Carter is a better president but with bad timing. If so, I could only feel sorry for him.
Timing is everything as you so succinctly noted is indeed really everything because this is what happens.
How else are we going to judge the success or otherwise of a person/policy/decision and etc? If it is not based on the simple test of what is and what is not accomplished.
Any particular action or inaction always coincide with time and space. The same with any response and counter response that constitute an event. Thus timing matters more so than the intellect or moral integrity of a person in determining the objective outcome of what is sound or unsound.
To say if one person is good or bad is really nothing to do with the material achievement.
It is part of critical analysis to offer revisionist view. However that remains rare and most often fails to reverse the orthodox view. To my mind, the revisionist view if substantiated by newly discovered evidence formerly not available or understood, overtime, it may be successful in replacing the orthodox view. I recall those earlier Catholic persecution of pioneer scientist in geography and astronomy in the reformation period as an example.
In the stock market, investor will also say timing is everything; the same is true with the economist. It is said that the economist's prediction is always right, the only question is when he gets it right.
Thus, success depends on timing and timing yields success. The Chinese says it best - 英雄造时势, 时势造英雄.
In my view, Carter has failed to seize his opportunity as a President and the history at most can give him credit for his other non-executive accomplishment.
I am actually very fond of Carter. I remember my father told me when I was a small kid that the American President was originally a peanut planter. At that time, I didn't know how powerful was America but I did know it was really a big deal going from a peanut planter to becoming a President. This memory is really sweet because it is one of those conversation between father and son that stick in my formative years.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The 1970s was a difficult decade for the US. It just withdrew in disgrace from Vietnam. Economically, the US seemed impotent when the Arab oil embargo tripled oil prices. The revolutions in Latin America showed that the US intentions are not always nobel. The power of the Soviet Union was at its peak. Elsewhere, the US economic and political model was no longer admired.
Unseen, there were big forces that were readjusting the US politics and economic balance. New industries like micro-electronics, computers, biotechnology and finance were developing. Relations between US and China were thawing, which would eventually change the strategic balance of the world. Unknown to many, the Soviet Union was in decline. European powers like UK and France would also turn inwards, leaving the US as the Superpower.
If Ronald Reagan or George Bush (who both ran for President in 1976) had won the presidency, I doubt they can overcome the wave of history which was not ready to turn at that time.
President Carter may have good moral integrity but he was not a good manager. That shows because he was able to make more progress on international affairs (normalising diplomatic relations with China, Camp David Accord, SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union) than in domestic politics where skills at handling Congress is at the premium (and moral integrity counted for little). At that time, the Democratic Party was coming off a 20 years of dominance in Congress; it was disunited, complacent and disdainful of the former Southern Governor in the White House who was new to the ways of Washington.
Hence President Carter will be remembered as a good man who failed to appreciate or overcome the forces of the times.
Post a Comment