Why This Is So! (continued II)

In my last analysis of why this is so I concluded with the comment, “To me, Carter’s greatest fault was that he was a conservative in many ways and started the trend to deregulate, making it fashionable; thereby laying the groundwork for the Republican massive assault on regulations in the years to come.” But Carter had other faults, which had not so much to do with his effectiveness as President, but rather with the image he projected. 

Carter image of the Presidency was the opposite of what Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called the Imperial Presidency or as Camelot during the Kennedy administration. Carter saw himself as a man of the people. His style was to emphasize modesty rather than grandiosity. He walked to his inauguration. He wore cardigan sweaters. He never understood that deep down the American people want their President to have the trappings of Monarchy. They feel that to the extent that the image of the President is diminished the image of the country is diminished.

At the same time Carter inherited from the Nixon/Ford administration the malaise not only of Watergate but the stagflation that was gripping the country. Carter did not have the imagination to rouse the country, to present imaginative programs ala the New Deal or the Fair Deal or even of the tax cuts championed by Jack Kennedy. Instead he spoke of the need to come to grips with diminishing expectations, something the public was not about to accept.
 
Above all Carter wanted his legacy to be the spread of human rights throughout the world, at a time when the Cold War often required us to take allies where we could find them, and where history handed him irrevocable commitments. The Shah of Iran who had been placed on his throne by the Eisenhower administration in an overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadeg, had no support in his country and had been ruling it as a viscous tyrant (while trying to modernize it, to be sure) was now dying of cancer and appealed to Carter for asylum and medical treatment in the United States. Carter found himself unable to turn his back on him both for humanitarian reasons and because of the U.S. commitment which had been made to him as an ally. Carter correctly feared that an abandonment of this man in the hour of his need would send the wrong signal to our allies. He therefore gave him asylum in the U.S. as his regime was in the process of being over thrown by the Ayatollah. But this only fueled the enmity of the Iranians toward the U.S. and soon the Embassy was overrun and hostages taken. There was nothing Carter could do other than what he did do, but the failure of the military to carry out a rescue plan was turned into Carter’s failure.

Nevertheless, as the election against Reagan approached Carter held a large lead in the polls because Reagan was perceived as an extremist who the public was wary. Reagan’s sunny personality and his slogan, “Its morning in America” reassured a wary public. As Election Day approached the polls narrowed and it became apparent that the hostages held the key to who would win the election. Carter hoped and Reagan feared a release of the hostages before the election, which meant that the next President would in effect be chosen by the Ayatollah in Iran. Either, that radical government felt that the election of Reagan would serve its interests, or as has been rumored (though never proven) Reagan cut a deal with Teheran that if they would keep the hostages till after the election he would supply them with arms, (which in fact he did in what came to be known as the Iran/Contra scandal.

Next time, how Reagan takes the Republican Party and the country to the right and makes this respectable, as Democrats have no answer and as the Union movement crumbles.