Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I go back and forth on Nixon. I fully understand your points. From a foreign policy standpoint, his reaching out to China was a tour de force, not to mention ending the pointless war in Vietnam.
I don't think it was a tour de force at all. It was a tour de surrender. Among other Nixon offenses verging of crimes, Nixon was figuratively on his hands and knees summitteering in Peking, as it was then called, and Moscow to create an illusion of accomplishment. SALT I had nothing good for the U.S. in it, and Taiwan was thrown under the bus.
Supposedly, Nixon had had a "secret plan†to end the Vietnam War. that "secret plan†turned out to be a phased surrender to the Vietcong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
On the other hand, Nixonomics were a disaster, what with his price freezes, et al. And, of course, the Watergate scandal pretty much destroyed his ability to do much of anything in 1973 and 1974 when the Arab Oil Embargo absolutely crippled the American economy.
Oh yes, the phony controls and the sudden yanking of the controls?
Through no fault of Nixon's, the 1969-70 recession was one of the first where we had the worst of both worlds, inflation and rising unemployment. To recreate the "Goldilocks economy" of the mid-1950's and the early 1960's in time for the upcoming 1972 election, Nixon imposed wage and price controls in August 1971,while at the same time leaning on the Fed to gun the money supply. This was in order to create the illusion of prosperity with low inflation. Policies worthy of Honduras and Guatemala. Inflation surged when controls were taking off precipitously on January 11, 1973, with the election safely past. Inflation rocketed from 3.6% in 1972 well over 12% in 1974. There were extensive gas lines at the end of 1973 in the first quarter of 1974. Even before the legendary lines, from May through July 1973, certain areas were plagued by spot shortages of gasoline. The winters of 1971-72 and 1972-73 had spot shortages of heating oil. In short, the government was not in the position to ensure delivery of necessities to the people. That was hardly "experimentation" unless you consider Salvador Allende to be a similar "experimenter."
In short, the government was not in the position to ensure delivery of necessities to the people. As a result, Things were in great disarray. I was about the only high school senior in my school to support the Nixon pardon. And was not because I liked Nixon. I didn't. We as a nation had to "change the topic."
Adams (the first) is underrated. Part of that is due to the esteem Jefferson is held in and of course they were political adversaries. The two could not have been more different in temperament, politics, family and so forth. That he was able to handle the transition from Washington to himself and then to Jefferson established the precedent of the peaceful transfer of power which perhaps above all else is a cornerstone of the Republic.
Adams (the first) is underrated. Part of that is due to the esteem Jefferson is held in and of course they were political adversaries. The two could not have been more different in temperament, politics, family and so forth. That he was able to handle the transition from Washington to himself and then to Jefferson established the precedent of the peaceful transfer of power which perhaps above all else is a cornerstone of the Republic.
I have often made this point. It is so true. A pouty departure is a lot different than what they called, at that time, an "effusion of blood." They were actually close friends until Jefferson became Secretary of State and Adams became VP. Their friendship resumed, at Abigail Adams' behest, circa 1812, more than three years after Jefferson left office.
I respect Jefferson's intellect and some of his presidential actions. My admiration is not total.
I have often made this point. It is so true. A pouty departure is a lot different than what they called, at that time, an "effusion of blood." They were actually close friends until Jefferson became Secretary of State and Adams became VP. Their friendship resumed, at Abigail Adams' behest, circa 1812, more than three years after Jefferson left office.
I respect Jefferson's intellect and some of his presidential actions. My admiration is not total.
No, not true about Abigail Adams and Thomas Jefferson.
Although the friendship between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson frayed during the second term of George Washington's presidency and Adams one term, it was the US presidential election of 1800 and the aftermath of the election that broke their friendship. Mrs. Adams never truly got over the dispute between the two men, she considered Jefferson's political opposition to her husband to be a betrayal. in 1804, she did write letters to Jefferson after the death of Jefferson's daughter, offering her sympathies, but the friendship between Mrs. Adams and Mr. Jefferson were not rekindled. In fact, the exchange of letters found both politely re-fighting the disputes that originally drove them apart.
It was Benjamin Rush who in 1811 sought to repair the the rift between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, with Adams being the one who first reached out to Jefferson in January 1812. By August 1813, Jefferson, having carried on a discourse with Adams through their letters, eventually reached back out to Abigail Adams; the two eventually resumed a brief correspondence of short but friendly letters. It would seem that the two eventually chose to simply not bring up their disagreements. Perhaps both sought to make peace with each other in order to please John Adams.
It was Benjamin Rush who in 1811 sought to repair the the rift between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, with Adams being the one who first reached out to Jefferson in January 1812. By August 1813, Jefferson, having carried on a discourse with Adams through their letters, eventually reached back out to Abigail Adams; the two eventually resumed a brief correspondence of short but friendly letters. It would seem that the two eventually chose to simply not bring up their disagreements. Perhaps both sought to make peace with each other in order to please John Adams.
Interesting and you may well be right. Adams still comes out by far the better person.
I go back and forth on Nixon. I fully understand your points. From a foreign policy standpoint, his reaching out to China was a tour de force, not to mention ending the pointless war in Vietnam.
On the other hand, Nixonomics were a disaster, what with his price freezes, et al. And, of course, the Watergate scandal pretty much destroyed his ability to do much of anything in 1973 and 1974 when the Arab Oil Embargo absolutely crippled the American economy.
Interesting points. So Nixon did at least reach out and try to have some dialog with other nations, something the past two administrations never did.
But he will go down as a crook.
Interesting, too, is the point that it was a charge of Tax Fraud which prompted his resignation, which came about around the time of the Watergate Scandal Was pardoned by Ford, but Nixon crookedness has placed him in my bottom ten
The (illegal?) bombing of North Vietnam was said to be done to push the North Vietnamese to the negotiation table, but as mentioned, you pointed out that negotiating a loss is still a loss.
The Appearance though, of visiting an enemy Communist country was a step forward, as evidenced by the general popularity of the American people in reaction to it. 1
The Involvement in Vietnam is also a reason that LBJ will never make the top lists in my journal.
Nixon economics WERE a disaster, runaway inflation. Carter's were just as bad, printing more money to put into circulation and thus devaluing currency. Carter has been a great Ex-president. His selfless time volunteering to Habitat for Humanity, his work in peaceful relations with other nations, his simple humanitarian goodness are all evident on a personal level. But he was a bad president.
Which is why I had doubts about Reagan, after living through Nixon Ford and Carter. I once remarked that the requirement to be a President was to wear red, have Horns and Carry a Pitchfork !
Reagan at least brought some level of honor back to the office, and restored some level of respectability for the Nation.
Interesting points. So Nixon did at least reach out and try to have some dialog with other nations, something the past two administrations never did.
But he will go down as a crook.
Interesting, too, is the point that it was a charge of Tax Fraud which prompted his resignation, which came about around the time of the Watergate Scandal Was pardoned by Ford, but Nixon crookedness has placed him in my bottom ten
The (illegal?) bombing of North Vietnam was said to be done to push the North Vietnamese to the negotiation table, but as mentioned, you pointed out that negotiating a loss is still a loss.
The Appearance though, of visiting an enemy Communist country was a step forward, as evidenced by the general popularity of the American people in reaction to it. 1
The Involvement in Vietnam is also a reason that LBJ will never make the top lists in my journal.
Nixon economics WERE a disaster, runaway inflation. Carter's were just as bad, printing more money to put into circulation and thus devaluing currency. Carter has been a great Ex-president. His selfless time volunteering to Habitat for Humanity, his work in peaceful relations with other nations, his simple humanitarian goodness are all evident on a personal level. But he was a bad president.
Which is why I had doubts about Reagan, after living through Nixon Ford and Carter. I once remarked that the requirement to be a President was to wear red, have Horns and Carry a Pitchfork !
Reagan at least brought some level of honor back to the office, and restored some level of respectability for the Nation.
Monetary supply is determined directly by the Federal Reserve, with the President indirectly influencing it by choosing who runs the Fed. Carter, like Ford before him, had inherited Nixon's Fed Chairman, Arthur Burns. Because the Fed chair does not serve at the pleasure of the President, Carter (again, like Ford before him) was stuck with Burns. And Burns oversaw an expansion of the money supply.
When Burns' term was up in 1978, Carter had a chance to name his own man to the position, and he chose G. William Miller. Miller too was an expansionist, and did the economy no good, but after 17 months on the job Carter moved him to Treasury, opening the Fed chair up again. This time Carter's pick was Paul Volcker.
Volcker got the job done. He pursued a contractionary monetary policy, and raised the federal funds rate to a whopping 20%, in order to bring inflation to heel. In the short term, however, it caused negative growth, and the recession began in early 1980, an election year. Technically, the economy emerged from the recession in mid-year, but such developments never manifest themselves fully in the pocketbooks of the consumer until some time down the road. Volcker even raised the discount rate just weeks before the election. All in all, the Fed's policies killed whatever chance Carter had at reelection. And the damage wasn't done. The recession returned in 1981 and continued through 1982, and the GOP lost a lot of races in the mid-terms and Reagan's approval ratings were in the tank. But once inflation had been squeezed out and interest rates came back down, the economy recovered. For Reagan, the timing was as good as it had been bad for Carter in 1980.
To his credit, Carter chose Volcker despite the fact that Volcker informed Carter exactly what he would do if he was named Fed chair and confirmed, and the President's advisors informed Carter exactly how that would affect his reelection chances. Unlike Nixon, who badgered Burns to engage in policies which would produce short-term policies useful for Nixon's bid for a second term in 1972, Carter let Volcker do what needed to be done, political consequences be damned.
Oh, and Reagan liked Carter's Fed chair so much that in 1983 he nominated him for another four-year term.
In a variety of ways, Jimmy Carter was ill-suited to the Presidency. However, he will be forever denied his due regarding his role in the economic boom for which the ground was laid by his selection of Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Monetary supply is determined directly by the Federal Reserve, with the President indirectly influencing it by choosing who runs the Fed. Carter, like Ford before him, had inherited Nixon's Fed Chairman, Arthur Burns. Because the Fed chair does not serve at the pleasure of the President, Carter (again, like Ford before him) was stuck with Burns. And Burns oversaw an expansion of the money supply.
When Burns' term was up in 1978, Carter had a chance to name his own man to the position, and he chose G. William Miller. Miller too was an expansionist, and did the economy no good, but after 17 months on the job Carter moved him to Treasury, opening the Fed chair up again. This time Carter's pick was Paul Volcker.
Volcker got the job done. He pursued a contractionary monetary policy, and raised the federal funds rate to a whopping 20%, in order to bring inflation to heel. In the short term, however, it caused negative growth, and the recession began in early 1980, an election year. Technically, the economy emerged from the recession in mid-year, but such developments never manifest themselves fully in the pocketbooks of the consumer until some time down the road. Volcker even raised the discount rate just weeks before the election. All in all, the Fed's policies killed whatever chance Carter had at reelection. And the damage wasn't done. The recession returned in 1981 and continued through 1982, and the GOP lost a lot of races in the mid-terms and Reagan's approval ratings were in the tank. But once inflation had been squeezed out and interest rates came back down, the economy recovered. For Reagan, the timing was as good as it had been bad for Carter in 1980.
To his credit, Carter chose Volcker despite the fact that Volcker informed Carter exactly what he would do if he was named Fed chair and confirmed, and the President's advisors informed Carter exactly how that would affect his reelection chances. Unlike Nixon, who badgered Burns to engage in policies which would produce short-term policies useful for Nixon's bid for a second term in 1972, Carter let Volcker do what needed to be done, political consequences be damned.
Oh, and Reagan liked Carter's Fed chair so much that in 1983 he nominated him for another four-year term.
In a variety of ways, Jimmy Carter was ill-suited to the Presidency. However, he will be forever denied his due regarding his role in the economic boom for which the ground was laid by his selection of Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Jimmy Carter had the misfortune to be President at a very difficult time. The Vietnam Conflict came to an end in 1975 and it is generally true that wars have been followed by inflation as our economy readjusts. Carter won the 1976 election and took office in January of 1977. Inflation grew and eventually reached about a 10% annual rate during his presidency. I was a college student at the time attempting to live on my own and I remember the late 1970's well. Carter was further weakened by the fact that America had gradually become very dependent on foreign sources of oil. The oil producing countries formed the OPEC Cartel and in the late 1970's began to raise oil prices dramatically. The impact on America was powerful. Gasoline prices doubled and domestic price controls on gasoline created shortages in many cities. Any American president would have been faced with a tough situation. Finally, the revolution in Iran lead to the formation of a radical Islamist government. That government violated international law by imprisoning our embassy personnel for over a year. Carter could do little and when we attempted a rescue mission in early 1979 it failed dramatically.
He did appoint Paul Volcker Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and the "fed" imposed tight monetary policies (high interest rates) that brought inflation under control at a huge economic cost. These moves though likely made Carter's reelection an impossibility. Almost everyone knew that Jimmy Carter was going to lose by election day in 1980. I remember that the exit polls of voters had been released and everyone had been told Carter would lose before they even counted the votes. He ultimately lost the election by a little over ten percentage points.
I actually think if the times had been different that Carter would have been recognized as a good President. He obtained ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty. He negotiated the Camp David Accord between Israel and Egypt. He obtained passage of an energy bill that was designed to promote alternative sources of energy. Only, today are we seeing some of these benefits as we see solar technology producing ever greater amounts of electricity. He obtained release of our hostages in Iran. Although, their actual release was a day or two after he left office.
However, you play the hand you are dealt and Carter was dealt a very poor hand. I think many of us doubted he would win reelection as early as 1978.
Almost all my answers were very popular ones except for my vote for Carter.
Honesty and integrity carries a LOT of weight with me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
