Jimmy, Can Obama Borrow That Yellow Cardigan?
By Johnny Roosh
Okay, so maybe we’re not going into another Great Depression. Maybe That 70’s Show offers us a better glimpse.
Actually, the year that offers the closest historical parallels to the present might be neither 1932 nor 1980 but 1976, and that analogy helps us understand the directions in which the country will be moving. Both in government and opposition, people might want to hold off on planning for the next New Deal, still less for a coming generation of liberal hegemony. In three or four years, the main political fact in this country could well be a ruinous crisis of Democratic liberalism.
The parallels are amusing if not cause for concern.
So disaffected was bicentennial America that it sought leaders unconnected to the establishment. In Jimmy Carter, voters found a candidate whose main qualifications were his lack of experience and connections within the Beltway or corporate worlds. Like Barack Obama, Carter claimed to rise above failed partisanship, while his New South background allowed him to symbolize racial healing. Carter, like Obama, sold himself mainly on the virtues of his character. He presented himself as a man of simple honesty, faith, and decency, and his lack of a track record allowed voters to see in him what they wanted, however far-fetched those hopes might be. If they hadn’t believed it, they wouldn’t have seen it with their own eyes. Above all, Carter promised change, a message that carried weight as long as its details remained nonspecific. The problem with messiahs from nowhere is that when they do exercise power, people discover to their horror what their leader’s actual views and talents are. The disillusion can be dreadful.
Gulp.
And as they did in 1976, Democrats now show every sign of repeating the blunders that led to a generation-long discrediting of liberalism.
Hee hee hee.
But if liberals seem so determined to repeat the mistakes of that era, then we have at least a plausible sketch of the coming Obama administration—of its rise and ruin.
Obama may have been right. They are the people we’ve been waiting for…
…to illustrate to those that weren’t paying attention: what happens when Liberals have the helm.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Sure. Carter had no experience, other than being governor of Georgia.
Which haf a much larger population than oh, say…. Alaska has now. Carter had a very well regarded career in the Navy, in nuclear submarines, after graduating from the Naval Academy.
Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; I don’t see that being awarded to anyone in the Bush administration any time soon. They’re more likely to face charges of war crimes for the cavalier disregard of the Geneva Conventions.
I remember the Carter administration, both the scandals, and crises and the successes. He was far from the best president we ever had, but he wasn’t the worst, either. He was a helluva lot better than the Republican president we have now.
Comparing lemons with lemons, as it were.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:36 am
“They’re more likely to face charges of war crimes for the cavalier disregard of the Geneva Conventions.”
Only people on the losing side are tried for war crimes.
December 16th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Sure. Carter had no experience, other than being governor of Georgia.
And he was terrible at that, too.
Which haf a much larger population than oh, say…. Alaska has now.
Perhaps. Alaska today has a much larger population than Virginia did in 1794; they’re both smaller than New York or Illinois today. Who was better presidential material; Thomas Jefferson, Elliot Spitzer or Rod Blogojevich?
Population is hardly a key criterion.
Carter had a very well regarded career in the Navy, in nuclear submarines, after graduating from the Naval Academy.
Further evidence of the Peter Principle.
Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
So did Al Gore, Yassir Arafat, Kofi Annan, UN “Peacekeeping” forces and Dag Hammarskjold. And Gorbachev won one, while Reagan got stiffed. While many good people have won the peace prize, it’s become every bit as much a political cudgel for Scandinavian academic socialism as a reward for peacemaking. Carter certainly devalued the award.
I don’t see that being awarded to anyone in the Bush administration any time soon. They’re more likely to face charges of war crimes for the cavalier disregard of the Geneva Conventions
Er, what Terry said.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; I don’t see that being awarded to anyone in the Bush administration any time soon.
I’ll say this for Le Duc Tho — at least he was honest enough to turn his prize down.
December 16th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I’ll say this for Le Duc Tho —
I was going to write that, but got distracted by one of the kids. Good catch.
December 16th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Terry Says:
December 16th, 2008 at 4:36 am
“They’re more likely to face charges of war crimes for the cavalier disregard of the Geneva Conventions.”
Only people on the losing side are tried for war crimes.
*******
That has been the case up until now. History may not be consistent this time around.
There is a significant feeling amongst our allied countries over our torture policies that that pattern could change. We have tortured and committed extraordinary rendition on too many people, including citizens of Canada and the UK. The reconsideration of rejected cases by our Supreme Court is rare too – but the Supreme Court is reconsidering the case of a Syrian born Canadian citizen, initiated by the court themselves, not the plaintiff – far MORE rare. There has been some significant upset in the UK over Brit Gitmo detainees who have not been determined to be dangerous after being held for a very long time. I think we underestimate how the world outside the US – and people within the US for that matter – view our country’s actions.
And yes Mitch, I’m braced for a certain amount of grief dating back to our common hobby regarding my views on torture, LOL. I can imagine your voice sayiing “YOU object to torture? Since WHEN?”
Well, yes I object to torture, it inflames our enemies to greater efforts and alienates our friends; it is not productive in producing reliable information on anything, and it is plain evil. Totalitarian regimes are not faulted so much for holding unpleasant idealogies; they are faulted for acting in abusive and oppressive maner, secretively and without accountability.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Hows that Geneva convention work again in regards to a enemy who not only doesn’t follow it, but isn’t covered under it. Just out of curiosity.
December 16th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Well, dog gone, before you get war-crime trial happy you might want to consider why only losers are subjected to war crime trials. hint: you might want to consider what happens in other countries where leaders fear persecution once they leave office.
War crimes trials are entirely political affairs. I don’t see anybody on the left demanding that Clinton face trial for bombing Serbia.