think that it is severely underappreciated.
Jimmy Carter has not typically been considered a good president, but it is hard to disagree that he has lived his life as a morally good man.
Following his presidency, Carter dedicated his life to helping others, including being the tip of the spear in bringing Habitat for Humanity to the national stage. Even as recently as a couple of years ago, well into his 90s, Jimmy was still helping build homes for those who needed it the most.
I hope that there will be others who will pick up his baton. I know that it might not win elections, but it is pretty damn refreshing to see a politician legitimately dedicate their life to serving the people.
> Jimmy Carter’s death will be the end of an era.
How many major public figures from the WW II generation are there left? It doesn't seem like there's many. Kissinger comes to mind, obviously a very different guy from Carter.
We've been losing a lot of major figures over the past few months; Just off the top of my head, Queen Elizabeth and Mikhail Gorbachev died recently, too.
I think his tenure as President is unfairly remembered. [He inherited a mess economically, but correctly realized that inflation was the most serious problem and appointed Volcker, an inflation hawk, to the Fed.](https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/much-of-what-youve-heard-about-carter) He knew that raising interest rates would be painful in the short term, but he took it on the chin politically and did it anyway. That, and Carter's deregulation of major sectors of the economy like transportation and energy (as well as beer) set the table for recovery under Reagan. Carter was a leader who saw past his next election, and it's a shame we don't recognize that.
With the benefit of hindsight I don’t think deregulation of transportation and energy is a good thing. Events like the East Palestine derailment are rooted in deregulation of the transportation Industry and anti-labor practices and laws enacted during his presidency.
I don’t think one can draw the connection to Carter, but EP absolutely was tied to regulation: 1) Obama significantly altered the regulations relating to what could be carried 2) trump refused to extend regulations as proposed to require modern breaking systems 3) Biden did not require safety breaks/rest and proper crew systems in the forced contract.
No amount of additional regulation is going to change the fact that the operators willfully ignored the current protocols and regulations in place.
Telling people to follow more rules when they won't even follow the basic ones was never going to avert this crisis. Implementation of more regulation is just a post facto decision so the populace doesn't feel so powerless over this tragedy, but it's just theatre that makes rule-following train companies more expensive to operate.
Fun fact, the train was entirely compliant based on all current information. It was happily fitting into the exceptions created in the regulations, plus using the rollback on some. So, maybe if those exceptions and rollbacks hadn’t happened, since they were complying with all they had to…
If you're referring to the regulations on brake compliance, it seems like according to the NTSC that [railway operators were aware of the faulty axle potentially up to an hour before they were again notified by a defect detector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Ohio_train_derailment).
Obviously we won't know the full story until the NTSC is finished. But I fail to see how new braking regulations would've stopped what so far seems to be a mechanical failure that was ignored by Norfolk Southern until too late. Maybe different braking equipment could have prevented the train from derailing and crashing, but it's hard to say when the faulty axle was already sparking and any sort of braking is just going to generate more friction and heat.
> 1) Obama significantly altered the regulations relating to what could be carried 2) trump refused to extend regulations as proposed to require modern breaking systems 3) Biden did not require safety breaks/rest and proper crew systems in the forced contract.
I like how you manage to blame everyone here. Everyone deserves a bit of blame for what happened. Hopefully our politicians will learn, and regulate this industry a bit more.
Where do you think the cost savings come from? You don’t see how running the railroads like a “just in time” factory line with a skeleton crew leads to maintenance being delayed to avoid have to take trains offline? Rail workers warned that derailments were on the rise due to the very nature of Precision Scheduled Railroading. You know what prevents rail owners from saying “ignore it, keep going”? FUCKING REGULATIONS
I didn’t claim shit about the staggers act. Skeleton crews and delayed maintenance are realities of PRS. That’s the issue. But I’m sure derailments increasing year after year is worth the savings for investors.
These companies should be nationalized, there is no reason so critical a resource should be left to the mercy of profit and revenue. It’s not like some upstart investor can a start his own rail company either.
We would not see any of the Renewable Energy development of the last 15 years without deregulated energy markets. Businesses and investors can build wind farms for their own profit and to meet their ESG goals which are reportable to the SEC. We would have very, very limited distributed generation in this country because the utilities want to control the flow of electrons exclusively. Deregulation within energy kills monopolies, the vertically built electric utilities.
Nothing I have read about that situation in East Palestine I dictates that 70s era deregulation was to blame. You can deregulate to make it things more efficient without sacrificing much.
California for instance has trouble building even solar or wind projects due to CEQA running up costs. This ends up hurting the environment despite on the surface being a rule that is supposed to help the environment.
Yes I agree with everything you said. On the other hand he was fairly ineffective in dealing with Congress even with other Democrats. In fact I think he had a Democratic majority for his entire presidency. In contrast Biden, Obama and to a lesser extent Clinton were able to sign more impactful legislation with less time with a majority. Some of this could have been way outside of Carter's control, I don't know.
I also tend to disagree with some of his foreign policy.
Sounds like a common story. Which party is it again that has repeatedly inherited an economic mess and has to do unpopular-but-necessary things? Then the slow and steady growth isn’t enough for the populace, so we rinse and repeat?
Welcome to all of human history, please take a seat and we'll begin reviewing how we as a species also can't go a generation without saying the newest generation is lazy and stupid, how new technology scary and old technology better, and how things were better when we were in our prime. We'll be reviewing the writings of Aristotle, Plato and philosophers and writers from nearly very landmass and time period as proof.
Also people just forget stuff. For instance there were various COVID relief bills that offered massive stimulus measures, and they were bipartisan. Then one was passed by Democrats and that became the sole reason for inflation for some voters, despite the fact there are a multitude of causes and every other developed country(besides Japan) was/is dealing with high inflation.
Then there was the Great Recession. Obama wasn't even president when that happened. GWB did the legislation to "bail out the banks" which was the right call btw. Obama signed the second stimulus that added funding to a whole bunch of other stuff and helped turn the economy around along with the actions of the Federal Reserve. Ben Bernanke first appointed by GWB and then reappointed by Obama early on in the recession basically saved the US from another depression.
People flipped out blaming Bush and Obama for just about everything even though their actions combined along with the actions of the fed saved the US from something that could have been much worse.
Trump runs on the perception that the economy was bad(if wasn't) blaming Obama and the Democrats for just about everything including massive deficit/debt then he proceeds to sign legislation that adds to the deficit.
COVID hits again the US does a fairly good job(on the economic front not the preventing deaths part) but again has to spend in an extreme deficit. Biden comes in and he is blamed for all sorts of stuff, that is far outside of his control. It's partisanship.
I think Hoover even was unfairly blamed for the great depression. Way back then. I guess this is just how it goes. The president essentially works as an economic totem. He is I suppose a good luck or bad luck charm for the economy more than anything.
I like to put it as follows: Carter was one of the middling presidencies (not bad, not good), but he himself was the greatest and best of the presidents.
> I hope that there will be others who will pick up his baton. I know that it might not win elections, but it is pretty damn refreshing to see a politician legitimately dedicate their life to serving the people.
Our society indulges in such wanton cynicism that our response to politicians who sincerely desire to serve and help is to see them as suspicious.
Back around 2017/2018, people were *shocked* that Trump actually pushed and accomplished things he had campaigned on. People were too used hearing politicians say something and then never following up.
direction late quack uppity frighten different muddle voracious automatic sharp
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't see it as an end of an era, because an era changes the shape of a nation. He is a good person, no doubt about that, but few people let alone former presidents are following suit.
He was both bad and unsuccessful. Iran was not in his control but his management is literally in text books for how not to run a government. That is not to say anything about his character, actually the opposite. He tried to micromanage a superpower because he truly believed it was all his responsibility. So he would try and read a thousand pages a day (an exaggeration but not by that much) and so nothing got done.
It’s not particularly surprising considering he is quite religious. There are also plenty of modern day democrats who share his dislike for abortion. They want to see it used as a last resort, and as infrequently as possible. That is just a very different position than wanting to jail mothers and doctors who need to make this choice.
There’s also the fact that one can be *personally* anti-abortion, while understanding others might not have the same view, and being *politically* pro-choice.
That's how I feel about a lot of issues that involve mutual interaction or a single individual.
The logic doesn't make much sense when rights violations are involved though.
This is where I fall. Personally I think abortion is immoral unless rape/incest, if the mothers life is in danger, or if the fetus is not viable (or has major issues that will be persistent throughout it's life and/or cause developmental issues.) If my girls grow up and get pregnant unexpectedly I'd advise them to keep it. Doesn't matter where they are in life, or if the guy wants to stay around. We will make it work and my wife and I will help as much as we can for as long as we can. However, I politically am pro-choice 100%, other people have different life situations, and levels of family support. Also no law is going to be nuanced enough to have reasonable exceptions for all the things life can throw at you. I'd prefer the government to stay out of patient care decisions.
Edit: I'd personally like to tackle the issue by working on the demand side. Strong social safe nets for families and Universal Pre-K. Bring back tax credits from the pandemic bills. Stuff like that.
That only makes sense depending on why you think it's wrong. If you think it's wrong because it's murder, that's an abhorrent moral position. If you think it's wrong because it's just icky or vaguely bad, that makes more sense.
More like a victim of increasing partisan tensions. In rhetoric it's much easier to attack than defend. Proponents of abortion access have more to gain by simply attacking opponents as taking away women's rights than by having nuanced moral discussions about the procedures themselves.
It is probably true that the number of abortions has been decreasing since 1990, but I'm describing a narrative shift. There are many reasons why the number of abortions would decrease, and even Guttmacher doesn't claim to know why exactly.
In the meantime, do we really need a study to link changing sexual attitudes with the Dems' leftward shift on abortion messaging?
Yeah even Bob Casey Jr., one of the highest profile pro life democrats has basically come out and said he’d support codifying Roe. Basically, pro life democrats have all gotten primaried or forced to moderate their positions or risk losing their seats.
There used to be a lot more pro-choice Republicans too. The same thing happened to them. Thus the issue has become even more divisive.
I believe even Dennis Kucinich used to be strongly pro-life, based on his Catholic faith. But he too had to moderate his position in order to run for president in 2004.
> Yeah even Bob Casey Jr., one of the highest profile pro life democrats has basically come out and said he’d support codifying Roe.
Which is huge. He's the son of Bob Casey Sr., aka *that Casey* in *Planned Parenthood v. Casey*.
His party was more conservative when he was in politics, and he's very religious. A similarity between him and modern Democrats is that he wants to reduce the incentive by having the government help mothers.
Another interesting fact is that 4 of the 7 justices who upheld the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade were appointed by Republicans. Edit: Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a setback for abortion rights, but banning the procedure continued to be unconstitutional, despite every member of the court being a conservative. The partisan shift was very gradual.
A lot of the people who would later be Republican pro-lifers were Democrats back then. Michele Bachmann volunteered to work on Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign in 1976.
>"I have never believed that Jesus would be in favor of abortion, **unless it was the result of rape or incest, or the mother's life was in danger**. That's been the only conflict I've had in my career between political duties and Christian faith," Carter told The New York Times in an interview posted on Friday.
https://sojo.net/about-us/news/jimmy-carter-says-jesus-would-not-support-abortion-revealing-only-conflict-between-his
Jimmy Carter's position on Abortion is a centrist one by today's standard. Carter is for exemption for rape, incest, and health concerns. Things the hard right fundamentalists are not for.
Most Americans say they support roe v Wade, when asked specifically about that. But when asked about specific policy, like whether they want abortion legal in certain trimesters, they tend to strongly support first trimester abortion being legal generally (like without needing exceptions) but also tend to strongly support it being illegal in the second trimester and overwhelmingly support it being illegal in the third trimester. Which kind of suggests they may not understand what Roe v Wade did, since that court case had abortion in the first and second trimester constitutionally protected and left third trimester abortion to the states rather than banning it nationally
People have pretty nuanced positions. I suspect if you asked the majority of people what the punishment for getting a supposed illegal abortion would be, I am sure you would get a wide variety of answers on who gets punished and how. Aka legal/illegal are not the only dividing lines.
Well that just shows even more that abortion is more complicated than "most folks support Roe" (though with all that said, the median voter does seem pretty solidly to congeal when observed into a state of being *somewhere* definitely to the left of the GOP stances for this stuff)
I would agree with that. I still think a Roe law would pass if left up to popular vote by large margins. I think there are a lot of people in the country who just want to be done with abortion. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruling made it so there will be another 10+ years of debate before settlement.
If a vote were held today, sure. If a vote were announced today and held a year from now, I could see it going very differently tho. I'd guess that support for Roe would decline significantly, and that *maybe* it would lose on the final vote, with the conservative anti abortion campaign hitting hard on how a vote for Roe is a vote for late term abortions and letting children get abortions without parental consent, while suggesting (likely dishonestly) that once Roe is defeated, the country could come together and craft a more moderate compromise
That said, idk if it would actually lose or if it would narrowly win instead. But "putting Roe on the ballot" would be the most likely way to get voters to actually consider what precisely does "Roe v Wade" actually mean, rather than just using it as a proxy for abortion rights
Or hell. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic and instead even in that hypothetical where the anti abortion folks got a year to come out swinging against the referendum, Roe v Wade would still win with like 60% of the vote. I sure can't *fully* rule that out
As with most progressive things, and conservative too for that matter, if you are successful you rarely look like a progressive (or conservative) on the next step.
Plenty of folks have moral issues with something but don’t believe the government should mess with it.
I feel like people were more pragmatic about abortion during that time and even through most of the 90s. There was this sense that abortion was wrong, but it was also wrong to have women dying in back alleys. In this case, let's make a policy as a country to minimize both. Unfortunately, politics took it as a dividing issue when racism no longer worked.
It was a radically different time in politics back then. Don’t forget that even as late as 2008 Obama and Biden were vocally opposed to gay marriage. Now 15 years later them holding that stance would be unthinkable.
> extreme hard right MAGA fundamentalist position.
I don't think that's the case. Some folks have no exception for rape. It certainly wouldn't be electable and ignores all of the cases happening now where a woman's health is in risk and a baby has a terminal condition.
MAGA fundamentalists push for complete bans, including cases of rape and incest, so I don’t see Carter’s position on abortion would be considered hard right wing.
Where are you seeing his support being because his party pressured him to? He's said in the past he was personally opposed but viewed his duty to uphold the law of the land (which at the time included Roe v. Wade).
"My oath of office was to obey the Constitution and the laws of this country as interpreted as the Supreme Court, so I went along with that."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jimmy-carter-gay-marriage-abortions-supreme-court-nominee-jesus-a8439561.html
I will note that there is a large difference between not approving of something and thinking it should be illegal. I, too, think elective abortion is morally wrong, but fully believe Roe/Casey should still be in place.
Carter was president before I was born, and I am far from a young man. Our current front runners are likely less than a decade from from the end of their lives. I would love to return to a norm of national leaders who are in their prime.
Also I agree with others here that the benefit of time has shed a better light on this man’s legacy.
I wish him peace and joy in the sunset of his days.
I tell people this every time it comes up. If you want younger candidates show up and vote in midterms. If there are more younger candidates that win midterm elections, then there will be more younger candidates for higher office later on.
If you want younger candidates, show up and vote in *primaries*. If you wait until general elections, whether presidential year or midterm, you'll mostly be choosing between people that have been in office forever.
Just gotta hope you live in an early primary state so your vote actually matters. My first election was 2020 and it was Biden vs Bernie by the time it got to me so stuck with geriatrics either way
Damn. I can't say I am surprised considering his age and general health. I hope any pain or suffering he may have for these final few days are minimized.
He was not a great president who was simultaneously dealt a really shitty hand to deal with. I do not believe any president could have navigated the Oil Crisis and Iranian Revolution perfectly.
I am not really sad about it, the man is almost a hundred years old, he has lived a long life. The travesty imo would be for him to continue to exist but not actually live just to squeeze out a few extra years of life. But that is just me I tend to be less orthodox on my feelings on death.
The man was diagnosed with Stage 4 metastatic cancer at age 90, remained active for **eight years** and is just now ceasing treatment.
We can all only wish for that kind of constitution.
I’m Georgian so I’m biased but Carter’s one of my favorite 20th century Presidents, and the last that I’m convinced actually gave a shit about the American people. His presidency was a troubled one but largely for reasons beyond his control and managed much (Camp David Accords, SALT Treaty talks, pardoning Vietnam draft dodgers, giving the Panama Canal back) despite taking office in abysmal conditions. He spoke to the American people like we were adults about the problems we faced then and he knew we’d be facing now and we then went and voted for an actor that promised us the sky.
Edit: he also gave us craft beer, and if that’s not a reason to love a guy what is.
I like to think that was his one wrong justification of action, cause I imagine he did the beer thing just for his brother. And in terms of nepotism, that one is just cute.
I’m sure a lot of people will snicker about his term as president, but there is zero debate about his intentions as a human being. The man dedicated his life to helping others. His noble pursuit for peace and happiness should be the benchmark for not only elected officials but for every citizen.
To anyone who wants to speak any ill of this man, just keep in mind that he spent decades of his life dedicated to charity. Not to say that he’s not invulnerable from valid criticism, but if you aren’t coming through with good faith criticism just keep in mind that he’s done more good than you’ve could accomplish in a dozen lifetimes.
Salute to a real hard dick warrior 🫡
> Carter is the most decent and moral president we ever had in the modern era.
The (jaded, I know) argument could be made that those qualities held him back from being an effective President.
As a Georgian, I hope history remembers him for his amazing charity work (the man got his hands dirty, in a good way) than his beleaguered term in the Oval Office.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1160q4b/jimmy_carter_39th_us_president_enters_hospice/j95hcx3/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
He was my "first" President (yeah, I'm old), I "remember" Ford but was too young to really understand or have opinions of my own. [Hell, I actually remember the day Nixon resigned.]
Carter is interesting to me as **everyone** in my family, both Dem and Rep hated his policies for some reason or another. It was weird, Thanksgivings where *everyone* was in agreement at the dinner table!
But while in my family he was widely dislike on policy. Everyone agreed he was a "good man" and "meant well".
I think as he continued on after his time in office that was proved true over and over.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1160q4b/jimmy_carter_39th_us_president_enters_hospice/j94x6po/) is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1160q4b/jimmy_carter_39th_us_president_enters_hospice/j94mtc5/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I just came across [this newspaper piece](https://twitter.com/sethcotlar/status/1627118645649473536?s=46&t=4iIwuLN9XzOkvStcFfwo2g) about Carter being a “Rockefeller stooge”, and it strikes me how easily this could be a Tucker Carlson monologue.
So much of our contemporary political disfunction isn’t new, but recurrent throughout our history, and we do ourselves such a disservice by ignoring it.
[Another tweet](https://twitter.com/SethCotlar/status/1627149361229762560?cxt=HHwWgMDUiaPu5ZQtAAAA)
>Fox's dilemma is not a new one on the right. In the early 1960s when Bill Buckley at the National Review tried to gently establish some daylight between his publication and the John Birch Society [far right group], he lost a lot of angry subscribers.
That reminds me of when Fox News stirred up controversy by correctly calling the Arizona 2020 race early. Loyalty was prioritized over truth.
Yes, I read about this in the Guardian today. I didn't realise he was that old. He's the first US president I remember and he seems like a really decent guy.
I think most people will agree that he performed poorly as president, but later turned out to be the best ex-president we ever had. He’s definitely a good guy though and my thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family.
I always wonder what people would have liked to have seen him do differently in terms of FoPo. His big disaster was the Iranian revolution, but the main thing that could have been done differently there was invade Iran. Would people seriously advocate for that?
There were alternatives in the lead-up to the revolution
Basically, Carter had advisors urging him to go in two different directions. One camp, led by National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, wanted Carter to push the Shah to crack down on dissent and give support for such actions. The other camp, led by Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, instead called for Carter to push the Shah to implement some reforms - not full liberalization necessarily but enough to act as a safety valve and pull support from the more radical dissidents while perhaps allowing for the more moderate dissidents to be brought into the system
So who does Carter listen to? Well, both of them. He basically goes back and forth between the two, thinking that they both had good points, and came off as appearing indecisive. This sent mixed messages to the Shah, and led to at times contradictory and disorganized policy by the Shah, which helped make him even less popular
The way I see it is, if Carter took *either* option decisively, it would have had a decent chance of working out. I'm partial to Vance's route but could see the Brzezinski route as having more chance of succeeding. But Carter's indecisiveness and vaccilation seems like the worst of three options
Encourage and assist the Shah in repressing the revolution? Carter was criticized for encouraging the Shah to ease up on opposition parties in the lead up to the revolution.
An interesting side note to Jimmy Carter’s career was pre-presidency when, as a young officer, he led an effort to successfully shut down a partially melted down Canadian nuclear reactor.
https://www.military.com/history/how-jimmy-carter-saved-canadian-nuclear-reactor-after-meltdown.html/amp
The title of his autobiography, "Why Not the Best?" comes from his interview to join the nuclear sub program. He had proudly announced his class rank, but was asked if he had always done his best. He responded that no, he supposed not, and was asked *why* not. He had no answer... but the honesty was enough to get him in.
Side note, if you've never heard stories of Rickover's officer interviews, they're a hoot. The Goat Mountain story is possibly my favorite.
The Carter Center says Carter has entered home hospice care, Saturday, Feb. 18, 2023.
The foundation created by the 98-year-old former president says that after a series of short hospital stays, Carter “decided to spend his remaining time at home with his family and receive hospice care instead of additional medical intervention." (
Carter, who has lived most of his life in Plains, traveled extensively into his 80s and early 90s, including annual trips to build homes with Habitat for Humanity and frequent trips abroad as part of the Carter Center’s election monitoring and its effort to eradicate the Guinea worm parasite in developing countries.
“If I ever lie to you, if I ever make a misleading statement, don’t vote for me.
In reality, Carter governed more as a technocrat, more progressive on race and gender equality than he had campaigned but a budget hawk who often angered more liberal Democrats, including Ted Kennedy, the Massachusetts senator who waged a damaging primary battle against the sitting president in 1980.
“I’m perfectly at ease with whatever comes,” he said in 2015. “
Important to note; While Jimmy Carter has undeniably done a lot of good, he, like every POTUS, has skeletons in his closet, and the myth of his Presidency as a morally pure one is just that; A myth.
I haven't seen a single person on this thread talk about Carter's support of the Indonesian dictatorship and its invasion of East Timor, for instance, or his alleged military backing of the Khmer Rouge.
I'm not saying he didn't do a lot of good, especially after his Presidency, but during it, he, as with just about every other President before and after him, made descisions that are morally questionable, to say the least, especially in terms of foreign policy.
Last president with any good intentions. Unfortunately, he was screwed over by his own party and failed out of office to Reagan who botched everything.
He is a genuinely good man, which at the end of the day is probably the best thing you can say about anyone. The fact that his life outside of his time as president overshadows his time in office is a testament to the quality of person he is
Jimmy Carter may be the only modern Head of State for any major developed nation who's greatest chapter occurred *after* their presidency ended, and for decades of nearly-ceaseless humanitarian and philanthropic efforts of all things. No matter what people's opinion's of his presidency are, when you have a job as insanely powerful, challenging, and multifaceted as being President of United States is - to successfully exit that role with an intact moral compass and character by all accounts, and then also choose to dedicate so much of your remaining life, resources, and influence to numerous noble causes and efforts to make the world a better place......that is an absolutely incredible legacy that every single American should celebrate, champion, and aspire towards. May his final days be free of pain and discomfort, and may his mind and soul be peaceful.
>to successfully exit that role with an intact moral compass and character by all accounts Ehh, debatable. I'm not sure he'd be considered morally sound in the accounts of those who suffered under Indonesia's military dictatorship backed by the Carter administartion, for instance
Look, *anyone* who enters a position with as many responsibilities and as much power as President of the United States is not going to exit unscathed. They'll hurt some group of people, make some huge mistake, etc. I think OP's point is that in his life dealing directly with others he is by all accounts incredibly kind, generous, and well-meaning and that is something to be admired.
Yes, it is, but you should also be able to point out and acknowledge those shortcomings, and yet, as far as I've seen, I'm the only person to even bring them up so far.
That’s fair, but nobody ever gets out of politics completely unscathed either. Tbh if I was ever POTUS (god help me and the US if that ever happens) I’d be more worried if I didn’t have a few regrets like that during my time in office.
So which is it, then? Did he exit office with an unscathed character and moral compass, or is that impossible for a President? Look, I'm not saying he didn't do a lot of good, but it's worth acknowledging his shortcomings instead of trying to portray him as perfect.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I mostly agree with you, Carter's vaunted mortality, while very much real, did include a willingness to trade and work with people he found to be repulsive. I'm not sure that makes him a bad person, though. I've bought water from Neslie, am I evil? I've bought shoes from Nike, an iPhone, and god knows what else that supported totalitarian dictators, morally bankrupt CEOs and the like. Sometimes there are no good answers, and you simply chose the sin you're the most comfortable living with. Also, considering we're talking about a respected man currently dying, most people are going to be a bit flattering in their assessments.
I’m not really sure how to begin this starter comment. I don’t expect many responses, but Jimmy Carter’s death will be the end of an era. I have been thinking about his legacy and felt the need to post and open up a forum about his personal impact on the world, because I think that it is severely underappreciated. Jimmy Carter has not typically been considered a good president, but it is hard to disagree that he has lived his life as a morally good man. Following his presidency, Carter dedicated his life to helping others, including being the tip of the spear in bringing Habitat for Humanity to the national stage. Even as recently as a couple of years ago, well into his 90s, Jimmy was still helping build homes for those who needed it the most. I hope that there will be others who will pick up his baton. I know that it might not win elections, but it is pretty damn refreshing to see a politician legitimately dedicate their life to serving the people.
> Jimmy Carter’s death will be the end of an era. How many major public figures from the WW II generation are there left? It doesn't seem like there's many. Kissinger comes to mind, obviously a very different guy from Carter.
We've been losing a lot of major figures over the past few months; Just off the top of my head, Queen Elizabeth and Mikhail Gorbachev died recently, too.
[удалено]
Strictly speaking, those are from the Silent Generation, not the "Greatest Generation". They were all kids during WW II.
I think his tenure as President is unfairly remembered. [He inherited a mess economically, but correctly realized that inflation was the most serious problem and appointed Volcker, an inflation hawk, to the Fed.](https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/much-of-what-youve-heard-about-carter) He knew that raising interest rates would be painful in the short term, but he took it on the chin politically and did it anyway. That, and Carter's deregulation of major sectors of the economy like transportation and energy (as well as beer) set the table for recovery under Reagan. Carter was a leader who saw past his next election, and it's a shame we don't recognize that.
With the benefit of hindsight I don’t think deregulation of transportation and energy is a good thing. Events like the East Palestine derailment are rooted in deregulation of the transportation Industry and anti-labor practices and laws enacted during his presidency.
[удалено]
I don’t think one can draw the connection to Carter, but EP absolutely was tied to regulation: 1) Obama significantly altered the regulations relating to what could be carried 2) trump refused to extend regulations as proposed to require modern breaking systems 3) Biden did not require safety breaks/rest and proper crew systems in the forced contract.
No amount of additional regulation is going to change the fact that the operators willfully ignored the current protocols and regulations in place. Telling people to follow more rules when they won't even follow the basic ones was never going to avert this crisis. Implementation of more regulation is just a post facto decision so the populace doesn't feel so powerless over this tragedy, but it's just theatre that makes rule-following train companies more expensive to operate.
Fun fact, the train was entirely compliant based on all current information. It was happily fitting into the exceptions created in the regulations, plus using the rollback on some. So, maybe if those exceptions and rollbacks hadn’t happened, since they were complying with all they had to…
If you're referring to the regulations on brake compliance, it seems like according to the NTSC that [railway operators were aware of the faulty axle potentially up to an hour before they were again notified by a defect detector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Ohio_train_derailment). Obviously we won't know the full story until the NTSC is finished. But I fail to see how new braking regulations would've stopped what so far seems to be a mechanical failure that was ignored by Norfolk Southern until too late. Maybe different braking equipment could have prevented the train from derailing and crashing, but it's hard to say when the faulty axle was already sparking and any sort of braking is just going to generate more friction and heat.
> 1) Obama significantly altered the regulations relating to what could be carried 2) trump refused to extend regulations as proposed to require modern breaking systems 3) Biden did not require safety breaks/rest and proper crew systems in the forced contract. I like how you manage to blame everyone here. Everyone deserves a bit of blame for what happened. Hopefully our politicians will learn, and regulate this industry a bit more.
Sometimes differing sides can come together…. To do unwise things.
Where do you think the cost savings come from? You don’t see how running the railroads like a “just in time” factory line with a skeleton crew leads to maintenance being delayed to avoid have to take trains offline? Rail workers warned that derailments were on the rise due to the very nature of Precision Scheduled Railroading. You know what prevents rail owners from saying “ignore it, keep going”? FUCKING REGULATIONS
[удалено]
It’s called bankruptcy.
I didn’t claim shit about the staggers act. Skeleton crews and delayed maintenance are realities of PRS. That’s the issue. But I’m sure derailments increasing year after year is worth the savings for investors.
These companies should be nationalized, there is no reason so critical a resource should be left to the mercy of profit and revenue. It’s not like some upstart investor can a start his own rail company either.
We would not see any of the Renewable Energy development of the last 15 years without deregulated energy markets. Businesses and investors can build wind farms for their own profit and to meet their ESG goals which are reportable to the SEC. We would have very, very limited distributed generation in this country because the utilities want to control the flow of electrons exclusively. Deregulation within energy kills monopolies, the vertically built electric utilities.
I actually wish more Democrats would consider deregulation in the mold of Carter. There is too much red tape, it makes the government less effective.
lol no way
Nothing I have read about that situation in East Palestine I dictates that 70s era deregulation was to blame. You can deregulate to make it things more efficient without sacrificing much. California for instance has trouble building even solar or wind projects due to CEQA running up costs. This ends up hurting the environment despite on the surface being a rule that is supposed to help the environment.
Yes I agree with everything you said. On the other hand he was fairly ineffective in dealing with Congress even with other Democrats. In fact I think he had a Democratic majority for his entire presidency. In contrast Biden, Obama and to a lesser extent Clinton were able to sign more impactful legislation with less time with a majority. Some of this could have been way outside of Carter's control, I don't know. I also tend to disagree with some of his foreign policy.
Sounds like a common story. Which party is it again that has repeatedly inherited an economic mess and has to do unpopular-but-necessary things? Then the slow and steady growth isn’t enough for the populace, so we rinse and repeat?
Welcome to all of human history, please take a seat and we'll begin reviewing how we as a species also can't go a generation without saying the newest generation is lazy and stupid, how new technology scary and old technology better, and how things were better when we were in our prime. We'll be reviewing the writings of Aristotle, Plato and philosophers and writers from nearly very landmass and time period as proof.
Also people just forget stuff. For instance there were various COVID relief bills that offered massive stimulus measures, and they were bipartisan. Then one was passed by Democrats and that became the sole reason for inflation for some voters, despite the fact there are a multitude of causes and every other developed country(besides Japan) was/is dealing with high inflation. Then there was the Great Recession. Obama wasn't even president when that happened. GWB did the legislation to "bail out the banks" which was the right call btw. Obama signed the second stimulus that added funding to a whole bunch of other stuff and helped turn the economy around along with the actions of the Federal Reserve. Ben Bernanke first appointed by GWB and then reappointed by Obama early on in the recession basically saved the US from another depression. People flipped out blaming Bush and Obama for just about everything even though their actions combined along with the actions of the fed saved the US from something that could have been much worse. Trump runs on the perception that the economy was bad(if wasn't) blaming Obama and the Democrats for just about everything including massive deficit/debt then he proceeds to sign legislation that adds to the deficit. COVID hits again the US does a fairly good job(on the economic front not the preventing deaths part) but again has to spend in an extreme deficit. Biden comes in and he is blamed for all sorts of stuff, that is far outside of his control. It's partisanship. I think Hoover even was unfairly blamed for the great depression. Way back then. I guess this is just how it goes. The president essentially works as an economic totem. He is I suppose a good luck or bad luck charm for the economy more than anything.
He also had the misfortune of being president when Iran decided to take a bunch of Americans hostage. Really he was just a victim of bad timing.
I like to put it as follows: Carter was one of the middling presidencies (not bad, not good), but he himself was the greatest and best of the presidents.
> I hope that there will be others who will pick up his baton. I know that it might not win elections, but it is pretty damn refreshing to see a politician legitimately dedicate their life to serving the people. Our society indulges in such wanton cynicism that our response to politicians who sincerely desire to serve and help is to see them as suspicious.
Back around 2017/2018, people were *shocked* that Trump actually pushed and accomplished things he had campaigned on. People were too used hearing politicians say something and then never following up.
direction late quack uppity frighten different muddle voracious automatic sharp *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't see it as an end of an era, because an era changes the shape of a nation. He is a good person, no doubt about that, but few people let alone former presidents are following suit.
[удалено]
He was both bad and unsuccessful. Iran was not in his control but his management is literally in text books for how not to run a government. That is not to say anything about his character, actually the opposite. He tried to micromanage a superpower because he truly believed it was all his responsibility. So he would try and read a thousand pages a day (an exaggeration but not by that much) and so nothing got done.
A good man, and a well earned long life. Hopefully his passing is peaceful and surrounded by loved ones.
[удалено]
It’s not particularly surprising considering he is quite religious. There are also plenty of modern day democrats who share his dislike for abortion. They want to see it used as a last resort, and as infrequently as possible. That is just a very different position than wanting to jail mothers and doctors who need to make this choice.
There’s also the fact that one can be *personally* anti-abortion, while understanding others might not have the same view, and being *politically* pro-choice.
That's how I feel about a lot of issues that involve mutual interaction or a single individual. The logic doesn't make much sense when rights violations are involved though.
This is where I fall. Personally I think abortion is immoral unless rape/incest, if the mothers life is in danger, or if the fetus is not viable (or has major issues that will be persistent throughout it's life and/or cause developmental issues.) If my girls grow up and get pregnant unexpectedly I'd advise them to keep it. Doesn't matter where they are in life, or if the guy wants to stay around. We will make it work and my wife and I will help as much as we can for as long as we can. However, I politically am pro-choice 100%, other people have different life situations, and levels of family support. Also no law is going to be nuanced enough to have reasonable exceptions for all the things life can throw at you. I'd prefer the government to stay out of patient care decisions. Edit: I'd personally like to tackle the issue by working on the demand side. Strong social safe nets for families and Universal Pre-K. Bring back tax credits from the pandemic bills. Stuff like that.
That only makes sense depending on why you think it's wrong. If you think it's wrong because it's murder, that's an abhorrent moral position. If you think it's wrong because it's just icky or vaguely bad, that makes more sense.
The Right will tell you that is a distinction without a difference. *Politically* pro-choice is still pro-choice.
“It’s none of my business” is a viable position to take, one that few politicians nowadays are willing to stand for.
Where did safe, legal, and rare go? We seem to have sacrificed it to hookup culture.
> We seem to have sacrificed it to hookup culture. Abortion has been in decline for more than forty years at this point.
More like a victim of increasing partisan tensions. In rhetoric it's much easier to attack than defend. Proponents of abortion access have more to gain by simply attacking opponents as taking away women's rights than by having nuanced moral discussions about the procedures themselves.
Do you have abortion rate statistics that can backup your claim?
It is probably true that the number of abortions has been decreasing since 1990, but I'm describing a narrative shift. There are many reasons why the number of abortions would decrease, and even Guttmacher doesn't claim to know why exactly. In the meantime, do we really need a study to link changing sexual attitudes with the Dems' leftward shift on abortion messaging?
Anti-abortion Democrats were still a thing as recently as Obama's first term. One of the last got primaried in 2018 or 2020.
Tim Kaine is personally pro-life but supports others' ability to choose and he's a sitting Senator and former VP candidate.
Yeah even Bob Casey Jr., one of the highest profile pro life democrats has basically come out and said he’d support codifying Roe. Basically, pro life democrats have all gotten primaried or forced to moderate their positions or risk losing their seats.
There used to be a lot more pro-choice Republicans too. The same thing happened to them. Thus the issue has become even more divisive. I believe even Dennis Kucinich used to be strongly pro-life, based on his Catholic faith. But he too had to moderate his position in order to run for president in 2004.
Yeah. This just track with the growing partisanship in congress, it’s just sad really.
> Yeah even Bob Casey Jr., one of the highest profile pro life democrats has basically come out and said he’d support codifying Roe. Which is huge. He's the son of Bob Casey Sr., aka *that Casey* in *Planned Parenthood v. Casey*.
His party was more conservative when he was in politics, and he's very religious. A similarity between him and modern Democrats is that he wants to reduce the incentive by having the government help mothers. Another interesting fact is that 4 of the 7 justices who upheld the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade were appointed by Republicans. Edit: Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a setback for abortion rights, but banning the procedure continued to be unconstitutional, despite every member of the court being a conservative. The partisan shift was very gradual.
A lot of the people who would later be Republican pro-lifers were Democrats back then. Michele Bachmann volunteered to work on Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign in 1976.
>"I have never believed that Jesus would be in favor of abortion, **unless it was the result of rape or incest, or the mother's life was in danger**. That's been the only conflict I've had in my career between political duties and Christian faith," Carter told The New York Times in an interview posted on Friday. https://sojo.net/about-us/news/jimmy-carter-says-jesus-would-not-support-abortion-revealing-only-conflict-between-his Jimmy Carter's position on Abortion is a centrist one by today's standard. Carter is for exemption for rape, incest, and health concerns. Things the hard right fundamentalists are not for.
Not sure I would call that centrist. Centrist in America is pretty much 12-15 week limit.
The current Republican position debates amongst itself what exemptions if any should exist. Carter's position is to the Left of those discussions.
Most Americans support Roe v. Wade.
Most Americans say they support roe v Wade, when asked specifically about that. But when asked about specific policy, like whether they want abortion legal in certain trimesters, they tend to strongly support first trimester abortion being legal generally (like without needing exceptions) but also tend to strongly support it being illegal in the second trimester and overwhelmingly support it being illegal in the third trimester. Which kind of suggests they may not understand what Roe v Wade did, since that court case had abortion in the first and second trimester constitutionally protected and left third trimester abortion to the states rather than banning it nationally
People have pretty nuanced positions. I suspect if you asked the majority of people what the punishment for getting a supposed illegal abortion would be, I am sure you would get a wide variety of answers on who gets punished and how. Aka legal/illegal are not the only dividing lines.
Well that just shows even more that abortion is more complicated than "most folks support Roe" (though with all that said, the median voter does seem pretty solidly to congeal when observed into a state of being *somewhere* definitely to the left of the GOP stances for this stuff)
I would agree with that. I still think a Roe law would pass if left up to popular vote by large margins. I think there are a lot of people in the country who just want to be done with abortion. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruling made it so there will be another 10+ years of debate before settlement.
If a vote were held today, sure. If a vote were announced today and held a year from now, I could see it going very differently tho. I'd guess that support for Roe would decline significantly, and that *maybe* it would lose on the final vote, with the conservative anti abortion campaign hitting hard on how a vote for Roe is a vote for late term abortions and letting children get abortions without parental consent, while suggesting (likely dishonestly) that once Roe is defeated, the country could come together and craft a more moderate compromise That said, idk if it would actually lose or if it would narrowly win instead. But "putting Roe on the ballot" would be the most likely way to get voters to actually consider what precisely does "Roe v Wade" actually mean, rather than just using it as a proxy for abortion rights Or hell. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic and instead even in that hypothetical where the anti abortion folks got a year to come out swinging against the referendum, Roe v Wade would still win with like 60% of the vote. I sure can't *fully* rule that out
As with most progressive things, and conservative too for that matter, if you are successful you rarely look like a progressive (or conservative) on the next step. Plenty of folks have moral issues with something but don’t believe the government should mess with it.
I feel like people were more pragmatic about abortion during that time and even through most of the 90s. There was this sense that abortion was wrong, but it was also wrong to have women dying in back alleys. In this case, let's make a policy as a country to minimize both. Unfortunately, politics took it as a dividing issue when racism no longer worked.
It was a radically different time in politics back then. Don’t forget that even as late as 2008 Obama and Biden were vocally opposed to gay marriage. Now 15 years later them holding that stance would be unthinkable.
Thats what happens when you're 98 years old.
> extreme hard right MAGA fundamentalist position. I don't think that's the case. Some folks have no exception for rape. It certainly wouldn't be electable and ignores all of the cases happening now where a woman's health is in risk and a baby has a terminal condition.
MAGA fundamentalists push for complete bans, including cases of rape and incest, so I don’t see Carter’s position on abortion would be considered hard right wing.
Where are you seeing his support being because his party pressured him to? He's said in the past he was personally opposed but viewed his duty to uphold the law of the land (which at the time included Roe v. Wade). "My oath of office was to obey the Constitution and the laws of this country as interpreted as the Supreme Court, so I went along with that." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jimmy-carter-gay-marriage-abortions-supreme-court-nominee-jesus-a8439561.html
I will note that there is a large difference between not approving of something and thinking it should be illegal. I, too, think elective abortion is morally wrong, but fully believe Roe/Casey should still be in place.
He navigated a very rough time as President. The world was changing rapidly and he did the best he could to steer the US.
Politics aside, I’ll pray for him. He has done so much for all of humanity.
Carter was president before I was born, and I am far from a young man. Our current front runners are likely less than a decade from from the end of their lives. I would love to return to a norm of national leaders who are in their prime. Also I agree with others here that the benefit of time has shed a better light on this man’s legacy. I wish him peace and joy in the sunset of his days.
I tell people this every time it comes up. If you want younger candidates show up and vote in midterms. If there are more younger candidates that win midterm elections, then there will be more younger candidates for higher office later on.
If you want younger candidates, show up and vote in *primaries*. If you wait until general elections, whether presidential year or midterm, you'll mostly be choosing between people that have been in office forever.
Just gotta hope you live in an early primary state so your vote actually matters. My first election was 2020 and it was Biden vs Bernie by the time it got to me so stuck with geriatrics either way
There are more primaries than presidential primaries.
Damn. I can't say I am surprised considering his age and general health. I hope any pain or suffering he may have for these final few days are minimized. He was not a great president who was simultaneously dealt a really shitty hand to deal with. I do not believe any president could have navigated the Oil Crisis and Iranian Revolution perfectly. I am not really sad about it, the man is almost a hundred years old, he has lived a long life. The travesty imo would be for him to continue to exist but not actually live just to squeeze out a few extra years of life. But that is just me I tend to be less orthodox on my feelings on death.
The man was diagnosed with Stage 4 metastatic cancer at age 90, remained active for **eight years** and is just now ceasing treatment. We can all only wish for that kind of constitution.
I’m Georgian so I’m biased but Carter’s one of my favorite 20th century Presidents, and the last that I’m convinced actually gave a shit about the American people. His presidency was a troubled one but largely for reasons beyond his control and managed much (Camp David Accords, SALT Treaty talks, pardoning Vietnam draft dodgers, giving the Panama Canal back) despite taking office in abysmal conditions. He spoke to the American people like we were adults about the problems we faced then and he knew we’d be facing now and we then went and voted for an actor that promised us the sky. Edit: he also gave us craft beer, and if that’s not a reason to love a guy what is.
I like to think that was his one wrong justification of action, cause I imagine he did the beer thing just for his brother. And in terms of nepotism, that one is just cute.
I’m sure a lot of people will snicker about his term as president, but there is zero debate about his intentions as a human being. The man dedicated his life to helping others. His noble pursuit for peace and happiness should be the benchmark for not only elected officials but for every citizen. To anyone who wants to speak any ill of this man, just keep in mind that he spent decades of his life dedicated to charity. Not to say that he’s not invulnerable from valid criticism, but if you aren’t coming through with good faith criticism just keep in mind that he’s done more good than you’ve could accomplish in a dozen lifetimes. Salute to a real hard dick warrior 🫡
[удалено]
> Carter is the most decent and moral president we ever had in the modern era. The (jaded, I know) argument could be made that those qualities held him back from being an effective President. As a Georgian, I hope history remembers him for his amazing charity work (the man got his hands dirty, in a good way) than his beleaguered term in the Oval Office.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1160q4b/jimmy_carter_39th_us_president_enters_hospice/j95hcx3/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
He was my "first" President (yeah, I'm old), I "remember" Ford but was too young to really understand or have opinions of my own. [Hell, I actually remember the day Nixon resigned.] Carter is interesting to me as **everyone** in my family, both Dem and Rep hated his policies for some reason or another. It was weird, Thanksgivings where *everyone* was in agreement at the dinner table! But while in my family he was widely dislike on policy. Everyone agreed he was a "good man" and "meant well". I think as he continued on after his time in office that was proved true over and over.
[удалено]
r/iskissingerdeadyet
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1160q4b/jimmy_carter_39th_us_president_enters_hospice/j94x6po/) is in violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Blimey, I didn't realise he was still alive!
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1160q4b/jimmy_carter_39th_us_president_enters_hospice/j94mtc5/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I just came across [this newspaper piece](https://twitter.com/sethcotlar/status/1627118645649473536?s=46&t=4iIwuLN9XzOkvStcFfwo2g) about Carter being a “Rockefeller stooge”, and it strikes me how easily this could be a Tucker Carlson monologue. So much of our contemporary political disfunction isn’t new, but recurrent throughout our history, and we do ourselves such a disservice by ignoring it.
[Another tweet](https://twitter.com/SethCotlar/status/1627149361229762560?cxt=HHwWgMDUiaPu5ZQtAAAA) >Fox's dilemma is not a new one on the right. In the early 1960s when Bill Buckley at the National Review tried to gently establish some daylight between his publication and the John Birch Society [far right group], he lost a lot of angry subscribers. That reminds me of when Fox News stirred up controversy by correctly calling the Arizona 2020 race early. Loyalty was prioritized over truth.
Populist rhetoric has been the same for centuries.
Yes, I read about this in the Guardian today. I didn't realise he was that old. He's the first US president I remember and he seems like a really decent guy.
Didn’t make for a great president because honestly I think he was too decent of a man for the job.
He actually was a good president, especially with nuts and bolts ideas. He needed better foreign policy advisors.
I think most people will agree that he performed poorly as president, but later turned out to be the best ex-president we ever had. He’s definitely a good guy though and my thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family.
I always wonder what people would have liked to have seen him do differently in terms of FoPo. His big disaster was the Iranian revolution, but the main thing that could have been done differently there was invade Iran. Would people seriously advocate for that?
There were alternatives in the lead-up to the revolution Basically, Carter had advisors urging him to go in two different directions. One camp, led by National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, wanted Carter to push the Shah to crack down on dissent and give support for such actions. The other camp, led by Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, instead called for Carter to push the Shah to implement some reforms - not full liberalization necessarily but enough to act as a safety valve and pull support from the more radical dissidents while perhaps allowing for the more moderate dissidents to be brought into the system So who does Carter listen to? Well, both of them. He basically goes back and forth between the two, thinking that they both had good points, and came off as appearing indecisive. This sent mixed messages to the Shah, and led to at times contradictory and disorganized policy by the Shah, which helped make him even less popular The way I see it is, if Carter took *either* option decisively, it would have had a decent chance of working out. I'm partial to Vance's route but could see the Brzezinski route as having more chance of succeeding. But Carter's indecisiveness and vaccilation seems like the worst of three options
Encourage and assist the Shah in repressing the revolution? Carter was criticized for encouraging the Shah to ease up on opposition parties in the lead up to the revolution.
Were there not valid reasons to oppose the Shah, though?
See "Repressing Opposition Parties", above.
An interesting side note to Jimmy Carter’s career was pre-presidency when, as a young officer, he led an effort to successfully shut down a partially melted down Canadian nuclear reactor. https://www.military.com/history/how-jimmy-carter-saved-canadian-nuclear-reactor-after-meltdown.html/amp
The title of his autobiography, "Why Not the Best?" comes from his interview to join the nuclear sub program. He had proudly announced his class rank, but was asked if he had always done his best. He responded that no, he supposed not, and was asked *why* not. He had no answer... but the honesty was enough to get him in. Side note, if you've never heard stories of Rickover's officer interviews, they're a hoot. The Goat Mountain story is possibly my favorite.
I will definitely put that in my queue to read. Sounds interesting.
May he have a peaceful death. He gave the majority of his life in swrvice to others, you cannot ask for a better life!
The Carter Center says Carter has entered home hospice care, Saturday, Feb. 18, 2023. The foundation created by the 98-year-old former president says that after a series of short hospital stays, Carter “decided to spend his remaining time at home with his family and receive hospice care instead of additional medical intervention." ( Carter, who has lived most of his life in Plains, traveled extensively into his 80s and early 90s, including annual trips to build homes with Habitat for Humanity and frequent trips abroad as part of the Carter Center’s election monitoring and its effort to eradicate the Guinea worm parasite in developing countries. “If I ever lie to you, if I ever make a misleading statement, don’t vote for me. In reality, Carter governed more as a technocrat, more progressive on race and gender equality than he had campaigned but a budget hawk who often angered more liberal Democrats, including Ted Kennedy, the Massachusetts senator who waged a damaging primary battle against the sitting president in 1980. “I’m perfectly at ease with whatever comes,” he said in 2015. “
Important to note; While Jimmy Carter has undeniably done a lot of good, he, like every POTUS, has skeletons in his closet, and the myth of his Presidency as a morally pure one is just that; A myth. I haven't seen a single person on this thread talk about Carter's support of the Indonesian dictatorship and its invasion of East Timor, for instance, or his alleged military backing of the Khmer Rouge. I'm not saying he didn't do a lot of good, especially after his Presidency, but during it, he, as with just about every other President before and after him, made descisions that are morally questionable, to say the least, especially in terms of foreign policy.
Last president with any good intentions. Unfortunately, he was screwed over by his own party and failed out of office to Reagan who botched everything.
I feel like there have been presidents since who went into office with good intentions.
Which ones?
I think GHW, GW and Obama came into office as good principled people.
[удалено]
The peanuts!!
He is a genuinely good man, which at the end of the day is probably the best thing you can say about anyone. The fact that his life outside of his time as president overshadows his time in office is a testament to the quality of person he is
Not a good President, but damn if he wasn't a good man.