But they still recognize that Carter's sense of indecisiveness and poor leadership on foreign policy, at the very least, cost him the 1980 election. On some deeper level they would argue that many of Carter and Obama's policies were right-- just not "marketed" correctly.
And that's where the Jimmy Carter analogies come in. Both Presidents were elected after many believed the GOP had ruined its reputation. Both promised to be a 'different' kind of leader. Both faced revolutions in the Islamic world and showed strange diffidence. Both faced high oil prices, a contentious Israel-Palestinian peace process, a Republican resurgence, a goofy Vice President-- the comparisons are nearly endless.
But now the Democrats, who still fear a foreign policy or leadership backlash, are attempting to paint President Obama as the most decisive foreign policy wonk in the history of the Presidency after the successful killing of Osama bin Laden.
First, we have the Chicago Tribune attempting to show that Obama trumped Carter in foreign special forces missions-- that the operation to kill bin Laden was the opposite of the failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran.
The article argues that Obama's 'gutsy call' showed his great leadership-- but later in the article said that the operation was basically out of his hands:
"Carter's opponents used the failed rescue mission to make the point that he was an incompetent president," said retired Mississippi State University historian Stanly Godbold, who is now finishing up a two-volume biography of Carter. Godbold said he differs with those who say the election of 1980 turned on the "debacle in the desert," and added the view that Carter shouldn't be blamed for how things turned out.
True. But we have a long tradition of blaming those in charge — from coaches to presidents — for misfortunes that are largely out of their control. Carter and Obama were half a world away during the fateful missions others had planned but they had ordered.
Next we have an alum of the Carter Administration, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, explaining that now President Obama will avoid the fate of his former boss-- largely thanks to the death of Osama bin Laden.
"In Obama's case had it failed (it) would have been similar" to the debacle that befell Carter, who lost re-election by a landslide in 1980, months after the doomed effort to rescue 52 American hostages at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Brzezinski said.
"But Obama is getting the credit because nothing succeeds like success. Nothing fails like a failure.
Politico was perhaps the most apparent-- they even placed an article as their lead showing that the new, 'manly and decisive' version of Obama was the opposite of the fop Jimmy Carter.
Perhaps the money shot goes to Bill Richardson, once a semi-respected former Governor of New Mexico. Today he barely escaped ethics charges, called Russia the 'Soviet Union' in 2008, and ran a poor Presidential campaign the same year.
But he has to be an expert, right?
“The president has cornered the ‘strong on terrorism’ banner. The Republicans will now have to shift to attacking on the economy since the national security argument has now vaporized,” said former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who ran for president in 2008. “President Obama heads towards the election nearly unbeatable.” (emphasis mine)
Great....
One must remember that President Carter had a fairly significant foreign policy victory in his term-- far bigger than the killing of OBL. That was the Camp David Accords, thought to be the first step towards Mideast Peace. There were also treaties and negotiations with the USSR-- and for part of Carter's term he would have argued that foreign policy was his strong suit.
Obama should heed Carter's lesson.
Please bookmark!
No comments:
Post a Comment