Comments on: Kaplan on Ford and Carter

By: Joseph Steinberg

Joseph Steinberg — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:25:59 +0000

In a contest between such performers, is it really wise to invest much in any of them? Nixon deserves nothing for the entire length of a cynical career. Kissinger should have stayed in academia—he could have been CNN’s or Fox’s first talking head, or he could have written movie scripts. The value he holds as a geopolitician is diminished by the thin caricature he made of the geopolitical tradition. Compared to Mahan, Mackinder, and Spykman, Kissinger is forgettable, especially his China gambit, which failed to stop Vietnam, complicated relations with Taiwan, and wrong-footed Japan and South Korea. It still took the Reagan deficit to bakrupt two states, with no help from the third leg. But, it did speed up the return of multipolarity. And, Carter, well…maybe ex-presidents should be put on a leash, perhaps by creating a elder solon’s council in the White House. Free seminar by all the remaining presidents and a gladiatorial contest to follow every Tuesday after the cabinet meeting! And Ford, the only reason why anyone says nice things now is because saying bad things about Bush II only hands him a reason to do the only thing he does moderately well, stir up his base.

Really, things are not so bad that we have to dredge up the 70s!

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 06:31:39 +0000

One big difference between Nixon and Carter is that Nixon had intelligent things to say. I often think, “I wonder what Nixon would think of this.” I actually miss having the man around. Carter has nothing of value to add to any conversation. Nixon’s books were actually good. Kissinger’s Diplomacy is an excellent book. Not as good as A World Restored, but few books are.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 04:53:27 +0000

Show-horsing is a natural tendency for people in power positions, such as presidents and governors. That’s how you get party money, organizational endorsements and the attention of voters. And naturally, people have to have ego to want a job like that. You don’t become president for the perks. You become president because you want to run the country and have the world’s balls in the palm of your hand. I think these motivations were visible in both Nixon and Carter throughout their political careers.

People in power-brokering positions, like rank-and-file congresscritters, can be much more low-key. That was truly what made Ford powerful in the House. Everyone liked him because he didn’t say anything to offend anyone. And this was apparently genuine: he never wanted to be president, he only wanted the speaker’s gavel, etc. etc.

When Ford became president, though, this hurt him. There was no sense of his outlook or ability except when he screwed up. That’s a sort of downside of democracy: we can only judge our leaders by what’s readily apparent about them, so we’re always running on limited information. And that’s why, until Ford died, most people just saw him as the bland placeholder between two presidents of questionable greatness but definite importance.

By: subadei

subadei — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 04:27:00 +0000

Here’s Hitchens take. I’m not much for his frenetic screaming but I thought I’d put it forth anyway.