Good stuff, Noah. IMHO Carter was (still is) seriously underrated.
I personally think another lesson from "these two presidents" is that sheer dumb luck plays a much bigger role in political outcomes than people commonly suspect. Reagan had the good fortune to take office during a time of economic trouble, so there was a pretty strong chance a favorable contrast would have developed by the time he faced the electorate again. Which is exactly what happened. Just the opposite was in the cards for Hoover, Carter, the older Bush and, yes, Trump.*
Incidentally, I met and shook hands with Jimmy Carter (only president I've met) on a flight across the Pacific about seven years ago. So did all my fellow passengers. He walked up and down the aisle to give everyone who wanted a brief, in-person encounter with history. What a gracious man. And an utterly fantastic post-presidency.
*If you want a successful presidency, it's a not a bad idea to take office when the economy is weak (or weakish). And entering the White House when the economy is booming is politically risky in my view.
Interesting post. I’ll ask the question that the last paragraph inevitably raises: if “American policy is driven less by ideology and presidential personality than we think,” then what drives American policy _more_ than we think?
I used to work in a scientific instruments company, which meant spending a lot of time with an international sales staff. I would ask those in Eastern Europe “why did the Soviet Union fall?” And the answer was always the same: blue jeans and music videos.
Minutes after you posted this on Twitter I commented that "The Boomers will have to die before anyone listens." and my account got locked immediately. (Can you believe that crappy app?) It's true, though. You won't convince that crew anything about Reagan they do not already believe.
AIUI there was some American involvement in maintaining the oil glut in the mid-to-late 80s through successfully cultivating good enough relations with the Saudis that they could be persuaded not to do strategic production cutbacks to shore up prices as they had done in the 70s. GHWB also deserves some credit for the fall of the USSR, if I remember right, for insisting that the Soviets loosen their grip on Eastern Europe in return for loans to buy grain (which they needed to buy because collectivized agriculture doesn't work, and which they couldn't afford to buy anymore because of the oil glut).
Notably, too, all these decisions have had a bunch of long-term costs: both cozying up to the Saudis and arming the Afghan mujahideen contributed significantly to our Islamist terrorism problem, and the oil glut probably moved the needle in a bad direction on climate change. So if Carter should get more credit than he usually does for the upsides, the same is true of the downsides.
If you're going to quote Wikipedia as a source, you should do a little bit of verification. The Wikipedia entry on deregulation doesn't list "major pieces of deregulatory legislation." It lists "related legislation." Some of these examples expanded regulation, rather than reducing it.
Specifically, the 1977 Emergency Natural Gas Act authorized the President to declare a national emergency and control delivery on natural gas through pipelines. (Come on, the title alone should alert you that this is not deregulation.)
The 1978 Natural Gas Policy Act allowed the federal government to control production and distribution of natural gas, and to set minimum and maximum well prices for natural gas. It's also the law that prohibited using natural gas for electricity generation, thus cementing coal as the dominant fuel for utilities for the next 11 years.
Carter deserves credit for pushing for deregulation of trucking and airlines, against ferocious resistance from industry incumbents. But he did not deregulate energy in any meaningful way.
Two other issues. First, Carter got clobbered by Iran and looked incredibly weak. Perhaps if the rescue mission had succeeded he'd have looked stronger, but in any event, his response was much less than it might have been. Second, he had a lot of problems with news coverage--remember his defending himself against the killer rabbit?
1. Great empires generally die by suicide, not murder. Indeed, the oil glut of the mid 80s contributed mightily to the demise of the Soviet Union. But I think at least as important was the legacy of corruption and inefficiency left over from the Brezhnev years. Old Leonid ran what can best be described as a crony communistic economy. Indeed, at the very end the party bosses in the individual republics as well as ordinary citizens had to resort to bartering with one another to keep the economy going, since the currency had become worthless. This was even more true for economic exchanges with other countries.
2. That said, the demise of the USSR and Warsaw Pact owed far more to figures like Sakharov, Walesa, Wojtyła, and Havel than to Reagan.
3. With our withdrawal from Afghanistan a recent, painful memory, does anybody join me in considering that we backed the wrong side during the 1979 Soviet invasion? I certainly thought so at the time.
Give Reagan some credit - for being the biggest drug kingpin of his time. Entire black communities have him to thank for their destruction in the crack epidemic his policies caused.
Thanks for your glimpse of reality. I'm old enough that I was an adult then. I think Carter's main problems (besides sheer bad luck) were a) his mediocre elocution, in contrast to Reagan's beautiful voice, b) the Iran hostage hysteria, and c) the vicious regionalism of the Democratic party, whose NE wing despised Carter and contributed to his reelection defeat.
Another great article. I learn something every time I read you. I wish my old colleagues at Hillsdale College would read this, but even if they did, tribal doctrine would prevent them believing it. Ave Reagan.
Might as well induce some cognitive dissonance at least. Let the forwarding commence.
Carter may have appointed Volcker, but Reagan was the one who stood by him when the pain was felt through the political system and Republicans suffered horribly in the 1982 elections. And the reason Reagan's defense buildup as a % of GDP was less than we might expect was because (unlike Carter) Reagan actually experienced real GDP growth. Carter DID covert to Reaganesque policies (proposing higher defense budgets), but only after being played for an utter fool by the Russians.
Good stuff, Noah. IMHO Carter was (still is) seriously underrated.
I personally think another lesson from "these two presidents" is that sheer dumb luck plays a much bigger role in political outcomes than people commonly suspect. Reagan had the good fortune to take office during a time of economic trouble, so there was a pretty strong chance a favorable contrast would have developed by the time he faced the electorate again. Which is exactly what happened. Just the opposite was in the cards for Hoover, Carter, the older Bush and, yes, Trump.*
Incidentally, I met and shook hands with Jimmy Carter (only president I've met) on a flight across the Pacific about seven years ago. So did all my fellow passengers. He walked up and down the aisle to give everyone who wanted a brief, in-person encounter with history. What a gracious man. And an utterly fantastic post-presidency.
*If you want a successful presidency, it's a not a bad idea to take office when the economy is weak (or weakish). And entering the White House when the economy is booming is politically risky in my view.
People always want to make the
US responsible, but frankly we're not that powerful. The USSR collapsed all on it's own, American help didn't really have much to do with it.
The truth is that the USSR would have collapsed the same way even if Carter had been reelected. Reagan had nothing to do with it.
CARTER 👏 WAS 👏 A 👏 NEOLIB 👏👏
Interesting post. I’ll ask the question that the last paragraph inevitably raises: if “American policy is driven less by ideology and presidential personality than we think,” then what drives American policy _more_ than we think?
I used to work in a scientific instruments company, which meant spending a lot of time with an international sales staff. I would ask those in Eastern Europe “why did the Soviet Union fall?” And the answer was always the same: blue jeans and music videos.
Minutes after you posted this on Twitter I commented that "The Boomers will have to die before anyone listens." and my account got locked immediately. (Can you believe that crappy app?) It's true, though. You won't convince that crew anything about Reagan they do not already believe.
AIUI there was some American involvement in maintaining the oil glut in the mid-to-late 80s through successfully cultivating good enough relations with the Saudis that they could be persuaded not to do strategic production cutbacks to shore up prices as they had done in the 70s. GHWB also deserves some credit for the fall of the USSR, if I remember right, for insisting that the Soviets loosen their grip on Eastern Europe in return for loans to buy grain (which they needed to buy because collectivized agriculture doesn't work, and which they couldn't afford to buy anymore because of the oil glut).
Notably, too, all these decisions have had a bunch of long-term costs: both cozying up to the Saudis and arming the Afghan mujahideen contributed significantly to our Islamist terrorism problem, and the oil glut probably moved the needle in a bad direction on climate change. So if Carter should get more credit than he usually does for the upsides, the same is true of the downsides.
Speaking of straw men...
If you're going to quote Wikipedia as a source, you should do a little bit of verification. The Wikipedia entry on deregulation doesn't list "major pieces of deregulatory legislation." It lists "related legislation." Some of these examples expanded regulation, rather than reducing it.
Specifically, the 1977 Emergency Natural Gas Act authorized the President to declare a national emergency and control delivery on natural gas through pipelines. (Come on, the title alone should alert you that this is not deregulation.)
The 1978 Natural Gas Policy Act allowed the federal government to control production and distribution of natural gas, and to set minimum and maximum well prices for natural gas. It's also the law that prohibited using natural gas for electricity generation, thus cementing coal as the dominant fuel for utilities for the next 11 years.
Carter deserves credit for pushing for deregulation of trucking and airlines, against ferocious resistance from industry incumbents. But he did not deregulate energy in any meaningful way.
Two other issues. First, Carter got clobbered by Iran and looked incredibly weak. Perhaps if the rescue mission had succeeded he'd have looked stronger, but in any event, his response was much less than it might have been. Second, he had a lot of problems with news coverage--remember his defending himself against the killer rabbit?
Three related points:
1. Great empires generally die by suicide, not murder. Indeed, the oil glut of the mid 80s contributed mightily to the demise of the Soviet Union. But I think at least as important was the legacy of corruption and inefficiency left over from the Brezhnev years. Old Leonid ran what can best be described as a crony communistic economy. Indeed, at the very end the party bosses in the individual republics as well as ordinary citizens had to resort to bartering with one another to keep the economy going, since the currency had become worthless. This was even more true for economic exchanges with other countries.
2. That said, the demise of the USSR and Warsaw Pact owed far more to figures like Sakharov, Walesa, Wojtyła, and Havel than to Reagan.
3. With our withdrawal from Afghanistan a recent, painful memory, does anybody join me in considering that we backed the wrong side during the 1979 Soviet invasion? I certainly thought so at the time.
Sounds as if you've read the Alter and Eizenstat books. Both good IMO.
Give Reagan some credit - for being the biggest drug kingpin of his time. Entire black communities have him to thank for their destruction in the crack epidemic his policies caused.
Thanks for your glimpse of reality. I'm old enough that I was an adult then. I think Carter's main problems (besides sheer bad luck) were a) his mediocre elocution, in contrast to Reagan's beautiful voice, b) the Iran hostage hysteria, and c) the vicious regionalism of the Democratic party, whose NE wing despised Carter and contributed to his reelection defeat.
Another great article. I learn something every time I read you. I wish my old colleagues at Hillsdale College would read this, but even if they did, tribal doctrine would prevent them believing it. Ave Reagan.
Might as well induce some cognitive dissonance at least. Let the forwarding commence.
Carter may have appointed Volcker, but Reagan was the one who stood by him when the pain was felt through the political system and Republicans suffered horribly in the 1982 elections. And the reason Reagan's defense buildup as a % of GDP was less than we might expect was because (unlike Carter) Reagan actually experienced real GDP growth. Carter DID covert to Reaganesque policies (proposing higher defense budgets), but only after being played for an utter fool by the Russians.