Jimmy Carter Was No Friend of Union Workers Like Me
Jimmy Carter Was No Friend of Union Workers Like Me
As a worker in the 1970s, I looked forward to a Jimmy Carter administration. By the end of his term in office, like millions of my union sisters and brothers, I felt betrayed.
Kind of a weird question— and I’m not defending whatever the article is alleging— but what’s the point of trying to smear Carter’s memory?
He’s dead. Nobody praises the bad things he might have done. This feels like an attempt to instill even more tiredness into an already exhausted society— “see? Even the guy everyone likes sucked! Nobody should be thought of as good, you must keep this in mind.”
This doesn’t help unions. This doesn’t help the left. This doesn’t help anyone. Americans are rightfully haggard and all remaining energy should be spent trying to keep the upcoming administration in chaos to minimize harm or supporting good people. Why waste time trying to diminish the memory of a man who, far as I can tell, has done nothing but good the past 40 years?
And fuck, haven’t we had enough negativity? Many days I avoid social media entirely because it’s just negativity upon negativity. I genuinely can’t fathom a single positive or useful takeaway from media like this.
Why shouldn't someone that felt betrayed by a politician write about their experience? Why shouldn't people learn about these perspectives?
"Can everyone quit being so negative" is an awful take when talking about politics/politicians.
Why shouldn't people learn about these perspectives?
Well yeah, that’s why I’m asking what the point is. What is there to be learned from a bad story on this particular dead individual? I said a few times that I can see no discernible societal benefit. I’d love to see even a hypothetical of how this could lead to positive change.
I hate to be so results-oriented. Really, I do. But the left has lost and lost and lost so I struggle to see a purpose in aiming leftist attention away from the upcoming grim future.
"Can everyone quit being so negative"
I’ve noticed that people are more likely to respond to the last thing said, as if the rest was skimmed or forgotten. When I said it was more important to keep the upcoming administration in chaos, did you think I meant by praising them? Negativity is obviously useful when targeted correctly.
If you reread the comment, it’s pretty clear that my issue is with seemingly pointless negativity— the comment literally begins with “what’s the point?” Like I said, absolutely nobody is praising the bad things Carter may have done. The full focus is on the 40 years of civil service following his presidency. It’s almost always preceded with “he may not have been a good president, but…”
Aiming the limited public attention space at dead Jimmy Carter’s actions from over 40 years ago serves only the people presently planning on killing unions. Yet instead of trying to convince voters that unions aren’t that bad— something I’ve convinced even business owners of, when it’s not their employees— people would rather sit here and turn the never-ending stream of negativity on Current Famous Person.
So really, just tell me the point. If you have one I’m happy to give you that, and if it somehow outweighs the downside of leftist infighting, I’d be thrilled to admit wrong. I’m not here to pick fights and genuinely want to believe the left is trying to generate positive results or that this is article will do that. It’s been pretty hopeless recently watching the right surge forward while the left goes at each other and manages nothing.
Hell, Luigi Mangione alone changed more for society than we’ve managed in years. Probably because he wasn’t (allegedly) aiming at the wrong guy.
because it only makes sense in a vacuum, if you compare carter's time to anyone else's, it holds up fine if not great.
it's bullllllshit
Baffling.
We need to whitewash a genocidal war criminal because civility politics and uniting against trump. Because unique to one of 'our good ones' the event of their passing IS NOT a good time to retrospect their lives and impact. Because aren't we tired of the divisiveness of questioning our betters?
Starting to think liberals' brains haven't actually been fried by trump, they've always been feckless monsters
Liberals brains were fried by Bill Clinton. Starting with him they couldn't see the entire party's hard march to the right.
The modern "heroization" of Jimmy Carter by people who never experienced his presidency has frustrated many of us who did experience it. Those were difficult times. But...
While I appreciate this dose of reality, I don't think the occasion of his death is the appropriate time to post it. Give the man and his family some respect.
He was a moral man who tried his best, made mistakes, and was possibly a little better person than we all strive to be. He brokered a Middle East peace treaty that was ground breaking. No need to shit on him now.
It's always appropriate to speak the truth.
Presidents are faced with all kinds of choices between two bad options. They become known for the one they choose. We don't get that kind of reckoning.
Like, I voted for Kamala. Looking at me through the eye of history's telescope, some would say I voted to support genocide in Lebanon. I could argue well, there was a worse option and I didn't vote for that one.
Do we know what Jimmy Carter was rejecting when he chose the options he did? I don't.
Like Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, "What is truth?"
Fuck respect. He was as much of a war criminal as Kissinger.
He was a moral man who tried his best, made mistakes, and was possibly a little better person than {most average U.S presidents} strive to be.
That's kinda true, post-presidency, he did try to redeem himself from the U.S's usual foreign policy.
“And do you know why? I normalized diplomatic relations with China in 1979. Since 1979 do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody? None. And we have stayed at war,” he said. The U.S., Carter said, has been at war for all but 16 years of its 242-year history. He called the United States “the most warlike nation in the history of the world,” because of a tendency to try to force others to “adopt our American principles.”
Carter suggested that instead of war, China has been investing in its own infrastructure, mentioning that China has 18,000 miles of high-speed railroad.
“How many miles of high-speed railroad do we have in this country?” Zero, the congregation answered.
“We have wasted I think $3 trillion,” Carter said of American military spending. “… It’s more than you can imagine. China has not wasted a single penny on war and that’s why they’re ahead of us. In almost every way.
“And the North Koreans suffered because the United States did everything possible to destroy their economy. And we did everything possible to boost South Korea's economy. And so we condemn North Korea because its economy is lagging behind and its people are starving.”
“Electoral process in Venezuela is the best in the world." The comments were made in 2012, just three weeks before Venezuelans re-elected Chávez for his last term in office.
“There are 92 elections that we monitor, I would say that the electoral process in Venezuela is the best in the world,” he said in an annual speech at the Carter Center in Atlanta. He stressed that the system is fully automated, which makes counting faster.
He even admitted America's electoral flaws
At the time, Carter also revealed his opinion that in the US “we have one of the worst electoral processes in the world, and it's almost entirely due to the excessive inflow of money,” he said, referring to the lack of control over private campaign donations.
The Carter Center was one of the only Western NGOs to declare that the 2004 referendum in Venezuela (an attempted legislative coup, following the failure of the military coup in 2002) was fair and free.
In his book Carter argues that Israel's continued control and construction of settlements have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle East. That perspective, coupled with the use of the word Apartheid in the titular phrase Peace Not Apartheid, and what critics said were errors and misstatements in the book, sparked controversy. Carter has defended his book and countered that response to it "in the real world…has been overwhelmingly positive."
Maybe less so than FDR, but at least Carter lived to atone his former sins somewhat
Emkay... seems good
Still doesn't exonerate from introducing Ted Lasso liberal finance capital fascism (also known as Neoliberalism)
Introducing the hawkish national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski who did the following
the following
Supporting Iraq and Nicaragua contras before Reagan did it
Supporting Angolan anti-communists and Mujahideen Afghan rebels
Backing China and Khmer Rouge against Soviet ally Vietnam (for what? Stopping the genocide there)
Backing East Timor and Guatemala genocides
But what would I expect from a white sharecropper family in a SSettler SSnake society of the Disunited SStates of Amerikkka
But okay, I guess I'll respect that
Fuck man, to get back to a US president that actually cared about labor you probably need to go all the way back to FDR. JFK is debatable - RFK (not the junior fuck) would have probably been a strong advocate but JFK was more centrist.
We really gotta stop using "centrist" instead of pro-corporate. That's just establishment sleight of hand to make pro-corporate policies look like the defaults.
centrist is just “weakly pro billionaire”. Which is still pro billionaire.
So ... Neoliberal
Especially because the corporate support increases from center to right. Libertarians want to eliminate regulations on businesses, and the far right wants to accelerate inequality by lifting regulations on, and subsidizing the overhead for, the wealthiest corporations.
I agree that pro-corporate makes far more sense than centrist. “Not far-left” would also work, but it’s clunky.
A neoliberal and a war criminal.
Hmm... how about I throw some links at you as well, to make your point
On Brzezinski, the national security advisor https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/05/john-helmer-zbigniew-brzezinski-svengali-jimmy-carters-presidency-dead-evil-lives.html
Foreign policy
https://afflictthecomfortable.org/2020/11/19/jimmy-carter-is-a-saint-now-was-a-war-criminal-then/
East Timor genocide funding https://web.archive.org/web/20170226181104/https://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/indoarms.html
Wow, and to think he's one of the least bloodiest presidents...
We’re still living in Brzezinski’s shadow today in Ukraine. This is the proxy war he would have wanted, with the goal of collapsing the Russian state and balkanizing Russia. Weaponizing Europe, Countering Eurasia: Mackinder, Brzezinski, Nuland and the Road to the Ukraine War
He's also a war criminal
Every president since the founding of the country is a war criminal.
Agree, I can't believe they wasted good tea by throwing it in the harbour
this article is garbage. taken by itself, his presidency had problems sure. compared to actual failures - including reagan - the man was stellar.
especially where it counted, piety without dogma, patriotism without jingoism, willing to risk his own life for a lifetime of service, carter was so much better than most of the schlubs we see.
reagan won through treason, never forget he pulled the same bullshit nixon did, conservatives never care if it requires dealing with hostage takers or prolonging wars as long as they get elected. fucking scumbags