Sometime, I want you to tell me about Jimmy Carter. This is what I know:
-He was president one term, not reelected, therefore thought of as a failure, politically
-From the South, maybe was governor of Georgia (?)
-Told Americans to put on a sweater, as he brought forth environmental issues that folks weren't ready for, and that we now could see as visionary. With the sweater comment, it seems as if he is trying to "bring the solution home", as in "making people take responsibility for the issue," something that by-and-large people didn't- and don't- want to do.
-I recently heard a neat piece on NPR which looked at church and state separation and had Bill Mahr on, since his movie "Religulous" comes out this week. They said that Jimmy Carter was the first president to conceptualize the USA as a Christian State, and the office of the Presidency as a Christian position. He started the legacy of "God Bless America's" that all subsequent presidents have been required to spout.
-Your man Bacevich talked about the "Carter Doctrine," stating the strategic importance of the Middle East and declaring that the USA would not allow any other country to take control of the region, as a starting point for our imperialistic posture in the region.
All of that just doesn't seem to fit into the cartoon picture that I visualize of him, which is just an enormous Colgate smile on a dweeby sweater-clad body. So I would like you maybe to fill in some gaps for me. Who the heck was this guy?
4 comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0GsrYwAPOU
Now commonly referred to at the Malaise Speech
…All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our Nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem.
Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this Nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our Nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny.
In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous tool on our economy and our people. This is the direct cause of the long lines which have made millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline. It's a cause of the increased inflation and unemployment that we now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our Nation.
The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our Nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.
What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.
Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this Nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980's, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4 1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.
Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my Presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.
Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our Nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the Sun.
I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2 1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest directly in America's energy security.
Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this Nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.
These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment.
Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our Nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.
Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the redtape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.
We will protect our environment. But when this Nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.
Point six: I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every State, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.
I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing. To further conserve energy, I'm proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I'm asking you for your good and for your Nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense -- I tell you it is an act of patriotism.
Our Nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our Nation's strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives.
So, the solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country. It can rekindle our sense of unity, our confidence in the future, and give our Nation and all of us individually a new sense of purpose.
You know we can do it. We have the natural resources. We have more oil in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias. We have more coal than any nation on Earth. We have the world's highest level of technology. We have the most skilled work force, with innovative genius, and I firmly believe that we have the national will to win this war.
I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our Nation's problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act.
We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.
Twelve hours from now I will speak again in Kansas City, to expand and to explain further our energy program. Just as the search for solutions to our energy shortages has now led us to a new awareness of our Nation's deeper problems, so our willingness to work for those solutions in energy can strengthen us to attack those deeper problems.
I will continue to travel this country, to hear the people of America. You can help me to develop a national agenda for the 1980's. I will listen and I will act. We will act together. These were the promises I made 3 years ago, and I intend to keep them.
Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence. We can spend until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science. But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources -- America's people, America's values, and America's confidence.
I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy-secure nation.
In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, but I will not do it alone. Let your voice be heard. Whenever you have a chance, say something good about our country. With God's help and for the sake of our Nation, it is time for us to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves together to a rebirth of the American spirit. Working together with our common faith we cannot fail.
Thank you and good night.
Ben Beall V
December 7, 2005
Presidential Action, the Media, and Expectations: Jimmy Carter and Energy Policy
The only non-president to ever reside in the White House for four years was Jimmy Carter. The man from Plains, Georgia came storming into Washington with his ambition, his naivety, and his views of how future America would look. In the wake of the scandalous Richard Nixon, Carter was a president that defied expectations. He took on difficult issues. He retreated from political hobnobery. And he lasted only one term. Apolitical, forward-looking, ambitious, and necessary, Carter’s energy policy provides a representation of his presidency. The experimental presidency of Jimmy Carter is best viewed through his interaction, or lack of interaction with the media. A man who was above politics, who put national interest before political maneuvering, found that no president can ignore politics.
That Jimmy Carter became president was indicative of the times. In the face of Watergate, the country wanted someone from a “traditional” American background, an outsider, an idealist, a non-president. Hendrik Hertzberg, Carter’s speechwriter states that “Jimmy Carter is exactly what the American people always say they want: above politics, determined to do the right thing regardless of political consequences, a simple person who doesn’t lie, a modest man, not someone with a lot of imperial pretenses; that’s what they got with Jimmy Carter.” Unfortunately, out of this same vane, Carter was pegged as an ineffective president and left office with one of the lowest public approval ratings of the modern era, second only to Nixon. This perception of ineffectiveness was due to two causes. First, Carter was faced with daunting challenges from the day he ascended to the presidency to the day he left the Oval Office. Facing an energy crisis, staggering inflation, widespread unemployment, the debilitating Iran Hostage Crisis, witnessing the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, backing an unpopular Moscow Olympic boycott, and challenged by intense political conflicts within Washington, some say that Jimmy Carter was dealt a bad hand. However others have said that Carter did not know how to play cards. For the most part, Carter did not play politics: the second cause of his administration being perceived as ineffective. And most strikingly, he did not use the media to frame his policy goals, display his effectiveness, and capture American public support.
Furthermore, the perception of Carter as ineffective is due in large part to the increased pressure placed on the president to achieve during his time in office. In contrast to the “Imperial Presidency” of Johnson and Nixon, presidential scholars have classified the Carter Presidency within the so-called “Samson model,” other slogans are the “imperiled” or “tethered” presidency. This model is characterized by the growing gap between what a president is expected to do and what they can actually deliver. The adversarial nature of the media is one prospective cause for the decreased effectiveness of the presidency in such a model. Thus, Carter’s unwillingness to create an image of effectiveness through the media, the media’s increasing cynicism, and the public’s unrealistic demands for delivery of change created an atmosphere hostile to effective policy initiative. Carter’s efforts to enact meaningful change in energy policy serve as a perfect example of these forces at work. As John C. Barrow points out, “Energy policy defined his presidency. On no other issue did Carter risk so much of his political capital, and on no other issue did Carter experience his greatest triumphs and most humiliating defeats.”
As Jimmy Carter ascended to the presidency the nation’s energy needs were burgeoning while domestic energy production, especially oil, was reaching its peak. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) amalgamated just prior to Carter’s presidency. This further complicated the arising energy crisis as OPEC instituted embargoes in order to force oil importing countries to capitulate to their political demands. At the time, energy prices were held artificially low through federal price controls and regulated industry. This led to strained energy supply in all sectors of energy consumption. Carter astutely diagnosed the conflicting problems that would lead to an ever increasing dependence on foreign sources of energy.
Prior to inauguration Carter began developing his energy policy initiatives. The initiatives would become the cornerstone of his early presidency and upon which he would stake his claim to power. In his memoirs, Carter speaks of the need for a comprehensive energy program that would encourage conservation, production and the development of alternative forms of domestic energy and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Through Carter’s efforts the Department of Energy was formed and ambitious policy initiatives were presented to Congress in 1977 and 1979.
Carter was obsessed with energy. Erwin C. Hargrove, a renowned presidential scholar and Carter biographer, states “Carter liked this kind of issue, as it pitted the national interest, and a public good, against regional and economic interests. It also required comprehensive treatment, joining conservation and production, oil, gas, coal, nuclear power and taxes. The fact that his predecessors had failed made it even more of a challenge.” Jimmy Carter was willing to take on tough challenges and set far-reaching, perhaps unrealistic goals. In a speech given on April 18, 1977 Carter said,
This is the greatest challenge that our country will face during our lifetime…We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now we can control our future instead of letting the future control us...Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.
In regards to the energy crisis facing the nation, Carter called his policy initiatives the “moral equivalent of war.” He feared the nation’s increasing dependence on foreign sources of oil, forecasting that it would lead to future conflict especially in the Middle East and an increasing tendency to exploit the environment.
In the face of such challenges Carter set ambitious goals. In numerous speeches he laid out his steps toward the creation of a comprehensive, long term energy policy. To the American public, Carter stated, “There are three things that we must do: first, cut back on consumption; second, shift away from oil and gas to other sources of energy; and third, encourage production of energy here in the United States.” A few of his initiatives to reduce consumption included appealing directly to the American people by asking for individual sacrifice, funding public transportation infrastructural costs, forcing utilities to cut their oil use by 50%, and providing for the insulation of 90 % of American homes. In order to shift to alternative energy sources, Carter fostered the market for alternative sources of fuel such as coal, gasohol, and solar by providing tax breaks and set the ambitious goal of generating 20% of the nation’s energy from solar sources by 2000. In regards to satisfying energy demand from domestic sources, some of Carter’s initiatives included deregulating price controls to encourage domestic exploration and production and setting import quotas to cap the importation of foreign sources of energy. Additionally Carter created the strategic petroleum reserve which would provide six months of oil supply to curtail the affects of future energy shocks. Naively, he also took on pork barrel projects and dams constructed throughout the nation by the Bureau of Reclamation. These projects happened to be the grease that turned the gears of congressional Washington. Carter’s desire to create a long term energy policy was focused, ambitious, and widespread. Its implementation was moderately successful. In fact, Jeffery K Stine, the Smithsonian Curator of Engineering and Environmental History, states that Jimmy Carter “was the first U.S. presidential candidate to campaign successfully on environmental issues…he advanced the cause of environmental policy as has no occupant of the White House since FDR.” And John C. Barrow expounds Carter “had done more to reorient the nation’s energy policy than any other president in history.” So what went wrong?
As Jimmy Carter created a comprehensive energy policy that asked for widespread sacrifice from all sectors of society, he alienated every constituency. From producers to consumers, Carter asked each of them to take a hit. “He would pursue policies regardless of their immediate political benefits…Carter sought to mobilize support for a program that had no constituency. Future, not present, generations would receive the most benefits from his energy policy.” Carter realized that his energy policy would not be popular among any sector. In one of his speeches he stated, “I'm sure that each of you will find something you don't like about the specifics of our proposal.” Carter assumed that the public would be willing to sacrifice under his moral leadership. He believed that if he appealed directly to public opinion in his speeches. He could overcome a lack of special interest support in Washington. What Carter failed to recognize is that the media directs political dialogue and thus public opinion. Few citizens watch presidential speeches. Journalists and editorialists are left to interpret and disseminate presidential messages. Carter is accused of having been an ineffective president. This perception of Jimmy Carter is not a result of his ability to identify the important issues of his time; rather his ineffectiveness was a result of his relationship with the media, or lack thereof. Carter did not play the media to his advantage.
As stated before, Jimmy Carter did not play the game of politics. This failure is most evident in how he interacted with the media. Carter did not understand the expectations of the media and if he did, he did not work to fulfill those expectations. “Admirers and detractors agreed that the president failed the leadership task on this issue by not successfully selling the energy package to the public and Congress.” Carter failed to utilize the modern presidency’s monopoly of media attention and subsequent control of public opinion.
Carter was a firm believer in the president’s ability to shape public opinion through fireside chats and speeches. He used simple wording, but presented complex messages. He led by example by walking to his inauguration ceremony, by carrying his own garment bag, and by getting rid of the presidential yacht. These efforts were met with striking success early in his term. Media personalities lauded the humble, real president. After being elected with less than 51% of the electorate, he enjoyed a 70% approval rating through September of his first year in office. Bruce Miroff points out that “the modern president not only responds to popular demands and passions but also actively reaches out to shape them…A significant part of the presidency revolves around the enactment of leadership as a spectacle.” But then Carter lost his way. While his “humbly lead by example” spectacles were supported early in his presidency they soon became old news and unsurprising. Creating a spectacle implies creating compelling theatre that the media latches onto and presents to the public. Carrying a garment bag is not exciting after the second time it happens. After a few months in office, Carter became the anti-spectacle.
The turning point in the administration came with the Bert Lance Affair in September of Carter’s first year. Lance, the Office of Management and Budget Director was accused of banking impropriety. Jimmy Carter stood by Lance for two weeks after the story broke, allowing the scandal to fester in the Media. Jody Powell, the Press Secretary at the time states that, “Journalists very much wanted to prove that they could be as tough on a democratic president as they had been on a Richard Nixon.” After intense scruntiny from the media, Carter’s approval dropped 25%. With Watergate fresh in their minds, the public was acutely aware of scandals presented by the media. The Lance Affair marked the end of the Carter presidential honeymoon. After eight months in office Carter no longer presented a refreshing change in presidential style. The media which typically lays off as a president settles into office awoke to show its post-Watergate cynicism.
At the same time, Carter’s energy policy initiative began to flounder. Patrick Caddell, Carter’s pollster claims that “Until that moment we had been driving the agenda. Everyone danced to our tune. After that, we danced to everybody else’s tune. That hurt us in the public because now Jimmy Carter wasn’t in charge.” As the media engine picked up steam, Carter’s approval ratings continued their slide. With the loss of public approval he became increasingly impotent in the face of intense criticism from special interests opposed to his energy policy. The loss of media friendliness also accentuated his now strenuous relations with Congress largely due to Carter’s efforts to curb Bureau of Reclamation projects largely seen by the president as pork-barrel spending and environmentally hazardous.
The media usually responds favorably to decisive action aimed at alleviating national problems. As stated prior, the expectations of the president are profound. Striving to meet those expectations is usually met with praise from media outlets. As Michael Nelson, the eminent presidential scholar states “When strong action – or the appearance of strong action – comes from the White House, journalists tend to applaud it.” Carter’s energy policy was a comprehensive, ambitious plan to address a crisis that gripped the nation. It is only prudent to expect that the media would approve of Carter’s policy and thus present his initiatives in a way that would galvanize public approval.
However, Nelson states that the “appearance of action” is crucial. Jimmy Carter did a poor job of creating the appearance of action. As Mark Rozell states “the president resisted slogans and simplifying characterizations…and appeared to speak with many conflicting voices in his policy speeches.” This led to perceived policy incoherence and an apparent lack of policy priorities according to Rozell. Additionally, Rozell points out that Carter’s policy agenda was filled with “political losers.” For example, in one of Carter’s speeches he states,
An unemployed steel worker told me something that may reflect the feelings of many of you. “Mr. President,” he said, “I don’t feel much like talking about energy and foreign policy. I’m concerned about how I’m going to live…I can’t be too concerned about other things when I have a 10-year-old daughter to raise and I don’t have a job and I’m 56 years old.
Energy policy is not an issue that grips the American public as something that is truly salient to their daily lives. Carter may know that energy policy is important, but public opinion and the media grasp issues that seem to matter directly to individual livelihood. While in hindsight Carter’s energy policy seems like a bold step, Carter’s lack of message framing created a White House that appeared to be in disarray from the media’s perspective. Additionally, his policy agenda was more of a political liability than a wellspring for media frenzy.
Carter also heavily focused on speech giving in order to generate support for his energy policy. Of the ten major speeches that he gave during his presidency, five of them had the direct theme of focusing on driving public support for his energy policy initiatives. However, Rozell points out that the speech making process was inadequate and Carter’s image cultivation with journalists and editorialist was non-existent. As Rozell points out, “Carter’s eclectic, non-ideological philosophy was not conductive to simplification through the use of a slogan, a theme, or some other explanatory device.” Rozell also points out that those writing Carter’s speeches had very little, if any contact with the president. Carter did not like the idea of someone writing words for him just to create a “cooked-up” impression. With such a focus on speech giving but not speech making, another inevitable result is that speeches were not created with the editors and journalists in mind. James Fallows, a Carter speechwriter, astutely points that,
What you really care about is having a written documentation which when inspected by the editors of the New York Times and the columnists and by people outside the two thousand who are going to actually hear it, it will strike them as an impressive piece of reasoning and will for the next six months have a sort of ripple effect…it would never occur to Carter very often to ask “Well what’s the [newspaper] lead going to be about this?
Carter and his administration did not use the media. In fact they lacked an organizational structure that would enable utilization of the president’s monopoly of the media. Jimmy Carter thought that presentation of policy alone would suffice. He believed that the merits of the legislation or initiative would speak for itself. Such idealism is refreshing, but by and large most presidents seek to use the media to their political advantage. Lawrence R. Jacobs posits, “Chief executives and their advisors devote much of their time trying to shape news coverage of their policy initiatives, often in hopes of crowding out congressional critics and opposing pressure groups.” While Carter focused on creating solutions and addressing problems, he disregarded the media, a powerful tool for presidential efficacy.
Jimmy Carter was fairly successful in passing legislation along his energy policy goals. He was also able to promulgate a culture of conservation with many Americans. He was successful only due to diligence and an unwavering distaste for compromise. Overall he lacked an effort to cultivate relations with the media and did not create spectacles that would have been media friendly. His aversion to political maneuvering shackled his presidency.
Jimmy Carter was a naïve, idealistic president. This was the kind of individual the United States screamed for after the tumultuous times of Watergate. However, Jimmy Carter provides history an example that good and effective are not always the same. As Bruce Miroff states “The rise of spectacle in the presidency remains a disturbing development. It is harmful to presidents, promoting gesture over accomplishment and appearance over fact...The presentation of leadership as spectacle has little in common with the kind of leadership that American democratic values imply.” Jimmy Carter is the kind of leader that democratic values should support. He tackled the big problems of the day, created comprehensive solutions that presented fair outcomes, and he thought about future generations. Most of all, Jimmy Carter believed that politics and gamesmanship had no place in democracy. The lack of success of his presidency and voluminous negative literature provided by journalists, biographers, and historians hacked away at the idealism of Jimmy Carter and all generations to follow.
However, if Jimmy Carter’s post-presidency is any indication of how idealism can overcome pessimism, then future generations can maintain hope. Even Jimmy Carter’s energy policy, dragged through the mud in Congress during the late 1970’s and gutted by Ronald Reagan, is experiencing a rebirth. Jimmy Carter and his supporters may have the last laugh. And with that laugh, maybe all Americans, especially those within the media, can forge a new model for presidential efficacy: one based on the ideals of Jimmy Carter.
you're 20 behind?
Post a Comment