Intellectual freedom is the only guarantee of a
scientific - democratic approach to politics, economic development, and
culture.
-Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov-
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin-
Mark Adams is [in no particular order] a Lawyer, Restauranteur, Husband, Father, Grandfather, Landlord, Singer, Guitarist, Political Scientist, Amateur Historian and Rhetorician with no sense of reverence for anything except the freedom to speak one's mind. To visit Mark's Family Law Website
A couple of my favorite bloggers took issue with this quote from Paul Richter's article in the Los Angeles Times
"Bush could end up looking like the worst president since Jimmy Carter because of Iraq, and people are going to say, 'You got us into this mess,' " said one Washington source who considered himself a neoconservative and spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It's going to be nasty and bitter and brutal."
Jesse Taylor at Pandagon only hopes that it were true. However, one of the commentators makes the astute point: "Because God knows that he can't actually be worse than a president who won the Nobel Peace Prize."
Juan Cole, on the other hand, tears into the quote as ridiculous, and elaborates in full, taking a swing at Reagan and Shrub along the way.
Jimmy Carter was a far better president than W. can ever hope to be. Carter made peace between Israel and Egypt. He resolved the Panama Canal issue to everyone's satisfaction, and we've never heard any more about it because there haven't been subsequent problems. He avoided a potentially disastrous US attempt to prevent or roll back the Islamic Revolution in Iran. He used the foreign aid carrot to begin the process of pushing the Latin American military regimes to democratize (a process that has been wildly successful). He raised human rights as a foreign policy issue. Carter is a quick study and a bright engineer. He was president at a time of post-Vietnam and post-Watergate doldrums, at a time when Iran and Afghanistan spun out of control, at a time of high petroleum prices, continued stagflation, and high inflation. I am not entirely sure what he could have done about any of these problems, most of which were beyond his control (and most of which remained beyond the control of his successors).
Reagan did not overturn Khomeini, rather he sold him arms. Although Reagan got the Soviets out of Afghanistan, he did it at the cost of creating a radical Islamist international and destabilizing Pakistan and Afghanistan--i.e. Afghanistan continued to spin out of control, with fateful consequences. The price of petroleum declined from $40 a barrel in 1980 to less than $10 a barrel in 1986, helping Reagan quite a lot, but it had nothing to do with any policy pursued by Reagan. (Europe cut its energy consumption by a third after the 1970s oil shock, and OPEC has a tendency to overproduce over time). After Carter retired, he spent his time building houses for disadvantaged people. He also was key to the elimination of a painful and debilitating parasite in Africa, improving the lives of millions. The vilification of Carter and the hero worship of W. is a sign of how morally warped the American Right really is. Carter's political and economic environment made it impossible for him to be a great president, but he was a damn sight better than W. any day of the week.
Although I understand Jaun's point, and whole-heartedly agree, what is missing is simply how cravenly partisan the neo-cons, and indeed the cons in general are, in addition to their historical myopia. Of course, since the GOP have only elected two scandal-free or non-disasterous administrations (Ike and Bush the Elder) since World War One, it's hard to pinpoint their criteria for a failed or sucessful presidency. Judging by the nostolgic reverence they have for Reagan's term, I assume a great president for the republicans need only get reelected and not resign in disgrace.
Starting illegal wars, bankrupting the middle-class, and erroding civil rights as inconvenient burdens seem to be easily ignored. As long as they have an "R" next to their names and lower taxes on the wealthy, much seems forgivable if they are reelectable. Add a penchant for relying on religious dogma instead of empyrical evidence and the conservatives are ready to annoint our appointed president a saint.
Bush, the "worst president since Jimmy Carter"? How about the worst economic shepard since Hoover? The most corrupt since Harding? The most isolated and paranoid since Nixon. The most illegitimate since Ford? Most inept since, . . . um, there is no president even close to Shrub for sheer incompetence. I will cry tears of joy when this bunch of neo-crooks gets ousted and the indictments are handed out.