Welch and Gillespie: Obama Is Speeding Into Carter Country
[Guest post by DRJ]
In a Washington Post article dated tomorrow, Reason’s Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie compare Barack Obama with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and rate Obama as Carteresque:
“So far, [Obama] seems to be skipping the chapter on Bill Clinton and his generally free-market economic policies and instead flipping back to the themes and comportment of Jimmy Carter. Like the 39th president, Obama has inherited an awful economy, dizzying budget deficits and a geopolitical situation as promising as Kim Jong Il’s health. Like Carter, Obama is smart, moralistic and enamored of alternative energy schemes that were nonstarters back when America’s best-known peanut farmer was installing solar panels at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Like Carter, Obama faces as much effective opposition from his own party’s left wing as he does from an ardent but diminished GOP.
And perhaps most important, as with Carter, his specific policies are genuinely unpopular.”
The article goes on to recite some of Obama’s inconsistencies — how he ran against Bush but is implementing Bush policies, promised an end to wasteful spending while presiding over an explosion of spending and earmarks, and vowed he “didn’t want to take over General Motors on the day that he took over General Motors.” Plus, my favorite part:
“Such is the extent of Obama’s magical realism that he can promise to post all bills on the Internet five days before signing them, serially break that promise and then, when announcing that he wouldn’t even try anymore, have a spokesman present the move as yet another example of “providing the American people more transparency in government.”
The authors also note Obama’s similarity to Bush in that both relied on a crisis mentality to get desired legislation. Gillespie and Welch argue Americans prefer a “semblance of rational deliberation rather than one sky-is-falling legislative session after another.”
The authors encourage Obama to abandon the Carter road map and emulate Clinton but I don’t think that will happen. Obama will have to make too many right turns to follow Clinton’s economic path.
— DRJ
I read it earlier. I thought it was a very good piece and sent it around to a bunch of folks.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/18/2009 @ 11:31 pmIsn’t this being unnecessarily harsh to incompetent Jimmy Carter. I mean comparing Carter to Obama is like comparing Bambi to Godzilla.
Obama will remain the mark with whom we will measure poltroons, thieves, and marxists in the future.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/18/2009 @ 11:49 pmBarack Obama’s style of derangement is what stands to follow I think when you have a supine and servile media prostituting itself for you shamelessly from when Steve Inskeep wakes up in the morning to when Keef Olbermann goes to bed at night. It’s an unwholesome environment.
happyfeet (c75712) — 7/18/2009 @ 11:53 pmClinton blew up his administration in the first two years trying to force unasked-for Health Care “reform”, lost control of Congress, and spent the next six years fighting for his personal political survival.
Obama will not do as well as Clinton did. He lacks Clinton’s oafish charm.
Glen Wishard (02562c) — 7/19/2009 @ 2:38 amI voted for Carter in 1976, and voted for Reagan in 1980, so I don’t need to be lectured about Carter weaknesses. But the thrust of this post is terribly unfair to Carter with respect to economic and energy policies. Carter deregulated oil and natural gas prices, and ran smaller deficits than the GOP administrations befor and after him.
NCC (996c34) — 7/19/2009 @ 6:06 amDevastating. Beautifully written and well sourced.
steve (f352b5) — 7/19/2009 @ 6:06 amI saw this article yesterday and had to do a double, no, triple take on the source. What? The Washington Post actually publishing objective journalism??? I was SHOCKED, simply SHOCKED that the Washington Post would have the fortitude to publish an article critical of “The One.” If he is losing the Washington Post, he is in serious trouble. Tra la, la, la la O Happy Day!
J. Raymond Wright (e8d0ca) — 7/19/2009 @ 8:10 amI agree that Carter is demeaned by the comparison with Obama. I think Carter, no matter how naive and ineffective, was genuinely concerned about human rights and meant well. I don’t think that is true of Obama.
Mike K (90939b) — 7/19/2009 @ 8:14 amI agree that Carter is demeaned by the comparison with Obama. I think Carter, no matter how naive and ineffective, was genuinely concerned about human rights and meant well. I don’t think that is true of Obama.
True–Carter was merely incompetent while President. He didn’t turn malicious until he became an ex-President and made a hobby out of kissing the posteriors of every anti-American dictator he could find. From The One’s antics abroad so far–not to mention his despicable course of action regarding Honduras–we’re not going to be that lucky this time.
M. Scott Eiland (5ccff0) — 7/19/2009 @ 8:32 amI voted for Carter in 1976, and voted for Reagan in 1980,
Your entire life is a fantasy, so why would this claim be any different? Did you vote for them while you were playing kickball with the US Embassy in Moscow, or during your time spent in England ranting against Thatcherism? But wait, you claimed that you were also working for CBS at the same time, and was regularly servicing Rather in the Men’s restroom – and then there were the years spent in Houston working for Enron and NASA at the same time.
Did you invent a type of holographic machine in conjuntion with Von Braun, in order to be in multiple locations at exactly the same time? Beam me up, Scotty!
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 7/19/2009 @ 8:42 amCarter’s current day lunacy makes people forget that before he lost to Reagan he was challenged by Ted Kennedy in the 1980 Democratic Primary because a large wing of the party thought Carter wasn’t far enough left. You hear a little grumbling from the far left today about Obama not having already implemented single-payer health care, pulled all U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, closed Gitmo and hung Bush and Cheney, but there’s no remote chance of Obama facing a challenge from his left in 2012 other than by a fringe candidate like a Cindy Sheehan.
Also, in terms of Clinton v. Obama, Bill had the advantage of having already run to the left of where he campaigned as governor of Arkansas and been thrown out of office, and then tacking back to the center ro regain power with the help of Dick Morris. So he knew the danger signs and brought Morris back after the ’94 midterm debacle.
Obama has ex-Clintonite Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, but he was one of those contemptuous of Morris’ triangulation scheme, though willing to admit it worked in so far as being able to fool enough voters to get Bill re-elected in 1996. That’s why he recruited all those Blue Dog Democrats to run for Congress in 2006 and 2008. But unlike Morris, who convinced Clinton he had to give the moderates something to keep their votes and remain in office, the White House under Obama and Emanuel seems to think the role of the Blue Dogs is to just shut up and vote for whatever the president asks for, as if those candidates who ran on one record can still fool the voters in 2010 if they have “yes’ votes on things like cap and trade, Porkulus and National Health Care on the records.
Obama and Emanuel may wise up if the voters spank Deomcrats next November. But having never personally lost a race by campaigning in the middle and then governing to the left, they way Clinton did in 1980, there’s a good chance the collective ego in the White House will simply try to double down and play hardball Chicago politics with the Blue Dogs in the House and Senate, while relying on groups like ACORN to conjure up enough mystery voters in swing states and slanting the 2010 Census’ Congressional redistricting to their liking to get them through the ’12 elections.
The
John (d4490d) — 7/19/2009 @ 8:45 amDmac,
Your quote is from NCC, not DCSCA.
Stashiu3 (ed6467) — 7/19/2009 @ 8:47 amThough Stash is correct in fact, I also suspect the Dmac is correct in spirit.
JD (0d131e) — 7/19/2009 @ 9:36 amComment by NCC — 7/19/2009 @ 6:06 am
You state that Carter deregulated petroleum. If he did, it sure as Hell wasn’t reflected in the lines at gas-stations, and the odd-even rationing that was imposed. Like many of the things that Gov’t does, it was incomplete. While he might have deregulated petroleum (and natural gas) on the production/wholesale end, he maintained a rigid series of regulations on retail pricing and distribution, which held retail prices to an artificially low level, and restricted the distribution of product where it was needed in expanding suburbs, while older dealers in declining markets had an excess of supply. It is remarkable that the very first Executive Order signed by Ronald Reagan on 20 Jan 81, was the elimination of all controls on the price and distribution of petroleum product – which ended the problem.
AD - RtR/OS! (e2278d) — 7/19/2009 @ 10:14 amJohn, I read last night that the WH is running ads critical of 12 democrats in their home districts. Tone-deaf indeed.
Chris (a24890) — 7/19/2009 @ 10:38 amThey are relatively soft ads, that some commenters seem to think are a warning shot to others on the Hill, and the Party.
AD - RtR/OS! (e2278d) — 7/19/2009 @ 10:47 amBut, it does seem counterproductive to be antagonizing your purported allies, whose support you will need on this, and other, issues.
Ah, the Chicago Way!
So Carter was Mr. Deregulation, eh? Let’s return to yester year and open the quote vault from Sept 1977 . Now if you do click on that, does the text there include some familiar phrasing from the current sicko-phants, or does it just seem that way? Loved the projected costs of oil and nat gas. And please note the source. That ain’t your daddy’s petro loving horndogs.
From the horse’s orifice…which one? You pick it, Wilson.
political agnostic (8cd8f2) — 7/19/2009 @ 10:47 amThe article goes on to recite some of Obama’s inconsistencies
I now suspect that the most fundamental inconsistency of the current president lies at the very essence of who he is. I’ve just read a very lengthy, very well analyzed assessment of Obama’s supposedly legitimate birth certificate (from Hawaii) — which previously I had believed was, or shrugged off as, a “wingnut” matter — and its findings seem quite fitting for a person who symbolically and technically represents the Banana Republic-ization (Hi, former president of Honduras! We really are pulling for you!) and thorough dumbing down of the US.
I know people like Orrin Hatch have wanted to alter Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution to allow non-native-born citizens to become president, perhaps influenced by those with stories similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger. Well, Hatch can write off the importance of a chief occupant of the White House meeting that particular basic requirement because it’s probably already been waived or easily disregarded.
Mark (411533) — 7/19/2009 @ 10:56 amSorry, but before the election I was saying we would be looking back on Jimmah Carter with nostalgia and longing.
N. O'Brain (a4f63e) — 7/19/2009 @ 10:57 amMore of that damn liberal media…will the Washington Post ever quit pimping for Obama? The solicitation of some of these Obama lovers from Reason magazine (another lib rag) to write yet another puff piece in the nation’s #2 newspaper! Man, the media is so in his pocket….
timb (4013b0) — 7/19/2009 @ 11:41 amYou have to have your head firmly planted in your rectum to not acknowledge that the MSM has been squarely in the bag for Teh One.
JD (0d131e) — 7/19/2009 @ 11:47 amThe Post editorial team is sorta kinda fond of our little country. They get a lot of flak for it, but they have this thing they do where they make the right mewling kitten noises about global warming. This is a very very powerful talisman what helps keeps the volume down on the dirty socialist censure directed their way. Oogedy. Boogedy.
happyfeet (c75712) — 7/19/2009 @ 12:12 pmAs for the comments of Dmac, does anyone monitor the comments on this board? Or am I now supposed to accuse him of misconduct in men’s rooms? Strange mores, for a board run by a prosecutor.
As for those who maintain Carter did not take strong deregulations measures, see Reason Magazine (while critical of may Carter energy initiatives, noting that “After Carter’s equally ambitious moves, global oil prices dropped like a rock. The deregulation of natural gas led to vast new fossil fuel supplies, and abundant stocks of cheap coal kept electricity humming down transmission lines.” http://www.reason.com/news/show/133227.html)
NCC (996c34) — 7/19/2009 @ 12:13 pmHow did Carter’s price controls work out, NCC?
JD (0d131e) — 7/19/2009 @ 12:23 pmNCC, and yet the point is that Carter’s policies were a mixed bag. Not least how we are still suffering from disasterous nuclear power policies.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/19/2009 @ 12:26 pmThomas Jackson writes:
Obama will remain the mark with whom we will measure poltroons, thieves, and marxists in the future.
I couldn’t agree with Mr. Jackson more. The BS meter referred to in the Washington Post piece has been very, very active in the days of the Obama administration.
In fact, Barack Obama will come to give poltroons a bad name.
Mike Myers (674050) — 7/19/2009 @ 12:42 pm“global oil prices dropped like a rock”
How odd. EIA historical data (Table 9.1) show the price of oil in January 1977 to be $8.50 and the price in January 1981 to be $28.81 with very few dips on the way. Likewise, gasoline moved from .60 to $1.24 for the same months.
I suppose Carter’s “dropped like a rock” fits neatly next to Obama’s “jobs saved” as a term of art. Oil prices did drop sharply, beginning in February, 1986 so I suppose one might consider the effect part of the statement to have some validity. The “cause” part is unsupported.
Rick Ballard (a6b315) — 7/19/2009 @ 12:44 pmRick – Trust but verify. Where have I heard that before?
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/19/2009 @ 12:53 pmThat’s just dishonest. To set the Patriot Act against Barack Obama’s pansy oh yay a crisis c’mon hurry up let’s exploit it weeee! administration is stupid. Dishonest and stupid. Can you imagine what the oh no for real we have to spend trillions of dollars to avoid bankruptcy Obama administration would have done in the wake of September 11? In the wake of Katrina? Libertarians are very weak-minded people if they can’t make a fundamental distinction between the Bush administration and Barack Obama’s pillagings and molestings of our little country and the hopes of her once-proud citizens.
happyfeet (c75712) — 7/19/2009 @ 1:13 pmNot to mention, happyfeet, that the idea that the Patriot Act was “transformative” is just ridiculous. It was a hodge-podge of small amendments that had been kicking around the Justice dept since the Clinton admin.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/19/2009 @ 1:16 pmExcept TARP was a Bush thing. The porkulus bill was worse but was not Bush’s.
Soronel Haetir (2a5236) — 7/19/2009 @ 1:19 pmAns the troof is that the Bush Administration initially resisted the wholesale reorganization of government that was precipitated by 9/11 until after the dirty socialist media made it clear they’d cast his administration as do-nothing and weak and protective of a corrupt status quo. Primarily because they were salivating at the thought of vast new swathes of unionized employees. Nick Gillespie. Whatever. Aging libertarian pretty boy.
happyfeet (c75712) — 7/19/2009 @ 1:20 pm*And the troof is* … and SPQR is exactly right in his characterization of the Patriot Act I think.
happyfeet (c75712) — 7/19/2009 @ 1:21 pmhappyfeet, if by wholesale reorganization, you mean the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security and the creation of a DNI, you are correct. Those were measures pushed from outside the Bush admin, and not very successful ones so far.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/19/2009 @ 1:24 pmDHS, IIRC, was the brainchild of the Senator from CT who doesn’t have an Irish cottage.
AD - RtR/OS! (e2278d) — 7/19/2009 @ 1:47 pmOr am I now supposed to accuse him of misconduct in men’s rooms? Strange mores, for a board run by a prosecutor.
I made a mistake in identification with the wrong commenter, and was corrected immediately for it – what would you like our host to do, ban me for a simple error? And if you’ve actually bothered to read the postings here over the past few months, you’d well know whom I was referring to – so save us your moralistic sanctimony and stick to the topic at hand. Sound good?
It’s always the lurkers and drive – bys who come on here and adopt the stance of feigned outrage and insult. Stick around for awhile, and perhaps your sense of getting your undies in an extreme knot will subside.
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 7/19/2009 @ 2:15 pmCarter’s current day lunacy makes people forget that before he lost to Reagan he was challenged by Ted Kennedy in the 1980 Democratic Primary …
Good idea. Kennedy is too old, but Hillary certainly isn’t doing anything lately.
Glen Wishard (02562c) — 7/19/2009 @ 4:41 pmBelieve it or not, there was an ABC sitcom named Carter Country, starring Victor French (Bonanza, Little House on The Prairie) that ran for one full season and at least part of a second one. It was about a tiny Georgia town and its police department, and the hilarity (not) that ensued when the town’s Chief of Police (French) hired a smart young black city slicker as a sergeant, annoying a old redneck officer who bristles at being his underling.
This IMDB.com description sums it up pretty well:
L.N. Smithee (38ee9c) — 7/19/2009 @ 11:15 pmYeah, it’s the regulars who show real outrage, eh, dmac? Went haven’t you been outraged at something.
For the rest, go look at the WaPo chat these yahoos did. Two libertarians dumbasses arguing in the wake of deregulatory nightmare of recession that all health care needs is a market, because “markets always make things cheaper!” Well, those markets sure made acquiring GM and Lehman Brothers stock cheaper.
Why don’t those lunatics just “go Galt” and leave governing to serious people?
timb (4013b0) — 7/20/2009 @ 10:40 amTim (who’s 40 and therefore deserving of respect) has a good idea. Those “serious people” who like governing should enlist all other “serious people” and they can govern each other. Leave the rest of us, who only want basic services provided, alone.
I gather you don’t believe in markets. There used to be a country for you but it collapsed in 1989. It turns out that command economies don’t do so well.
Mike K (90939b) — 7/20/2009 @ 11:25 amI just wish the “serious people” would quit trying to reach into my pockets, and control every aspect of my life. Serious must be synonymous with nanny-state.
JD (5b6053) — 7/20/2009 @ 12:07 pmWent haven’t you been outraged at something.
Awesome retort there as always, Tim.
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 7/20/2009 @ 1:00 pmHey Tim, one more thing – I have the capacity to admit I was wrong, unlike yourself. OTOH, you have the capacity to behave like a horse’s arse every time you post here – but thanks for playing.
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 7/20/2009 @ 1:02 pmYouse guys should be ashamed of yourselves for the way you gang-up on poor timb; I mean, it’s so easy.
AD - RtR/OS! (083442) — 7/20/2009 @ 1:19 pmCarter was the clown who came up with the Windfall Profits Tax. He also started the Dept of Energy. These two actions alone are why no one in their right mind should pretend that Carter was any friend of good energy policy. Historical revisionism at its finest.
In practice, the Windfall Profits Tax became the ‘guarranteed profits tax’ and gave every producer an incentive to raise costs and work inefficiently. Government was too inept to catch on.
The energy department? LOL. Maybe someday it will do something to help anyone that is not actually employed by, or has a contract directly with, the energy department. When that happens, be sure to mark the date because it will be a first.
jc (0dac6a) — 7/20/2009 @ 6:37 pm