Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

fable · 01-25-2002, 09:49 PM

We got to talking over in another thread about Jimmy Carter and the White House. As the discussion wasn't pertinent to the question at hand, I thought I'd move it over here.

The consensus even among non-partisan academics is still that Carter made a poor president. If a president is supposed to work his will on the Congress, Carter was a failure, since Congress hated him. If a president is supposed to propose budgets that are in some measure accepted by Congress, again, he failed. He couldn't get his agenda accepted, either by the rest of the government, or by the people who elected him.

Before I am torn to shreds by Carter supporters who don't wish to read everything I've written, I should add that I regard Carter as possibly the most ethical president we've seen in the 20th century. He began the release of classified documents relating to secret activities of the CIA in South and Central America, which Clinton continued. He called for the abolition of lobbying junkets, and complete financial disclosure of elected officials to all constituents. (This did not make him popular with either party.) His actions since leaving the White Office have shown him to be among the most successful international arbitrators of all time. Carter could have retired, wealthy and successful, to his Georgian home; instead, he not only continued efforts to seek world peace, but maintains a school devoted to teaching younger members of the diplomatic corps the tools of negotiation.

So what is Carter's position in history, do you think? Let's expand this a little with the following questions:

Can an effective leader also be an extremely moral leader? Or is a leader arguably better when they're ethically slippery?

Does the process of climbing to the political peak of a nation allow one to maintain one's sense of ethics?

And by what standards should we judge the effectiveness of a President? Their national popularity? Their willingess to be very unpopular, and do what they consider right? Their effectiveness at bullying and promising favors to Congress?

Your call, folks. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: fable ]

01-25-2002, 09:49 PM	#1
fable Quintesson Join Date: March 17, 2001 Location: Where I am. Posts: 1,089	We got to talking over in another thread about Jimmy Carter and the White House. As the discussion wasn't pertinent to the question at hand, I thought I'd move it over here. The consensus even among non-partisan academics is still that Carter made a poor president. If a president is supposed to work his will on the Congress, Carter was a failure, since Congress hated him. If a president is supposed to propose budgets that are in some measure accepted by Congress, again, he failed. He couldn't get his agenda accepted, either by the rest of the government, or by the people who elected him. Before I am torn to shreds by Carter supporters who don't wish to read everything I've written, I should add that I regard Carter as possibly the most ethical president we've seen in the 20th century. He began the release of classified documents relating to secret activities of the CIA in South and Central America, which Clinton continued. He called for the abolition of lobbying junkets, and complete financial disclosure of elected officials to all constituents. (This did not make him popular with either party.) His actions since leaving the White Office have shown him to be among the most successful international arbitrators of all time. Carter could have retired, wealthy and successful, to his Georgian home; instead, he not only continued efforts to seek world peace, but maintains a school devoted to teaching younger members of the diplomatic corps the tools of negotiation. So what is Carter's position in history, do you think? Let's expand this a little with the following questions: Can an effective leader also be an extremely moral leader? Or is a leader arguably better when they're ethically slippery? Does the process of climbing to the political peak of a nation allow one to maintain one's sense of ethics? And by what standards should we judge the effectiveness of a President? Their national popularity? Their willingess to be very unpopular, and do what they consider right? Their effectiveness at bullying and promising favors to Congress? Your call, folks. [img]smile.gif[/img] [ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: fable ]