July 1, 2008
Column: How Obama can avoid the Carter trap
It is rarely a good sign when you begin to re-live your childhood. Of late, I have found myself drifting back to the 1970s with disturbing frequency. Once again, the British newspapers are full of headlines about Saudi oil sheikhs, inflation and trade-union militancy. A terrorist threat hangs over London. The England team has failed to qualify for a major football tournament. All it needs is some power cuts and the return of glam rock – and I will be right back into my second childhood.But my most insistent flashbacks are to the US, not Britain. I spent the summer of 1976 in California, where I made the discovery that American politics is much more exciting than the British variety.
The US was in the throes of a presidential election and the Democratic party had produced a new and exciting candidate – Jimmy Carter. Like Barack Obama today, Mr Carter was inexperienced; but he promised a fresh start and an opportunity to change America’s image in the world.
There are close parallels between the elections of 1976 and 2008. The Iraq war, like the Vietnam war, has demoralised America and stoked the desire for change. But once again, there are fears that defeat might lead to a loss of American credibility or to a resurgence of isolationism.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.
How about this:
Back to 1932 — Is Obama the new Franklin Delano Roosevelt?
(He has at least one potentially helpful ally — Paul Volcker.)
Posted by: Graham Colville | July 1st, 2008 at 11:19 am | Report this comment“So is Mr Obama the new Jimmy Carter?” Probably not.
Is McCain the new GWB? Probably yes as far as foreign and military policy concerned.
Which one is the bigger disaster?
Any new American president could follow a few basic rules to avoid misfortune abroad:
- Respect the fact that other nations have different interests from the US and that other people have different opinions from you. Don’t rush into condemning others for pursuing their own opinions and interests.
- Show the highest respect for international law and international institutions. In this regards, be a leader by example not a big bully who thinks he can flout every law.
- Don’t assume that because you are the most powerful nation, your power is limitless and don’t assume that others are so scared of you that they will give up without a fight. Recognise that if your foreign policy consists of issuing threats and insults, you are unlikely to gain anything but pyrrhic victories at best.
- Do away with American exceptionalism and egotism. It has often been a cloak for justifying international lawlessness and exploitation.
Try to make alliances where possible by acknowledging other people’s rights and interests.
At home:
- Put the Zionist lobby in its place and stop putting America’s interests below that of the rightwing of Likud.
-Try to get Americans more interested in the outside world and more informed about it. This should help them to avoid being led by the nose by narrow interest groups.
Posted by: Pacifist | July 1st, 2008 at 12:20 pm | Report this commentWonderful article. Reminds me why I once was an avid reader of Charlemagne.
Posted by: RCS | July 1st, 2008 at 12:50 pm | Report this commentLooks kind of ironic that the conservatives usually get US into trouble and the democrats get all the dirty work.
It is not only a question of winning or losing in foreign policy issues (those are sometimes very complicated to judge) as it is a question of getting public support for president’s initiatives. At home and abroad. McCains’ America of “do what we say, because we are old friends” is definitely less attractive to US allies and the rest of the world than Obama’s personal example of US democracy achievements. But it probably has some potential of being attractive at home, because true non-isolationist society tends to destroy stereotypes. Including some of those that form myths for national pride. And sometimes the voters just say: “Stop, I want back that perfect America/Russia/Japan/Israel that once kicked all those bad guys around”.
Compromise is really a tough skill and its something impossible to replace by “tough guys” in the long term. If Obama succeeds in finding compromise solution to at least few global issues (rather than just trying to grab a piece of the pie) he will definitely boost America’s role. To the extent it is possible in the new shape of the world economy.
Posted by: Andrei, Russia | July 1st, 2008 at 1:00 pm | Report this commentThe democrats get us out of trouble? That’s a hoot. I remember Jimmy”I ‘ll never lie to you” Carter. High inflation, joblessness and the “misery index”–that all went out with Reagan. He restored pride to our nation.
Posted by: Marine | July 1st, 2008 at 1:06 pm | Report this commentI feel sorry for whoever becomes the next president. Whoever gets in will almost certainly face the same economic and foriegn policy problems as Mr. Carter.
The economic problem is insoluble - a gas guzzling oil addicted economy during a time of high oil prices and oil shortages - niether candidate stands a chance.
The foriegn policy problems either candidate could do equally well, or, badly. McCain has the Bush legacy to contend with, but, at least he can talk (always an advantage in diplomatic circles) and has an air of gravitas and intelligence which is easy to take seriously. Obama’s is likeable but his revival tent sincerity is unlikely to impress foreign politicos. Can he find Iceland on a map, let alone Iraq or Iran?
So if either candidate wants posterity to be kind to them they should prey for a close election and some hanging chads resulting in a naroow loss.
Posted by: James Anderson | July 1st, 2008 at 1:37 pm | Report this commentObama will fail ameriocans becuase he is like a plaster/bandaid on a 20 year festering boil. Check the facts for yourself, the entire american powerbrokers/cabal who have been running things for decades are still the same belliose geriatric great grandpas who are struggling to live a huge mark read heartless red marks on the posterior of the whole wild world because like all old people they are very bitter that the would soon be plant food. People can dream all they like , but Obama is no new thing.Carter he will not be like,becuase people tend to forget that he is nothing but a johhny just come.He is basically a lamb to the slaughter in the dark world of politics.He will not be controlling anything much the only thing managed to control was his alleged drinking
Posted by: chunfla Burlbe | July 1st, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Report this commentInteresting read but again stretching way too far to achieve that analogy to an earlier decade (as many did on the Vietnam analagy). The US is in a belt tightening period for sure but no where near the malaise and recession economy of the Carter era. This is, for the better part, a market correction of ridiculously overvalued property (ask the new home buyers if the housing slump is bad news) and ridiculously undervalued (and overtaxed) fuel.
The Iraq War has not sparked a protest/peace movement of any significance (those in that camp were already there before Iraq - it hasnt really grown). This should be a pretty strong clue that although Americans don’t like the way the way the war was fought - they are not idealistically opposed to it. Most of them have some understanding, even if they only haunt the fringes of awareness, that Saddam had to go and that a stable and free Iraq are important to the region and thus our own security. They may not see a direct connection between Saddam and terrorism (which really existed) but they understand that al Qaeda came there to fight us and we had to beat them. They get that even though it is an unpleasent reality and they dont like it.
Americans are not nearly as bear-ish and cynical as they were during the Carter era.
The real comparison is not Cater/Obama anyway. It is Obama/Bill Clinton. Obama has the same slick persona as Bill Clinton. Great rhetoric while saying absolutely nothing got Bill elected and may do the same for Obama. At least Clinton was center left. Obama is fringe left. I think a lot of people recognize that and he will lose to McCain, making McCain the luckiest man alive that the dems ran a hard core fringe-leftist as a presidential candidate.
www.bothinontrench.com
Posted by: Ray Robison | July 1st, 2008 at 5:18 pm | Report this commentIt’s really fun times to read Rachman’s perspectives on the 1970s. Yes, that’s it. We just elected Carter, because we were awash in “pessimism” from the 1960s. Yes. It’s true. The 1960s unleashed a veritable wave of unbelievers in American exceptionalism, that altar at which we must worship or else find ourselves cast into the category of “leftist” in America (as if there is any “left” left in the U.S.). And of course, we MUST, I mean, MUST, keep fighting wars driven by Israel’s lobby in the U.S. Now, there’s a sign of the health of our democracy! That A.I.P.A.C. drafts legislation and hands it over to Congress people who dutifully bring it up and pass it. On cue.
I LOVE, I mean, LOVE, listening to conservative Brits tell us what we need in the U.S. at this point in time.
Posted by: fun to read non-native Californian\'s views of the U.S. in the 1970s | July 1st, 2008 at 6:17 pm | Report this commentOn Ray Robinson’s last point, I have to agree with him. Obama was all about “I’m different/transformational” until he won the Democratic stand-off. Since, he seems to have ‘morphed’ into a blurred, centrist version of Bill Clinton.
Anyway, whoever takes over after Bush will find themselves saddled with over $300Bn debt (and rising) for the Iraq war. That is surely going to tie their hands (and their successors for some time to come, probably). Not much room to change Health or other issues Obama says are ‘dear’ to him, unless there is some drastic shift in taxation policy?
Posted by: Derek Tunnicliffe | July 1st, 2008 at 6:23 pm | Report this commentI was in Washington for most of the summer of 1976 and remember well the campaign.
Regarding Iran, Jimmy Carter’s huge mistake was to amplify by many times the effect achieved by the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran. The taking of the hostages was organized and carried out without the knowledge or approval of the highest level of power in the new revolutionary regime. Rather than play down the story, Carter allowed the situation to be hyped into an unnecessary - - and entirely elective - - crisis.
Is it true that disloyal operatives within the Carter administration sabotaged the negotiations for release of the hostages?
Carter clearly was right to push through the Egyptian peace agreement with Israel. This led to Israel’s peace with Jordan, and it cleared the way for Israel’s peace with Syria, which has in effect been blocked by Hard-core right-wing elements in the Bush administration working closely with the militarist/Zionist element in Israel.
Posted by: James Canning | July 1st, 2008 at 6:54 pm | Report this commentThanks for the bracing reminder that soaring pre-election hopes so often come to grief. Re your warning about panic, though: if “No Drama Obama” knows himself at all, that’s not likely to be his failing. Here’s what he told Fox’s Chris Wallace on April 27:
OBAMA: I’ve learned that I have what I believe is the right temperament for the presidency. Which is, I don’t get too high when I’m high and I don’t get too low when I’m low. And we’ve gone through all kinds of ups and downs.
People forget now that I had been written off last summer. People were writing many of the anguished articles that they’re not writing after our loss in Pennsylvania. On the other hand, after Iowa, when everybody was sure this was over, I think I was more measured and more cautious.
That I think is a temperamental strength.
Posted by: Xpostfactoid | July 1st, 2008 at 7:10 pm | Report this commentCarter was somewhat fiscally conservative, and adamantly against pork barrel spending. Sen. Obama voted for the Bridge to Nowhere (among several tons of other pork) and was a sponsor of a Gender Equity bill to guarantee equal pay by gender across professions.
I think that running to the Left of Jimmy Carter (or George McGovern for that matter) should make you unelectable for President of the United States.
Posted by: John Powers | July 1st, 2008 at 7:13 pm | Report this commentCarter was the last Dem in the macro cycle of Democratic party dominance from 1932-1980. Carter, by any standard, was the more conservative Democrat on that spectrum FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ. He presided over the loss of the south (not his doing of course) and was sitting in power when the economy was hit with massive inflation combined with the cultural unrest brought in by the various pro democracy social movements in the U.S. from the late 60s and early 70s.
From 1980, you’ve had the Macro Republican cycle, with Reagan, Bush, and Bush II. 1980-Present. I am not going to predict the end of this monetary anti labor corporate dominated era…but I would guess that it has more years behind it than in front of it.
Posted by: Evan Rowe | July 1st, 2008 at 7:38 pm | Report this commentI would replace the presidency with an elected triumvirate: one member’s weaknesses would be compensated by another member’s strengths, and vice versa. If rule by committee is preferable for monetary policy, then why not for everything else? Switzerland shows how it could work.
Posted by: RCS | July 1st, 2008 at 7:53 pm | Report this commentRay Robinson,
You are living in a fantasy world. This is not the
US people here in NA know.
To quote Thomas Friedman (of Globalisation Fame and gung-ho on Iraq): “We are in decline” (in the IHT).
Here are some of these parameters from Market Watch:
all 25 of them:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mega-meltdown-poll-25-major-threats/story.aspx?guid=%7B09107DCF%2D2202%2D4058%2DAB58%2DB2CDF019B55D%7D&dist=TNMostRead
Posted by: Cassandra | July 1st, 2008 at 8:15 pm | Report this commentTwo thoughts: You say “for all President Carter’s integrity and intelligence….” I’ll have to grant the intelligence part–Jimmy Carter is, after all, a nuclear engineer. But integrity? For a man who promised “I will never lie to the American people,” he has quite a few whoopers to his name. It’s not that hard to find them. And integrity means more than just telling the truth. For him, as a former President, to have not returned the Nobel Peace Prize after the chairman of the committee announced that Carter’s award was a “kick in the leg” to all who followed the current American line was an verbal attack on the United States and its current President, who, whether you like him or not, represents this country. For Carter to have retained the Nobel Prize after that shows his lack of true character–though since no one has ever before worked and campaigned so hard and so openly for the Nobel Peace Prize than Jimmy Carter, I guess he just couldn’t bear to play the man and give it up. Of course, knowing that it has been given to the likes of Kofi Annan and the United Nations (oil for food, anyone?)and Yasser Arafat in recent years indicates that as an award it is not always to be desired.
Secondly, the discussion on Carter-type diplomacy and whether that path will be followed by Barack Obama if he wins the presidency: One is reminded of Winston Churchill’s comment about Neville Chamberlain in the book “The Gathering Storm.” Churchill wrote in one place that “Mr. Chamberlain was imbued with a sense of a special and personal mission to come to friendly terms with the Dictators of Italy and Germany, and he conceived himself capable of achieving this relationship.” Sound like anyone we know? Could Jimmy be his name? In another place in the book, Churchill wrote: “The Prime Minister wished to get on good terms with the two European dictators (Mussolini and Hitler), and believed that conciliation and avoidance of anything likely to offend them was the best method.” Of course, with hindsight, we know that this approach worked very well for Chamberlain–right up to the moment the Germans launched the attack on Poland. Jimmy Carter, who likes to cozy up to bloody dictators, follows the Chamberlain approach to international affairs. If Obama follows the Jimmy Carter example, his success will be about the same as Chamberlain’s. Churchill had the folowing to say about how murderous thugs and dictators running other countries view the West’s diplomatic niceties and civilities. Churchill was referencing the return of the Saar to Germany during the interwar years: “He (Hitler) was not at all conciliated, still less impressed, by the proof of the League’s (League of Nations) impartiality or fair play. No doubt it confirmed his view that the allies were decadent fools.”
Posted by: Terry L. Walker | July 1st, 2008 at 10:12 pm | Report this commentThere’s a saying in India that a good human being will make a good son-in-law, but not necessarily a good politician. I’m sure Obama is the perfect son-in-law. He’s may not necessarily be the best President!
Posted by: www.winnowed.blogspot.com | July 2nd, 2008 at 6:15 am | Report this commentHey “Sugar” Ray Robinson, don’t you think you are one of those who, in your own parlance, “only haunt the fringes of awareness” when you make a comment like this?:
“They [Yanks in general] may not see a direct connection between Saddam and terrorism (which really existed) but they understand that al Qaeda came there to fight us and we had to beat them.”
FYI, Al Qaeda had no existence in pre-invasion Iraq which was a strong, centrally controlled, secular entity with no place for fundamentalist Wahabi terrorists who had indeed declared Saddam an apostate.
Al Qaeda only came to Iraq when the US invasion made it a failed state.
Your kind of comment is typical of the ignorance that the American citizenry wallow in (probably because one “darkie” is very much the same as another one, in your eyes) and the reason why Americans are led by the nose to fight other peoples’ wars.
Sigh,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 2nd, 2008 at 2:43 pm | Report this commentAs for Glam Rock, you may wish to review the works of “Panic at the Disco” whose latest release “Pretty.Odd.” appears to have some influences from that direction.
Posted by: Matt | July 2nd, 2008 at 8:43 pm | Report this commentTo expect BO to perform miracles is of course ridiculous. He will be a weak president, imo and will be manipulated, and definitely outsmarted by Wall Street.
The US economy has already experienced two implosions, the dot.com meltdown in 2000, when
Posted by: J.J. | July 3rd, 2008 at 8:15 am | Report this commentan est. USD5 trillion went up in smoke and in 2007 the double whammy of the subprime and the real estate collapse. The destruction of capital is incredible. How much more of that kind of punishment can the groggy US economy take?
There’s one big difference between Carter and Obama, imo. The non-white population in the USA will expect a massive improvement in their lives if “one of their own” - i.e. Obama - is elected, especially if unemployment is rising rapidly. If they don’t get that, we could see a lot of civil unrest in the USA.
Posted by: J.J. | July 3rd, 2008 at 8:39 am | Report this commentCarter lost the election because, unlike Obama, he refused, in the end, to appease those powerful groups who cast the only valid votes in America.
Carter thought that the presidency was an influential and powerful office that permitted some independence, silly fellow, which is why he ended up a carpenter like the bearded fellow from Nazareth and why he also met the same end, without the resurrection part.
Not yet, anyway.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 3rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm | Report this commentRarely for the important and significant events in life rarely are “comparisons” helpful in providing an understanding. Obama’s nomination and his eventual win both were and are highly improbable. It is and was unpredictable and it will carry a massive impact…he is one of Taleb’s Black Swans…it is a mistake to concentrate on what we know and insist it will happen time and time again…it is better to focus on what we dont know …and it is also more interesting…Obama is an enormous opportunity for America…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | July 3rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm | Report this commentLisa said “…it is a mistake to concentrate on what we know and insist it will happen time and time again”
Albert Einstein is quoted as saying: “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
imho Einstein was more right. Any American president will come to office beholden and susceptible to many powerful lobbies and pressure groups and with advisers who largely come from those pressure groups and their affiliated think tanks. He will be entirely hemmed in by them and, at least as far as foreign policy is concerned, it will be business as usual.
Sad but true.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 3rd, 2008 at 4:33 pm | Report this comment“P” quoting The big E”Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
That’s because that’s how we are …or at least most of us are wired…P …you need to sleep in an yurt and get on a horse and ride the Persian Silk road…it will help re-wire you!…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | July 3rd, 2008 at 4:59 pm | Report this commentHi Lisa,
Do you imagine that most Iranians sleep in yurts and ride horses?
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 3rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm | Report this commentPaskalis,
How do you know he had a beard?
Posted by: RCS | July 3rd, 2008 at 7:55 pm | Report this commentDear Pacifist,
I think L-Helene is travelling on the Silk Road laptop in hand. She is probably drinking the healtiest milk there is: (Mare’s milk). If this is true it must really be an exciting story.
Or maybe she is telling you to begin thinking in a non-standard fashion.
Better to wait her explanation.
Posted by: Cassandra | July 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 pm | Report this commentPascalis and RCS:
Both Jesus and Moses are mythical figures on the same level as Kronos and Zeus.
Zeus was certainly more colourful. (Can you imagine e.g. getting the lady of your desires pregnant by becoming golden rain?!!)
Posted by: Cassandra | July 3rd, 2008 at 9:19 pm | Report this commentDear Cassandra,
I do not think Jesus was a mythical figure; scholarly consensus is otherwise. (What an awful English rendering of his name. Hebrew/Aramaic pronunciation is: Yeh-shoo-ah, with stress on the final syllable, as in French. At least these same Latin letters in German sound better, and a bit closer to the original: Yeh-zoos [same as in Greek?])
Posted by: RCS | July 3rd, 2008 at 9:48 pm | Report this commentMore precisely: there is a real Jesus lurking behind the mythical figure. Read ‘The Changing Faces of Jesus’ by eminent Oxford historian Geza Vermes (pronounced Ver-mesh, with stress on the first syllable; this is a Hungarian name).
Here is the book on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Changing-Faces-Jesus-Geza-Vermes/dp/0140265244/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215118650&sr=8-1
Posted by: RCS | July 3rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm | Report this commentJesus was not mythical. He was fictional (much more than you and I are) but based on mythical characters (like Mythras).
It’s an indisputable historical fact that the fictional Jesus had a mythical beard.
This clarifies the role of the Holy Ghost in the Trinity.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 3rd, 2008 at 10:16 pm | Report this commentPaskalis,
You have a great sense of humour. I also assume you must have seen a lot of Monty Python stuff.
I also read stuff about your Mythras and some other stuff. He could also be a Jewish Fanatic nut: “Essenes”. It doesn’t really matter: all serious theoretical physicists(or rather most) cannot accept the existence of any kind of non material entity influencing the workings of the universe.
RCS, In Greek Jesus is phontetically rendered two ways: “Christos” accent on “o” or “EEsous”
Posted by: Cassandra | July 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm | Report this commentnear the hebrew Ye-Ho-sua. I cannot waste my time on the archeology of superstition, therefore i cannot read another book on the fact that the guy
existed. If he existed he maust have been a man like Mohammed. (who had troubles with his wife) If you have time and you like literature read Saramango’s “The Gospel according to Jesus”.:
Intersesting relatioship with Magdalene.
Thank you Cassandra for clarifying the Greek pronunciation.
Ye-ho-shu’a (stress on last) = Joshua. Jesus in Hebrew is, as I said: Ye-shu’a (stress on last), though the two names are probably etymologically related, the latter being a contraction of the former. Their meaning is: God has delivered.
Posted by: RCS | July 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 pm | Report this comment‘Christos’ is of course an appellation meaning ‘the anointed one’, same as Hebrew ‘Mashiach’ (stress on penultimate; ch pronounced similarly to German) which means ‘anointed with oil’, from which is derived English ‘Messiah’.
Posted by: RCS | July 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 pm | Report this commentIs Obama the new Mugabe?
Posted by: Shevvers | July 7th, 2008 at 8:24 am | Report this comment