Barack Obama Does Not Have to Be Another Jimmy Carter
When Barack Obama speaks to the Democratic Convention tomorrow night, many Democrats will be wondering about a question that has been raised repeatedly during the primaries and at the start of the general campaign: will Senator Barack Obama, if elected president, be another Jimmy Carter?
This has been a criticism leveled against Senator Obama by supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton, as well as by Republican John McCain. The critics argue that Obama will be incompetent as a leader and unable to govern in Washington. McCain told NBC's Brian Williams, "Obama says that I'm running for a Bush's third terms. It seems to me he's running for Jimmy Carter's second."
To be sure, there are striking similarities between the Democratic presidential campaigns of 1976 and 2008. Both candidates ran against the Washington establishment and called for a new style of politics. Both candidates used the caucus system and the media masterfully to outflank party leaders. Both candidates refused to adopt the prevailing arguments of the Democratic Party and tried to weave together positions that ended up creating confusion about their core principles. Both candidates were accused of privileging style over substance. Both candidates lacked a significant amount of experience in Washington.
But these similarities overlook two key differences that suggest a better outcome should Obama be elected. The most important is that Obama and congressional Democrats are relatively united on the major domestic issues. When Carter inhabited the White House, congressional Democrats were deeply divided over economics, energy, health care, urban renewal, and more. The Democratic Party consisted of multiple, well-defined factions: southern Democrats, northern urban liberals, and western suburbanites who didn't see eye to eye on most issues.
Moreover, Carter and congressional Democrats didn't get along personally. Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill later wrote, "Carter rode into town like a knight on a white horse. But while the gentleman leading the charge was capable, too many of the troops he brought with them were amateurs. They didn't know much about Washington, but that didn't prevent them from being arrogant."
Obama faces a better situation. He and the Democratic congressional leaders are relatively united on most domestic issues. As I wrote with Michael Kazin in the Washington Post, Democrats have focused on a series of social policies that address the insecurity that middle class Americans now face, from higher education subsidies to health care reform.
Equally important, as Carter himself would be the first to say, Obama has a good rapport with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who informally supported his candidacy over Hillary Clinton. Having Senator Joseph Biden in the administration, who is a favorite veteran on Capitol Hill, would only help him in this pursuit.
The second reason that Obama would be in better shape than Carter has to do with the opposition. When Carter became president in 1977, the conservative movement was gaining full steam and starting to take control of the Republican Party. The 1978 midterm elections brought in an aggressive group of young conservatives, such as Georgia's Newt Gingrich, who were unwilling to compromise with Democrats and determined to shake up Capitol Hill. These conservatives had developed an elaborate grass-roots movement as well as a strong organizational network of interest groups, think tanks, and non-profit organizations.
As Carter tackled difficult issues like a SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union, he found that he was outflanked by conservatives who were better prepared organizationally than his administration. They were much more successful at tapping into voter sentiment than was the administration. Carter's defeats were not just a reflection of his weaknesses, but also a result of the strength of his opponents.
Obama does not face this problem either. The Republican Party is badly divided, far more than any tension that the Clinton-Obama rivalry can cause Democrats. As a result of the policies of President George W. Bush, the various factions of the conservative movement have entered into open warfare. Libertarians lament big government conservatism. Fiscal conservatives are at odds with administration's sizable budgets. Neoconservatives are in conflict with foreign policy realists in the GOP, who reject their ambitions for nation-building.
Nor are conservatives really excited about John McCain. They will vote for him, they will stand by him, but they are not enthusiastic about him. In stark contrast, building on Howard Dean's vision, Democrats have been able to construct a powerful national movement, connected from the netroots that fill the blogosphere every day to the grass roots activists who brought out voters in the caucuses, to supporters in the mainstream media. As president of the U.S., Obama would be able to tap into this network as conservatives struggle to regroup.
Finally, there is the role of President Bush. When Jimmy Carter came into office, the country was deeply distrustful of all politicians. Richard Nixon had resigned in 1974, replaced by Gerald Ford who seemed in over his head, and though he may have angered many by his pardon of Nixon, he was not nearly as polarizing a figure as Bush. Democrats were still reeling over divisions of the 1960s and they had not developed a clear sense of their party's core beliefs.
Today, Bush has provided Democrats with a potent rallying cry. As Paul Begala recently wrote in the Huffington Post, "No matter what minor difference Hillary and Barack had, they pale in comparison to the corruption, incompetence, dishonesty and criminality of the Bush-McCain Republicans."
The deep resentment and distrust of President Bush will offer Democrats a certain amount of momentum in 2009 and 2010 to work together and define their party.
Neither of these differences guarantees that a President Obama would not be another President Carter, but they should give Democrats some hope. Politicians with similar styles or messages can encounter very different outcomes at different moments in time.
Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is the co-editor of "Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s" (Harvard University Press). He is writing a book on the history of national security politics since World War II and another book about the presidency of Jimmy Carter.
For more Huffington Post coverage of the Democratic National Convention, visit our Politics @ the DNC page, our Democratic Convention Big News Page, and our HuffPost bloggers' Twitter feed, live from Denver.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If only a President Obama could be half the man that President Jimmy Carter is, I might have to vote for him.
I really wanted to believe, but he has proven to "seem fair, yet be foul". He is one scary dude. Beware the Obama.
A warring Democratic congress will be the undoing of Obama just like it was with Carter. The Democratic leadership blames the Republicans for holding up passage of bills the Democratic congress won't agree on.
There should be an honest attempt at the reconciliation of differences before resorting to combat. Thats why I lost to Iran."
Jimmy Carter
Had Reagan not undone Carter's alternative energy initiatives in the early 80's, this country would already be energy independent.
And what a tragedy that is.
Reagan gave the green light to the '82 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and ended the Carter's Camp David peace process. No one since Carter has done any to bring a peace to the Middle East.
The press transformed Carter into a strawman, a cartoon character. Rather than debate the merits of his arguments he presents of the Middle East he has to defend himself against the vicious personal attacks.
Obama should avoid being another Jimmy Carter? Hardly the public should avoid being played into believing what the media portrayed Carter into being.
I fail to understand why the author gives any credence to right wing talking points leveled against Obama (used first by Clinton and later by McCain in their attempts to defeat Obama). In today's political climate, the goal is to demonize and tear down your opponent. Just because they say it does not make it accurate or true. Obama has the potential to be a transformative figure in American politics. He is unique in many obvious ways. If his presidency is deemed to be a failure it will have nothing to do with his perceived similarities to Carter.
"If his presidency is deemed to be a failure it will have nothing to do with his perceived similarities to Carter."
Obama has indicated his willingness to re-create programs (which are not right-wing talking points, but Obama's own talking points) that led to double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment during the Carter Administration. So, if his presidency is deemed to be a failure it will have everything to do with his perceived similarities to Carter.
This country was just coming off a war-time economy,Vietnam ,that brings about recession and unemployment. To blame Carter for that is ridiculous. Not even Bush could bring down the economy by himself in four short years, but with his gang of Republican theives in congress he managed to do it in less than eight years.
I guess thats why Carter's invitation to the dance was...ah, lost in the mail....eh
I found Professor Zelizer's article well thought out. In Europe Obama is seen as possibly another Carter.
Senator Obama gives an impression of a lack of determination and strength in dealing with threats to America. 9/11 showed America could be attacked directly It is a lesson that will not be lost on either the Islamists or Russians.
I feel an article by Professor Zelizer on how to deal with this challenge would be of importance.
It's not a lack of determination on Mr. Obama's part, rather it's a willingness to compromise, that is a strength, not a weakness. That's the difference.
It is precisely the lengths that Sen. Obama seems willing to go to in his effort to compromise that has me concerned. The Republicans don't compromise -- they win or they lose. If they lose, they make you pay. If examples of Obama's definition of compromise can be seen in his FISA vote or his reach-out to the evangelical Christian right or his revisit of what are (his) permissible grounds for terminating pregnancies after the first trimester or on a lot of other important issues, then I have legitimate reasons to be skeptical of his potential as a President.
I lived through the Carter administration. I've been calling Obama the Jimmy Carter of the Third Millennium for months now. Jimmy Carter is a great man, but he was a poor president. He was an outsider, like Bill Clinton, not part of the machine, which turned on him, and undercut him. He would have made a great secretary of state, but his desire to build bridges and get everybody to agree, as Obama keeps talking about, also undercut his ability to accomplish the domestic changes that needed to be made to recover from the Nixon and Ford administrations.
However, I don't believe that Obama has the good heart Carter has. He is part of the machine, which is why he came out of nowhere and into the nomination. The machine didn't want Hillary Clinton, who is still a Beltway outsider. They chose someone who is part of the machine, then a VP who is another long-term insider with a record that should have true liberals screaming in horror at the decision.
The Democratic party is just as corrupt as the Republicans, more interested in getting and maintaining power than in actually doing good for their constituents. You can say that having power is important to getting things done, but if they have the power and still do nothing, as they have for the last two years, then it's time to found a new party.
How is Obama more a part of the machine than Clinton was? I don't think there is any way to realistically spin his ability to win the nomination other than to say he inspired people who were suspicious of insiders like Clinton who conventional wisdom had picked to be the nominee.
Barack Obama is a politician from Chicago. That's the simple answer.
The Clintons were and are not part of the Beltway. They got the support of the DNC when it was recognized that Bill was doing extremely well. They never, however, became part of the same machine that includes Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. If they were, we would never have heard about Monica Lewinsky, or the story would have disappeared in a few days.
Final year of W presidency:
unemployment: 5%
inflation: 5%
mortgage rates: 6%
Final year of JC presidency:
unemployment: 9%
inflation: 21%
mortgage rates: 19%
"The Bush administration is the worst in our history." - Jimmy Carter, 2006. A very humble man.
Those are the most cherry-picked of metrics and you know it, orange man.
Economically Carter's admin is worse than W. In global dimensions W is the worst one. Ever.
W made enemies or opponents virtually of ALL countries in the world.
Although Jimmah's "achievements" like loss of Iran, giving away of Panama canal and arming of Al Qaeda in A-stan also speak for themselves.
I know that most of the Bush haters like to say that the U.S. has lost its credibility or made enemies in the world during Bush's Administration, but when the country of Georgia was invaded by Russia - who did the world look to for a response? China? Germany? The UK? The U.N.? The United States of America. As always.
Losing our world credibility or making "enemies or opponents virtually of ALL countries in the world" is a liberal myth.
Uh, excuse me MagisterLudi--you obviously don't know (or have forgotten) that the U.S. supported a VERY BRUTAL AND REPRESSIVE FASCIST DICTATOR -- the Shah of Iran -- for more than 35 years (1941-1979). I'll bet you don't know that back in 1953, the U.S. helped overthrow the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED prime minister of Iran (Mohammed Mossadegh) and reinstalled the Shah because the Shah let our oil companies do whatever they wanted with his country's vast oil reserves. Furthermore, the Shah's secret police force (called SAVAK) was one of the MOST FEARED secret police forces in the world. Is it any wonder why today there are STILL some Iranians that ABSOLUTELY HATE OUR GUTS?
By the time Bush 2 came along they replaced the professionals in the agencies that used to reliably track these numbers so that by 2000 the numbers could be tweaked any number of ways, preferably to look good for the admin. I didn't think it could be done, because it was so unethical, but they did it.
Obama seems to want to do a lot of things that Carter did, and Carter's Administration is known for its double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, and the Iran hostages debacle, which allowed middle east terrorism to grow exponentially. If Obama follows Carter's economic policy, such as re-creating the "Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act " , then he will set himself up as an equally bad president, and a one termer (see: stagflation, creeping socialism).
JFK would be a better example for Obama to follow. JFK would have been overwhemingly re-elected. Obama will not if he follows the Carter blueprint.
You forgot to mention the long lines of vehicles waiting to buy gasoline at stations and the fact that patrons were only allowed to buy on alternate days. People under 30 have no direct memory of these events. This, of course, is the demographic where much of Obama's support originates. Ignorance is bliss.
If the media and right-wing chosen to listen to President Carter instead of mocking him, we would be in great, independent energy shape today.
The gas lines in 1979 (just like those in 1973) were caused not by actual shortages but by hysteria: people thought gasoline was about to run out so they wanted to hoard it.
IMHO, they should have started rationing gasoline then. (And today would also be a good time to start.)
What helped to destroy the Carter administration was a combination of the faith based agenda he brought into Washington along with the same type of political unprofessionals that Obama has inspired to march forward shouting the brainless "yes we can" bullcrap that has the same time bomb potential as that which caused the total disillusion of the naive Carter inspired idealists,who fell apart when they experienced the reality of real politics in Washington that could not be overcome with prayer and a good heart..
If Obama gets there his band of "yes we can" followers will turn on him in rage when they experience the way it is in the real world of politics. Obama may do a better job of holding his troops together when the bullcrap fades, but I doubt it. Bullcrap is bullcrap and young idealists always come unglued when that reality sets in.
Hillary could have saved the day for a return to democracy, but the "children's crusade" led by the pied piper destroyed the opportunity. God, I hate to think what will happen if the Manchurian Candidate and a right wing lady nut case from the tundra prevail to stop the less harmful disillusionment of an Obama political debacle.
The division in the Republican Party is over too many Republican elected officials acting like Democrats. Traditional Republicans provided strong support to Bush on Iraq, judicial appointments, and on tax policy. But they were blindsided by Republicans in Congress who lost all sense of fiscal responsibility and were fully supported by President Bush. So the division is real and McCain's nomination will not heal that division since he shows little comprehension of the founding principles embodied in the Constitution, notably personal liberty, private property ownership, freedom of speech, and what it means to operate under a federal system. Our country has experienced a strong trend to move all government functions to Washington and McCain seems comfortable with this. So he looks, thinks, and acts like a lot of centrist Democrats.
Barack Obama is not a centrist Democrat. He has no concern for the Constitution as a document written and adopted to protect the inherent rights of individuals since he is a collectivist from the left-wing of the Democrat party. He rejects the principles of individual liberty in favor of collective actions.
Carter was our most incompetent leader in memory, but Obama, with Reid and Pelosi supporting may lead us to even lower performance.
JC was fantastic. BO will finish the job.
Gosh, I just can't wait until BO gets elected. My life will be so much better with the federal government government taking over the oil companies and managing my health care. I just know it will.
Imagine a world where we are all equal and no more wars.
I just can't wait.
I agree 105.3%!
It's a pretty dream. But it's just a dream.
Obama shouldn't try to be Carter but he should definitely learn from Carter that some of your worst enemies are the back stabbing whores in your own party. Keep your ideals but always be ready for the knife in the back,. Looking back it's amazing that Carter did as much as he did, Camp David Agreements a basis for a sound energy policy etc, with the likes of O'Neil and Kennedy fighting him every step of the way. Carter himself said that he got too pre-occupied to the point of obsession with the Iranian Hostage Crisis that I believe Reagan operatives illegally interfered with. Being compared to Carter should be considered on honor coming from these pinheaded neo-con fascists after all he was the last honest man to occupy the oval office. I voted for the man twice and am proud of it. Honesty is one subject the Republicans are loathed to bring up.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple.
Too staid for my tastes. What about a giant plaster Lincoln head descending from the sky with Obama inside, and once it hits the stage he breaks through out of the top hat like the Hulk? Or how about the lights come up to reveal statues of Jesus, MLK, Gandhi, and The One — except his isn’t a statue, it’s really him and he was just standing perfectly still. Then he comes “magically” to life as the camera hits him.
Right on lb.
Of course the music would have to be the Battle Hym of the Republic. But of course, no fireworks, too violent. Plaster head, don't know about that, not really that environmentally friendly.
Lincoln, republican, no good. Jimmy Carterand Clinton are still allive, so would have to go with the last great Democratic president, LBJ.
There are worse things than a second Jimmy Carter. I'd rather have a second Carter than a second Clinton. (Not to mention a second Dubya!)
As a fiscal conservative . . . give me a 2nd Clinton and 10 Monicas before another Carter. At least in the 90s I could buy gasoline . . . which Jimmy said would run out in the early 1980s.
The people who keep talking up Carter weren't old enough to remember the absolute misery of those years. He was great on foreign policy. He completely failed on domestic needs.
Imagine the today's problems with the addition of double digit inflation and a completely uncertain oil supply.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
