Who would want to be President? Markets in free-fall and your armed forces embroiled in foreign wars, but then when was it ever different? The specifics of crises change but the Gordian tangle remains.
Consider Jimmy Carter. A highly capable person, chewed over by hard times and spat out.
Democrat Jimmy Carter beat incumbent Gerald Ford in 1976, 297 votes to 240. Factors contributing to the win included the Watergate scandal, Ford's pardon of Nixon, and the ongoing conflict in Vietnam. Carter went on to cut defence spending, negotiate the SALT II treaty with the USSR, mediate the Camp David accord between Israel and Egypt, and establish the idea that no other foreign power should dominate the Persian Gulf.
Everything would have been fine for Carter if not for 1979.
In 1979 he was faced with the terminal results of chronic 1970s problems - the Energy Crisis, Stagflation, and the Iran hostage crisis. During the 1979 Energy Crisis oil went from $15/barrel to $35 in 12 months. Stagflation led to double digit inflation and less than 1% growth per year through the 1970s and in 1979 the best mortgage rates offered were in the vicinity of 22%p.a.
Any of this sound ominous?
Lastly the American embassy in Tehran was overrun and hostages taken. The situation dragged on for over 14 months and saw a shambled rescue attempt that left eight dead and got nowhere near the embassy.
In 1980 Ronald Regan defeated Jimmy Carter 489 votes to 49. A landslide defeat in the popular vote 51% to 41%.
Even a person with the best of intentions can be humiliated by history.
Jimmy Carter was an experienced and capable person; he served on submarines during WW2, was slated for command, on his father's death took over and successfully managed the family business, and was a State senator and Governor for twelve years.
In comparison to Carter, what has Barrack Obama done? Where is his established record of steady competence?
Who is Barrack Obama? Is he really any more distinguished than George Bush was in 2000? Yes, he's tall, has great teeth and good hair but didn't it used to be about more than that?
Whoever wins tomorrow probably faces a rerun of the 1970s. It'll be no picnic and Leonardo deCaprio won't be there when you are made redundant.
If someone with the solid background of Jimmy Carter can be disposed by torrid events, I am apprehensive how history will deal with the media's luminous, but still enigmatic, choice - Obama.
Unless, of course, McCain, the guy with a history, the guy who has been in charge of something, wins.
Consider Jimmy Carter. A highly capable person, chewed over by hard times and spat out.
Democrat Jimmy Carter beat incumbent Gerald Ford in 1976, 297 votes to 240. Factors contributing to the win included the Watergate scandal, Ford's pardon of Nixon, and the ongoing conflict in Vietnam. Carter went on to cut defence spending, negotiate the SALT II treaty with the USSR, mediate the Camp David accord between Israel and Egypt, and establish the idea that no other foreign power should dominate the Persian Gulf.
Everything would have been fine for Carter if not for 1979.
In 1979 he was faced with the terminal results of chronic 1970s problems - the Energy Crisis, Stagflation, and the Iran hostage crisis. During the 1979 Energy Crisis oil went from $15/barrel to $35 in 12 months. Stagflation led to double digit inflation and less than 1% growth per year through the 1970s and in 1979 the best mortgage rates offered were in the vicinity of 22%p.a.
Any of this sound ominous?
Lastly the American embassy in Tehran was overrun and hostages taken. The situation dragged on for over 14 months and saw a shambled rescue attempt that left eight dead and got nowhere near the embassy.
In 1980 Ronald Regan defeated Jimmy Carter 489 votes to 49. A landslide defeat in the popular vote 51% to 41%.
Even a person with the best of intentions can be humiliated by history.
Jimmy Carter was an experienced and capable person; he served on submarines during WW2, was slated for command, on his father's death took over and successfully managed the family business, and was a State senator and Governor for twelve years.
In comparison to Carter, what has Barrack Obama done? Where is his established record of steady competence?
Who is Barrack Obama? Is he really any more distinguished than George Bush was in 2000? Yes, he's tall, has great teeth and good hair but didn't it used to be about more than that?
Whoever wins tomorrow probably faces a rerun of the 1970s. It'll be no picnic and Leonardo deCaprio won't be there when you are made redundant.
If someone with the solid background of Jimmy Carter can be disposed by torrid events, I am apprehensive how history will deal with the media's luminous, but still enigmatic, choice - Obama.
Unless, of course, McCain, the guy with a history, the guy who has been in charge of something, wins.
Should experience really be the trump card when standing in a polling booth? If it should be then George Bush should have lost against both Gore and Kerry and John Key should lose to Helen Clark.
ReplyDeleteWell, it seems the trump card isn't experience, but world events.
ReplyDeleteIf torrid events can kick out the experienced, then equally, those same events can make mince meat of Obama in four years time.
Unless, like Clark, the last nine years are all about controlling the spin the media get.
First Australia, now the States and lastly, will New Zealand follow along the lines of "time for a change" and vote the other party in?
Clark has to go. I'll take almost any stupid reason, given all the rational ones appear to be ignored by the average voter.
Much to my surprise Ralph Nader did not win!
ReplyDeleteI wonder if his nomination came with a warranty?
ReplyDelete