Jimmy Carter's role in winning the Cold War

[anatta]

I notice that you portray no genuine commitment to human rights, human freedom, and democratic principles in your post.

Which is why you, the Kremlin, and the KGB prefer Republicans.

Liberals - like Jimmy Carter, et al. - have an ideological and personal predisposition for being hostile to totalitarianism, repression, and all affronts to human dignity and freedom. And that is probably exactly what annoyed the Kremlin and the KGB about western liberals. Conservatives they could understand - it was all about spheres of influence and raw economic hegemony.

Human rights are an ineffective policy -
can't do anything about China's Uighurs for ex.. so we should not negotiate with China?

It's shortsighted and ineffective to to do anything except realpolitik.
we can back UN sanctions etc, but it cannot drive bi-lateral relations

 

[Cypress]

Human rights are an ineffective policy -

I am pretty sure Ghandi, MLK, and Nelsen Mandela would disagree.

Communism in Eastern Europe fell with barely a shot being fired. Why? Because of the moral authority of the Polish solidarity union, Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Andrei Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, et al.

Soft power, moral authority, and simply standing up for human freedom and dignity are generally more effective weapons than Abrahms tanks or F-15 Eagles.

History bears this out. Over and over.

can't do anything about China's Uighurs for ex.. so we should not negotiate with China?

It's shortsighted and ineffective to to do anything except realpolitik.
we can back UN sanctions etc, but it cannot drive bi-lateral relations

Your logical fallacy is an attempt to present a false choice.

Using soft power and aggressively protecting American interests are not mutually exclusive. "Realpolitick" is just a nebulous word lacking context, but which sounds great as a sound byte on obscure message boards.

 

[anatta]

I am pretty sure Ghandi, MLK, and Nelsen Mandela would disagree.

\these were not foreign policies

Communism in Eastern Europe fell with barely a shot being fired. Why? Because of the moral authority of the Polish solidarity union, Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Andrei Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, et al.

those players gave moral weight, but they did not change anything. Carter's foreign policy of boycotting the Olympics did not change anything. You know what collapsed the USSR -not going to laundry list it

Soft power, moral authority, and simply standing up for human freedom and dignity are generally more effective weapons than Abrahms tanks or F-15 Eagles.

human rights are ineffective foreign policy all the screeching about the Ukraine changes nothing. NATO is not based on human rights. Countries must take hard power seriously. Human rights ae a frosting on a cake -not the cake

Using soft power and aggressively protecting American interests are not mutually exclusive. "Realpolitick" is just a nebulous word lacking context, but which sounds great as a sound byte on obscure message boards.

correct. China uses soft power effectively. independent of human rights.

we used to be able to sell our democracy - until it became out of fashion based on DC perpetual gridlock
There is a place for human rights,but it's not an effective metric for foreign policy

 

[Grokmaster]

This analysis resonates with me, because I maintain that it is America's soft power, her moral authority, and Carter's emphasis on human rights, democracy, and targeted sanctions that really discredited the USSR and hastened its demise.

Carter, uniquely I believe among US president, had the moral authority to attack the Soviets where they were weakest, and where their political system could be utterly discredited - by leveraging democracy, human rights, human dignity, and the treatment and repression of its own citizens as moral weapons against the Kremlin leadership.

What a LAUGHABLE ATTEMPTED HISTORY REWRITE of the PATHETIC "CARTER YEARS"....

 

[Cypress]

Good balance of weapons system description.
Russian prefer Republicans because POTUS like GH Bush understand Russia is a legit power
and looks for cooperation in mutual areas of interests.

Obama's schizoid Reset and then meddling in the Euromaidan no doubt made Putin dread having Hillary
on the world stage

Vicky Nuland (U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs under Hillary) is still at it -
she just joined The Brookings.
She still runs her mouth that Trump's foreign policy is a "disruption" as she characterizes it

I appreciate the integrity and the honesty in recognizing that Kremlin leaders do and have generally always preferred Republicans.

As a liberal, I will be glad to wear it as a badge of honor to be eternally opposed to the repression of Soviet totalitarianism and Putin's authoritarian oligarchy.

 

[Grokmaster]

I appreciate the integrity and the honesty in recognizing that Kremlin leaders do and have generally always preferred Republicans.

Yeah...they loved Reagan, who DESTROYED THEM.


Soviet expansion EXPLODED under Carter's watch. Reagan FIXED THAT.

 

[Cypress]

Cypress what made you vote for Reagan at the time? Lots of people have switched political parties in their lifetime and voted for both Democrats and Republicans for President so it's not like you did anything wrong or unique. But based on everything you say you believe and how you speak about Reagan how did you ever vote for the man?

My opinions have changed and evolved over 35 years.
In 1984, I thought Reagan was a better choice than Mondale to lead this nation against the USSR. I take full credit for that view, but I attribute it partly to growing up in a family of virulently anti-communist, traditionally conservative white Russian immigrants.

The bottom line is, whether I voted for Democrats or Republicans I have always been consistently repulsed by the repression and affronts to human freedom employed by the totalitarian USSR or by the authoritarian Putin oligarchy. And I will wear that revulsion as a badge of honor in the face of Trump voters who claim we should practice self-interested Machivellian real politick and just let Putin do whatever he wants.

 

[Mason Michaels]

My opinions have changed and evolved over 35 years.
In 1984, I thought Reagan was a better choice than Mondale to lead this nation against the USSR. I take full credit for that view, but I attribute it partly to growing up in a family of virulently anti-communist, traditionally conservative white Russian immigrants.

The bottom line is, whether I voted for Democrats or Republicans I have always been consistently repulsed by the repression and affronts to human freedom employed by the totalitarian USSR or by the authoritarian Putin oligarchy. And I will wear that revulsion as a badge of honor in the face to Trump voters who claim we should practice self-interested Machivellian real politick and just let Putin do whatever he wants.

Trump is indebted to Putin.
Putin couldn't have invaded and found a better flunky to do his bidding then Trump.

 

[anatta]

As a liberal, I will be glad to wear it as a badge of honor to be eternally opposed to the repression of Soviet totalitarianism and Putin's authoritarian oligarchy.

that's nice, that and 75 cents will get you a cup of coffee.
If we hadn't shunned Russia so badly , I doubt they would be doing china's bidding in Venezuela

 

[Cypress]

that's nice, that and 75 cents will get you a cup of coffee.
If we hadn't shunned Russia so badly , I doubt they would be doing china's bidding in Venezuela

I am fully aware that modern Republicans do not give a rats @ss about democracy, human rights, and human freedom.

I have no idea what "shunned" Russian means tangibly, and I see nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion on Venezuela. I doubt Russia or Vladimir Putin consider themselves to be puppets of China, and willfully eager to do their bidding.

As for NATO expansion, at one time I thought it might be a dubious proposition.
After Putin's invasions of the sovereign states of Georgia and Ukraine, I can better understand why Poland, Baltic states, Hungary, et al. were so eager to join the NATO umbrella. And who can blame them? They did so willingly, of their own free will.

 

[dukkha]

I am fully aware that modern Republicans do not give a rats @ss about democracy, human rights, and human freedom.

It's not that I don't give a rats ass ( and I'm a trump supporter -but not a Republican) it's that human rights as a driver of foreign policy is inherently flawed in that it doesn't take into consideration the bilateral realtionships otherwise

I have no idea what "shunned" Russian means tangibly,

sanctions and more sanction,NATO expansion right up to Russian borders, with no end in sight,
and the general "zero sum" relationship imposed by the neocons - including but not limited to Bolton.

and I see nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion on Venezuela. I doubt Russia or Vladimir Putin consider themselves to be puppets of China, and willfully eager to do their bidding.

not "puppets" but now strategic allies with China. that's new,and it was brought on by "shunning" Russia

As for NATO expansion, at one time I thought it might be a dubious proposition.
After Putin's invasions of the sovereign states of Georgia and Ukraine, I can better understand why Poland, Baltic states, Hungary, et al. were so eager to join the NATO umbrella. And who can blame them? They did so willingly, of their own free will.

conflating the Baltics with Crimea?? you know better then that!
NATO expansion has cost us a fortune, hasn't made us any safer with redundancy after redundancy of the weapons in those countries,and continues to alienate Russia from the west.

 

[Cypress]

Yeah...they loved Reagan, who DESTROYED THEM.


Soviet expansion EXPLODED under Carter's watch. Reagan FIXED THAT.

The only people who claim that are the exact same people who thought invading Iraq was an awesome idea, that Trumpf is a titan among leaders, and that Sarah Palin was an outstanding choice to be a heart beat away from the presidency.

In other words, people with terrible insight and judgement.

I cannot recall ever having talked to an actual Russian who lived through and witnessed the dissolution of the USSR and thought it happened because of Reagan.

The USSR dissolved, and lost all their credibility and prestige due to internal factors, and due to the unsustainability of a corrupt totalitarian system of empire. There is not a single Russian I have talked to that points to Reagan as a reason for their demise.

Iran was an Islamic state, not a Soviet Client. I really do not think the Sandinistas of Nicuaragua were ever puppets of the Kremlin. I cannot recall a single Soviet military base ever constructed in Nicaruagua. Leftist revolutionary movements in Africa existed going back to the 1950s and 60s long before Carter, and were a reaction in large part to colonialism and capitalist exploitation by the Europeans

 

[dukkha]

Human rights wold have us dissolve the US /saudi special relationship -
if nothing else key to holding back Iranian hegemony.

It's a blunt instrument -realpolitik instead looks to where we can cooperate = a realistic foreign policy

 

[PoliTalker]

This analysis resonates with me, because I maintain that it is America's soft power, her moral authority, and Carter's emphasis on human rights, democracy, and targeted sanctions that really discredited the USSR and hastened its demise.

Carter, uniquely I believe among US president, had the moral authority to attack the Soviets where they were weakest, and where their political system could be utterly discredited - by leveraging democracy, human rights, human dignity, and the treatment and repression of its own citizens as moral weapons against the Kremlin leadership.

America was disgusted with the moral decay of the Republican party after the Nixon scandal.

My, how times have changed.

Now, America is proud of President Trump's moral decay, and voted for him.

 

[Cypress]

America was disgusted with the moral decay of the Republican party after the Nixon scandal.

My, how times have changed.

Now, America is proud of President Trump's moral decay, and voted for him.

His honesty and integrity were something America really needed at that time.

Carter was really done in by the Iraq hostage crises and the gas prices shock, but at this point I maintain that is legacy looks much better in hindsight than at the time we were watching American helicopters burn in the Iranian desert.

When you collectively look at his accomplishments and lasting legacy, he did more in four years than many two term presidents do in eight.

 

[Cypress]

It's not that I don't give a rats ass ( and I'm a trump supporter -but not a Republican) it's that human rights as a driver of foreign policy is inherently flawed in that it doesn't take into consideration the bilateral realtionships otherwise

sanctions and more sanction,NATO expansion right up to Russian borders, with no end in sight,
and the general "zero sum" relationship imposed by the neocons - including but not limited to Bolton. not "puppets" but now strategic allies with China. that's new,and it was brought on by "shunning" Russia

conflating the Baltics with Crimea?? you know better then that!
NATO expansion has cost us a fortune, hasn't made us any safer with redundancy after redundancy of the weapons in those countries,and continues to alienate Russia from the west.

This totally has to be Annatta. Is this your new handle?

You tend to lose all credibility when you blame Putin's repression, authoritarianism, and military invasions of sovereign neighboring states on NATO.

There is no way I can even expend effort to respond to a premise as preposterous as that.

 

[dukkha]

His honesty and integrity were something America really needed at that time.

Carter was really done in by the Iraq hostage crises and the gas prices shock, but at this point I maintain that is legacy looks much better in hindsight than at the time we were watching American helicopters burn in the Iranian desert.

When you collectively look at his accomplishments and lasting legacy, he did more in four years than many two term presidents do in eight.

the economy killed him -but i agree he was a moral cleansing after the icky Nixon

 

[Cypress]

the economy killed him -but i agree he was a moral cleansing after the icky Nixon

I think what did Carter in was the Iran hostage crises, burning helicopters in the Iranian desert, and the gasoline price shocks.

I have heard the claim for many years by teabaggers that the Carter economy was an unmitigated disaster. That was half a century ago, so I can see how myths can take hold with people who either didn't live through it, or whose memories have been modified by half a century of time.

You know what I saw when I looked at the economic statistics of the Carter era? It is true there were continuing inflationary pressures that he inherited from the Ford-Nixon economy. But job growth and GDP were pretty robust. Better than most Republican presidents of the last century.

The Great Recession that America faced around that time frame was in 1982 and 1983, during the Reagan administration. That was the worst economic crash since the Great Depression. And would remain America's worst recession of the century, until the next Great Republican Recession in 2008.

 

[dukkha]

I think what did Carter in was the Iran hostage crises, burning helicopters in the Iranian desert, and the gasoline price shocks.

I have heard the claim for many years by teabaggers that the Carter economy was an unmitigated disaster. That was half a century ago, so I can see how myths can take hold with people who either didn't live through it, or whose memories have been modified by half a century of time.

You know what I saw when I looked at the economic statistics of the Carter era? It is true there were continuing inflationary pressures that he inherited from the Ford-Nixon economy. But job growth and GDP were pretty robust. Better than most Republican presidents of the last century.

The Great Recession that America faced at that time was in 1982 and 1983, during the Reagan administration. That was the worst economic crash since the Great Depression. And would remain America's worst recession of the century, until the next Great Republican Recession in 2008.

well the recession was early in Reagan's POTUS - so I don't see how he gets the blame, anymore the Obama having to use a Stimulus

I was politically aware back then.
The gas lines and the hostages did Carter in -hostages in the news everyday, and gas lines for a country that never even considered energy supplies before

 

[Cypress]

well the recession was early in Reagan's POTUS - so I don't see how he gets the blame, anymore the Obama having to use a Stimulus

I was politically aware back then.
The gas lines and the hostages did Carter in -hostages in the news everyday, and gas lines for a country that never even considered energy supplies before

Reagan cannot be held completely accountable for the 1982 recession, but I believe that he made it worse. His program of austerity, budget cuts, and tax cuts for the rich are the last thing a recession needs. Stimulus is what a recession needs.

Yes, hostages every day on the news, and film footage of American helicopters burning in the Iranian desert are what did Carter in, on that we agree. The mythic claim that the Carter economy was an epic and unmitigated disaster does not survive even the most cursory scrutiny of broad economic indicators, like job growth and GDP growth.