What Was Jimmy Carter's Biggest Shortcoming As President?

[Free Bird]

Go. Why do people generally see him as a failure? Remade the thread because for some damned reason we still can't edit poll options.

[Hindsight was 2020]

He had Tip Freaking O’Neill as his speaker and he couldn’t get anything passed through congress

[Free Bird]

He had Tip Freaking O’Neill as his speaker and he couldn’t get anything passed through congress

I mean in fairness his ethics/civil service reform was pretty good

[mencken]

Giving in to terrorists in Iran and Rhodesia.

[136or142]

I voted for idealism, though really his problem was 'impractical idealism.'  Carter's other major problem was his indecision in that he had the unfortunate ability to appreciate all sides of an argument (or nearly all sides.)

This was especially unhelpful to him in economics as at that time macro economics theory was in flux between Keynesianism and Monetarism.  If even the economics experts were uncertain, what chance did Carter have?

I think 'hubris' is a much better description for President Woodrow Wilson though they certainly both shared impractical idealism.

[The Dowager Mod]

He was too honest and moral to be a good president.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Aside from the reason laid out by TexasGurl, Carter’s fatal flaw was that he was a micromanager.

[GoTfan]

Giving in to terrorists in Iran and Rhodesia.

Like Reagan did?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Giving in to terrorists in Iran and Rhodesia.

Like Reagan did?

BuT ReAgAn mAdE iT MoRnInG In aMeRiCa AgAiN.

[Free Bird]

Giving in to terrorists in Iran and Rhodesia.

Like Reagan did?

BuT ReAgAn mAdE iT MoRnInG In aMeRiCa AgAiN.

Psychologically he did, yes. Carter was just a wet blanket.

[progressive85]

He wasn't a movie star.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Probably just timing. He probably became President during one of the most tumultuous times possible. But most of that tumult came from foreign policy issues, so I voted for that option.

[Mr. Smith]

He thought he could reason with the left wing equivalent of the Tea Party that rode in in '74 and came in over-extended and with a massive ego. Turns out Ted, Tip, and the Watergate Babies thought they could make a rubber-stamp President.

[136or142]

Probably just timing. He probably became President during one of the most tumultuous times possible. But most of that tumult came from foreign policy issues, so I voted for that option.

Maybe, especially if you count the gas shortage of 1979/80 as resulting from foreign policy issues, but are you familiar with the 'misery index?'

[Fuzzy Bear]

He thought he could reason with the left wing equivalent of the Tea Party that rode in in '74 and came in over-extended and with a massive ego. Turns out Ted, Tip, and the Watergate Babies thought they could make a rubber-stamp President.

I would not describe the Class of 1974 Dems as you did.  

[pbrower2a]

He sought to bring his Atlanta model to Washington, DC... and it did not work, After that he had no Plan B.

[libertpaulian]

He was elected President at the worst time possible: The economy was slowing down.  The world stage was tumultuous and volatile.  People were losing faith in the political system due to Watergate and a host of other scandals.  American society was wounded due to the culture wars of the 60s and early 70s.  And all of that came crashing down like a house of cards during his Presidency.

As much as I like to rag on Jimmy Carter at times, I do admit I sometimes feel sorry for the man.  I don't envy having to take on the biggest responsibility on Earth at a time like that.

[SWE]

His support of atrocities around the world, including Suharto's invasion of East Timor and the Shah's regime in Iran, in spite of moral posturing over "human rights"

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Not getting a second term.

[HisGrace]

Couldn't decide between idealism/not pragmatic (basically the same thing) and lack of foreign policy experience.

[136or142]

As Trump would say "I guarantee you he's small down there.  I guarantee you."

[136or142]

Couldn't decide between idealism/not pragmatic (basically the same thing) and lack of foreign policy experience.

And then when he did try to be pragmatic, as with the situation in East Timor or with his last minute switch to supporting the Shah, as has been mentioned above, he was completely ham-handed.  In addition to this, when he tried to be 'tough' as with pulling the U.S out of the 1980 Russian Olympics or the banning of selling wheat to Russia,  all he achieved was annoying a lot of Americans.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Carter never really saw the need to cultivate Congress.  He didn't really have support from the more conservative Democrats, but the liberals saw him as a sell-out when he tilted slightly rightward.  And he was rather stand-offish with Congressional Democrats, when he should have done everything to make them his pals, all of them.  His own Georgia Democratic delegation was amazingly distant from him.

Better Congressional relations would have pre-empted a primary challenge.  I voted for Kennedy in the 1980 Democratic Primary.  I regret that now.  Carter was not deserving of being replaced as the nominee, and I believe, in hindsight, that a second term for Carter may well have pre-empted the permanent tilt of politics toward the wealthiest in our society that is the single worst characteristic of out politics today.

[mencken]

Giving in to terrorists in Iran and Rhodesia.

Like Reagan did?

Two wrongs do not make a right. (Plus, unlike Reagan, Carter had a reliable American ally in the region to support)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

His foreign policy, although not for lack of experience.