Yeah, solar panels are nice, but in spite of the different branding, “the path Carter set us on” was still neoliberalism. Carter was the beginning of the end of the unions and the postwar consensus around Keynesianism and progressive New Deal policies.
Carter was facing an economic problem known at the time as “stagflation,” where things were getting more expensive while wages remained stagnant. Keynesianism called for the government spending more when wages are low in order to stimulate the economy, and spending less only under good conditions, to balance the budget and save for a rainy day. It failed to predict stagflation because stagflation was caused by the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. But Carter chose to focus on inflation rather than stagnant wages, against the interests of unions and setting us on the path of neoliberalism.
The big difference between Carter and Reagan was that Reagan was much better at selling Americans on neoliberalism because he was willing to lie through his teeth about it. Carter’s message was that neoliberalism would mean tough times and sacrifices, but that it’s a chance to set aside crass materialism and focus on finding other forms of fulfillment, because what really matters is being a good person on an individual level. Reagan’s message was fuck all that, think of all the cheap plastic shit you’ll be able to buy, plus unions are commie shit anyway, and all that social responsibility crap is just helping black people and gays so fuck it and fuck them. But it was the same economic policy of neoliberalism under both. Americans preferred Reagan’s messaging so much that he got literally 10x the electoral votes as Carter in 1980.
The reason why we’re here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with, one neoliberal who lies and one neoliberal who tells the truth. Since neoliberalism fucking sucks, most people are going to go for the one that lies and says it’ll be good, which is why Reagan beat Carter in 1980 with 10x the electoral votes. But the solution is not to somehow convince people to vote for the more honest neoliberal, it’s to provide an alternative to neoliberalism altogether.
which is why Reagan beat Carter in 1980 with 10x the electoral votes.
The reason why Reagan beat Carter by such a significant margin was because reagan conspired with the Iranian revolutionaries to draw out the crisis until after the election so he could use it in his messaging against Carter.
It’s not even a conspiracy theory, it’s a historical event with a name. Iran Contra scandal, since you seem to have never heard of it…
Lol, you should probably get your facts straight before you start accusing me of not knowing history. The Iran Contra scandal was a separate thing that began 5 years after the 1980 election.
As I said to someone else, that was only one factor, and regardless, Carter could’ve avoided the whole hostage crisis if he hadn’t granted the shah asylum.
Ah, it seems I had my hostage crises mixed up. For some reason when I read “arms-for-hostages deal” in the past, I had assumed it was the hostages in Iran.
Also, the arrangements started in 1981, it just didn’t become public knowledge until 86. Your point stands about it not influencing the 1980 election, but it’s not exactly points in favor of Reagan, or him being no worse than Carter. Especially since it was done specifically to fund an anti-socialist militia in Nicaragua.
Fairly certain I remember reading about him conspiring with the nation’s adversaries in the lead-up to that election too though, but maybe it was a separate scandal…
but it’s not exactly points in favor of Reagan, or him being no worse than Carter.
I’m not sure when or where exactly I made the claim that Reagan was no worse than Carter. Clearly, I must have said it, since so many people keep trying to argue against it to me, but I just can’t seem to find it in anything I actually wrote. Maybe you could point me to it?
What I do recall saying was that Carter’s policies were neoliberal and that neoliberalism is not the answer to our problems. But I must be misremembering.
Fairly certain I remember reading about him conspiring with the nation’s adversaries in the lead-up to that election too though, but maybe it was a separate scandal…
What you are thinking of is known as an “October Surprise.”
For me it was in response to this:
The reason why we’re here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with, one neoliberal who lies and one neoliberal who tells the truth. Since neoliberalism fucking sucks, most people are going to go for the one that lies and says it’ll be good, which is why Reagan beat Carter in 1980 with 10x the electoral votes.
Not exactly the same thing as “both sides” -ism, but verrry close. And the main part I was countering was about ascribing the reason for the electoral outcome solely to their differing levels of honesty
Anyway, this is exactly what I was thinking of:
After the release of the hostages on January 20, 1981, minutes after Reagan’s inauguration, some charged that the Reagan campaign had made a secret deal with the Iranian government whereby the Iranians would hold the hostages until after Reagan was elected and inaugurated.[14] Gary Sick, member of the U.S. National Security Council under Presidents Ford and Carter (before being relieved of his duties weeks into Reagan’s term),[21] made the accusation in a New York Times editorial[22] in the run-up to the 1992 election.
Abolhassan Banisadr, the former President of Iran, has also stated “that the Reagan campaign struck a deal with Tehran to delay the release of the hostages in 1980”, asserting that “by the month before the American Presidential election in November 1980, many in Iran’s ruling circles were openly discussing the fact that a deal had been made between the Reagan campaign team and some Iranian religious leaders in which the hostages’ release would be delayed until after the election so as to prevent President Carter’s re-election.”
Thank you. My bad for conflating it with Iran-Contra, though. I wasn’t alive at the time.
Not exactly the same thing as “both sides” -ism, but verrry close.
Both sides were objectively neoliberals enacting neoliberal policy. “Both sides-ism” is a vacuous term. Sometimes two people have a trait in common, understanding that objective fact is not an “-ism.” Imagine if I tried to paint JD Vance as being significantly different from Trump, and when someone said they both sucked I dismissed it as “both sides-ism.” Maybe it’s true that one is worse than the other, but between Trump and Vance, it’s undeniable that both sides are bad.
Comparing “Carter & Reagan” diffs to “Trump & Vance” diffs has got to be a disingenuous argument.
You didn’t really expect me to bite that obvious bait, did you?
You can draw a neo liberal shitstorm bumpy line from Regan to Trump.
Regan telling Iran not to release the hostages until after the ekection and if he won he’d sell then weapons (Iran-Contra) and he’s elected twice.
Carter had bad ratings because he wasnt a typical US President, he actually gave a fuck about people and place. Welfare queens indeed ffs
Ironically the welfare queen bullshit was based off one very specific person, a career conwoman who was suspected for murder at the time she was mentioned as a part of insurance fraud. The implications was that welfare fraud was severe and she was just the top most fraudster, meaning the scale went down from the 150K fraud she did with lesser amounts all the way down.
Truth is, there was just her. Welfare fraud was so rare and NEVER even CLOSE to her level that they were negligible. But it didn’t matter to them. Also the actual proven amount of fraud was 4k to 8k at the most. A fraction of the amount the government claimed. This would have been closer to 20 to 40k in today’s money. Not petty theft, but far from some grand world shattering scheme.
BTW the overt scrutiny of her welfare fraud was so severe that a major reason why many of the investigations regarding her role in that murder were dropped because it would take away media attention from her fraud and reveal just what a career criminal she was.
Conservatives are PURE EVIL. Every single one of them. They’ve fought against every civil right advancement in history. Under Reagan, they publicly celebrated the deaths of countless victims of AIDS and did everything in their power to maximise the number of victims. They attacked every researcher who tried to help.
Conservatives consider anyone who can experience empathy to be their enemy. They call empathy “woke” and want it to die. As long as they continue to live, conservatives will never stop oppressing and killing the normal people. They can’t. Because they are truly, deeply evil.
Every war and every genocide in human history has been caused by conservatives exclusively. Nothing good has ever come from conservatism. Nothing at all.
Conservatives are the very definition of evil and must be completely redacted if we are to ever know peace.
Name checks out.
Was it not the American people who voted democraticly to put Ronald Reagan into that position. American people have to own up to their own decisions, having a constitutional democracy makes citizens responsible for the government they elect, good or bad. Just like then, just like now, American people are responsible for the government they elected. Democracy unfortunately requires active citizenry
You act like the American people are a single entity. Do you know how many people who voted for Reagan are still even alive?
I’ve been saying the exact same thing for decades. Imagine where we’d be today if we had embraced solar and wind 50 years ago?
It’s all about boiling water anyway. Who cares how we boil it? Shouldn’t we boil it the cheapest, easiest way possible? The sun’s beating down, the wind is blowing, it’s easier to harvest that, than drilling holes a mile into the Earth.
Imagine where we’d be today if we had embraced solar and wind 50 years ago? I don’t want to break your imagination, but you “the US” are stuck in a loop. One step forward, two steps back.
Columbine shooting was 27years ago and nothing was done. Except a “Pray For” on social network. Don’t expect too much from your country.
Imagine all the bribes that get lost. Some now dead guy couldn’t afford his 3rd yacht, and their children wouldn’t even make the three comma club
Following the fall of the pro-American Pahlavi dynasty in early 1979, Iranian protesters regularly shouted “Death to America” and “Death to the Shah” outside the U.S. embassy in Tehran, including the day the embassy was seized on 4 November 1979, which commenced the Iran hostage crisis.[19] Throughout the crisis, Iranians surrounding the embassy chanted “Death to America” and “Death to Carter”.[20]
Iranian students storming the Embassy of the United States in Tehran on November 4, 1979
Which was a response to Carter granting the shah asylum, giving Iranians reason to believe he’d be installed in a coup as a US puppet, exactly as he had been before.
Those students weren’t just storming the embassy for fun, or because they just hated the US. They had a specific demand.
Yes. Maybe I wasnt so clear, I was frustrated by the OP being a little gleeful about Carter. I was sharing this because I agree with it.
Oh, my interpretation on your comment was completely off, sorry if I came off rude (and sorry for downvoting).
deleted by creator
These chucklefucks have been in the pockets of the automotive and oil folks for a very long time.
The liberals are at least putting on a good show for not being bought out by the major players in the energy markets.
I don’t think any of them are clean, but at least one of these groups is trying to show us some amount of progress…
What are you talking about? Biden handed out massive fracking contracts, allowing for such massive amounts of oil that the emissions from those stores alone guarantee a 2.5 degree global warming. The only thing liberals do is some vague photo-op that makes you feel nice, like the Paris accords.
Not sure what you’re confused by. I didn’t say the liberals were clean or devoid of corruption. I just said they’re putting on a show.
You described the exact same thing, you just described the liberal show as a photo-op.
Our comments are basically the same.
