TW: In the spirit of Obama passing his 100 day mark, I thought I would take a different angle. What did folks write about other POTUS at their 100 day marks. I use Time Magazine solely because their archive is better than any other weekly, would really like to use the Economist but their archive peters out about ten years ago. I start with James Earl Carter about whom I could write several posts but will settle for these excerpts for now.
Several things stuck me, how many of the issues mentioned as apparently important at the time have either faded away or never ended up as particularly crucial. Two, the seeds of Carter's later challenges appear in the review (e.g. poor Congressional relations, the never resolved tension between "human rights" and "realpolitik", his folksy yet aloof style). Finally overall the perception was still quite hopeful (some of the parallels with Obama critiques are troubling) but at the end of the day his positives attributes (intelligence, openness, stubbornness) did not translate into overall success as measure by the ultimate barometers- the ability to get re-elected and how his presidency has aged in historical retrospect.
It is relevant to recall Carter entered office somewhat like W. Bush, a bit of a fluke in reaction to the near or actual impeachment of his predecessor. He was also presiding a Democratic party amidst its own severe molting process (the Southern Democrats were still largely in the party but a mere few years from bolting en masse).
From Time (April 25th, 1977)
"...Jimmy Carter does not seem to have much of a "100 days" mentality; he insists he is thinking more of long-range accomplishments. But he has already gone far to prove that he could be the most activist President since F.D.R.
Whatever the merits or faults of his particular actions, Carter has:
1) presented the most comprehensive strategic arms limitation proposals the U.S. has ever offered the Soviet Union
2) put the U.S. more forcefully on record than ever before as a champion of human rights around the world, and used foreign aid as a lever to pry loose such rights
3) ignored diplomatic niceties in suggesting concessions that various factions must make in seeking peace in the Middle East
4) taken on the politically dangerous task of asking the nation to accept an energy-conservation plan that will require sacrifices by millions
...Carter has been untypically slow in filling many appointive positions, but he has found time to offer amnesty to anyone who evaded the draft in the Viet Nam War. He has proposed abolition of the 190-year-old Electoral College, by which Presidents are chosen, urging that the popular vote determine the winner. He has asked for legislation to enable any American to show up at the polls and vote after simply offering proof of age and residence —rather than having to register in advance. He has asked U.S. allies to stop selling fast-breeder nuclear reactors and reprocessing equipment to nations that might use them for bombs. He has ordered a halt in domestic development of plutonium as a fuel to reduce the danger that it may be stolen by terrorists. He has abruptly ordered a halt in the construction of major water and dam projects, enraging numerous Congressmen and local politicians.
Considering the actions he has taken, Carter's public-approval rating of 72% is impressive, but not spectacular. At about the same time in their presidential days, J.F.K.'s stood at 83%, Ike's at 74%, L.BJ.'s at 73%.
As an activist, it is not, of course, enough to make proposals; it is necessary to get them accepted and make them work. On that score, so far, the evidence is mixed. Carter sometimes apparently makes the assumption that if he merely quietly states some virtuous purpose (balancing the budget, abolishing nuclear arms), it will be accomplished.
That purposefulness is part of what could make him a great President; the naiveté that sometimes seems to go with it could make him a very bad one. But is it really naiveté? It is hard to believe so, given his demonstrably first-rate and complex mind. This and other contradictions in Carter may yet be accepted by America as a kind of refreshing synthesis of opposites, helping to raise Carter above the familiar left-right, liberal-conservative categories of personality —and of politics too.
...In the meantime the main points of his manner and method have become almost instant legend, familiar topics of puzzlement and debate. His cutting out of the presidency's pomp is immensely popular, but should not be confused with substance. The imperial presidency was imperial not because the White House trumpeters seemed to play Hail to the Chief whenever the President walked through a doorway, but for much deeper reasons. Carter's use of his family as personal emissaries and, even more, his impatience with the legislative process, suggest that his instincts, if not imperial, are certainly for power.
...Carter's most startling innovation has been his openness in foreign policy. He takes risks by publicly spelling out proposals (for instance, on SALT) that are usually advanced one step at a time in private. Such openness can force foreign, statesmen into positions from which they cannot easily retreat.
On human rights, he assumes a universal moralizing attitude—but does not really press the issue in countries that are essential to U.S. security. He publicly kicks Leonid Brezhnev in the shins and then sends Secretary of State Cyrus Vance to Moscow in search of a new SALT breakthrough. But most Americans are plainly heartened by hearing their President give voice to those 200-year-old promises of what the nation stands for in the world.
At the same time, the open discussion of new proposals involves the public in a way that it has not been involved in more secretive dealings. Abroad, it just might shock other countries into action on long-stalled issues—for instance, in the Middle East. On SALT, the Russians are on the defensive and must wrestle with Carter's ideas. In the Administration's dealings with Africa so far, there are signs of a sophisticated attempt to keep away from too direct intervention while still maintaining a strong influence. And there are some hints in Washington that the danger of too much openness is being learned.
...In general, Carter has wisely avoided asking for huge spending programs and is proving himself an economic conservative whose policies are not too far different from Ford's—to the great disappointment of organized labor and liberal Democrats, including the majority of Congress.
...The expectation that a Democratic President would get along with a Democratic Congress, of course, has always been exaggerated; for one thing, the Democratic majority is so large that party solidarity is not necessary—and is extremely difficult to maintain. Besides, Carter has launched major proposals without adequately consulting congressional leaders and is still playing the outsider's role. Carter believes that Congressmen "tend to compromise first and look for the principle involved after the fight is over." Whether he will ever learn the art of cajoling Congress as it wants to be cajoled is doubtful, but he has shown lately that he can learn from mistakes and knows how to compromise.
...A consensus of TIME bureau chiefs across the U.S. is that on the whole, Carter has made a very promising and exciting start. "Carter has made mistakes," observes Los Angeles' William Rademaekers. "But they are not sinister mistakes. They may be an overreliance on the concept of a Government of the people, a concept so remote from our current experience as to be almost alien. We may well be moving into an era when the presidency is neither regal nor secretive, naive nor folksy, but interacts with Americans in a way that restores a sense of dynamism to our Government." Adds New York's Laurence Barrett: "We have no basis to worry much about the brains, intentions, candor and courage of the chap in the White House. That's a nice feeling, for a change."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,918856,00.html
No comments:
Post a Comment