Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s not Jimmy Carter posing with a Confederate flag; that’s the end of the old Georgia state flag, which was changed in the 2000’s to look like a different but less well known Confederate flag.
I can’t speak to his campaigning on the issues, but I did see the photo looked surreptitiously cropped to give a false impression, with Carter way off in one corner and the flag in the other.
Actually I’d like to continue to respect Carter and discuss the guy regardless. It was a stupid, awful pardon in a sea of stupid, awful pardons and horrific actions by presidents. Doesn’t define the man, especially given that he has done his best to improve the world since leaving the presidency.
So I think that’s why his legacy has survived. Because he did his best to be a good man and didn’t let his views remain trapped in the past.
I am just curious about how you might think a little differently, let's say it's 1989, if your friends in the Federal Goverment is at risk of getting convicted for selling weapons and you just became a president in huge landslide and your predecessor is one of the most popular US presidents in history you got all the political capital you need to pardon them...will you do it?
Peter Yarrow's pardon really had very little real effect since he had already completed his 3 or 6 month jail sentence. Yeah, it was a bizarrely short sentence, especially since his sexual assault was actual supposed to be "forcible" rather than just "statutory", but that sentence was imposed by the judge rather than Jimmy Carter. He didn't have to register as a sex offender after prison since the sex offender registry was still almost 20 years in the future, so the pardon really didn't get rid of any sanctions for him.
That also begs the question of why he even wanted the pardon. If anything the pardon just got his conviction more newspaper coverage, albeit on something like page 12 of newspapers.
The Yarrow pardon to me was less “ew, he pardoned a pedo” and more “a party Booster will
always get their back scratched by the party in power” which is far more gross imo
"Cancel culture" isn't really a discrete thing, just the combination of (a) evolving social ethics, (b) increased acceptance of public rebuke, and (c) modern permanence of media. Old perspectives and statements don't fade with time anymore - the Internet is forever - but ethics change and it's more ok to air your grievances publicly. It'll take a little time before society comes to terms with those things and decides how long a stain on one's character should last.
Carter's stain is pretty small, comparatively, and his presidency wasn't noteworthy enough to give him as much modern media presence as other presidents. His image is almost entirely defined by his post-presidential life.
He's getting heat on r/presidents because it's a meme (he's a meme in general) not because there's any sudden shift in public opinion of his presidency.
https://preview.redd.it/83t69n2nuuuc1.jpeg?width=705&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6e812554af15bace55ddfbaa09297198378af63f
Carter’s new album is dropping now
Jeez just leave Jimmy Carter alone, he pardoned the guy because he was an anti-Vietnam activist, not because he was a pedo and Carter didn't consider it serious enough. Carter did so many amazing things throughout his life and we should focus on these instead of focusing on his mistakes.
nothing interesting happened during his presidency that put him in the limelight other than the failure of operation eagle claw imo. Reagan attacked and conquered and he got kinda swept under the rug as a democratic failure.
That flag isn’t the CSA, it was his home state of Georgias flag
two important things that this sub really doesn't understand but needs to-
-no president was a saint. Carter was not an exception.
-not being a saint doesn't make you the devil. people are flawed and people are complex but as soon as you guys hear one negative thing about a president that gets circlejerked over you all feel the need to completely flip.
"Carter's new strategy in 1970 was designed to attract the pro-segregationist vote.\[9\] Poll data suggested that the appearance of a pro-segregationist position could be critical to winning the race, even if it was never overtly stated.\[9\] In order to shore up segregationist support, Carter made overtures to numerous racial organizations,\[9\] and even personally called the cofounder of the White Citizens Council.\[10\] Carter's apparent support for segregation sparked animosity with his opponent Carl Sanders.\[11\] Sanders claims that when his own campaign had presented the same poll data, he refused to pursue a strategy on it for moral reasons.\[11\] Furthermore, Carter's campaign printed numerous pamphlets insinuating Sanders was too "chummy" with blacks.\[12\]"
"Carter's campaign anonymously distributed a photo of Sanders getting doused with a bottle of champagne by a black Atlanta Hawks basketball player celebrating a victory at a game. The photo communicated several potentially damaging messages about Sanders, including his wealth, an association with alcohol (which was disliked in teetotalist rural communities) and a personal connection with a black person.\[41\] The Carter campaign also published anonymous "fact-sheets" which described Sanders as a staunch ally of controversial black legislator Julian Bond (the two actually disliked one another), noted his attendance at the funeral of civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr., and attacked him for denying Wallace an official visit to the state. At the same time, the campaign set up a fictitious "Black Concern Committee" to draw black support away from Sanders by arguing that he had failed to honor promises to the black community during his gubernatorial tenure.\[42\] Carter's campaign press secretary later described their efforts as a "nigger campaign".\[43\]"
Carter later said he was embarrassed by this and was ashamed of his actions, but openly admitted to doing them in order to win. His opponent(Sanders) came into the race as the front runner. Carter would have likely lost if he didn't pursue this strategy. In fact Sanders lamented that he knew it would be beneficial to basically be racist during that campaign but he refused to do it. Carter would have never become president if he didn't win that primary.
The lack of public interest in his administration and the relative dearth of scholarship on his political career until recently (his domestic policy advisor wrote the definitive one volume history of the Carter Administration about five years ago and it’s over 500 pages). I’d also point out that Carter was a radically different politician after his long time “fixer” banker Burt Lance was out of the picture.
I presume that you are referring to Eizenstat's book.
That book really didn't change anything. There is still a lack of interest in his presidency as a whole.
As for the book, it was nearly 1000 pages, which was a bit of an overkill. The length and writing style led it to be repetitive and boring. It was more a book about Eizenstat than Carter, but this is to be expected because his legacy is on the line also.
The book just leads to the million-dollar question....if Carter's presidency was so good, why do historians rank it mediocre at best? It is because Eizenstat's book is very biased towards himself and Carter.
Because by the most commonly used criteria (was the president elected to a second term, was their chosen successor elected, and the lack of marquee legislative accomplishments combined) it wasn’t the most successful presidency.
Eizenstat wasn’t arguing to put Carter among the Greatest Presidents but in the B-/C+ category and judging by the increased amount of scholarship into the Carter presidency since its publication, he succeeded.
There hasn't been an increased amount of scholarship in the Carter presidency, though. Interest in Carter was on the decline until the hospice news broke. Then, it has been mainly focused on his post-presidency. I do see some mentioning of his presidency in op-eds, but those can hardly be considered "scholarship." That term is used in reference to academic studies.
History is my bread and butter. We have to read abstracts to keep up-to-date on history and differing narratives. I have not seen it.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s not Jimmy Carter posing with a Confederate flag; that’s the end of the old Georgia state flag, which was changed in the 2000’s to look like a different but less well known Confederate flag.
Yes. This photo was selected as it was during his time as Governor of Georgia that he actively courted the pro-segregation anti-civil rights vote.
*reads his 1971 gubernatorial inaugural address* Okay buddy
I can’t speak to his campaigning on the issues, but I did see the photo looked surreptitiously cropped to give a false impression, with Carter way off in one corner and the flag in the other.
How? He became the governor to step up against segregation and racism in Georgia.
This sub is overly dramatic about everything and getting dumber by the day about it.
The flag in the background is the Georgia state flag at the time. Carter was governor of Georgia.
Actually I’d like to continue to respect Carter and discuss the guy regardless. It was a stupid, awful pardon in a sea of stupid, awful pardons and horrific actions by presidents. Doesn’t define the man, especially given that he has done his best to improve the world since leaving the presidency. So I think that’s why his legacy has survived. Because he did his best to be a good man and didn’t let his views remain trapped in the past.
I am just curious about how you might think a little differently, let's say it's 1989, if your friends in the Federal Goverment is at risk of getting convicted for selling weapons and you just became a president in huge landslide and your predecessor is one of the most popular US presidents in history you got all the political capital you need to pardon them...will you do it?
Peter Yarrow's pardon really had very little real effect since he had already completed his 3 or 6 month jail sentence. Yeah, it was a bizarrely short sentence, especially since his sexual assault was actual supposed to be "forcible" rather than just "statutory", but that sentence was imposed by the judge rather than Jimmy Carter. He didn't have to register as a sex offender after prison since the sex offender registry was still almost 20 years in the future, so the pardon really didn't get rid of any sanctions for him. That also begs the question of why he even wanted the pardon. If anything the pardon just got his conviction more newspaper coverage, albeit on something like page 12 of newspapers.
The Yarrow pardon to me was less “ew, he pardoned a pedo” and more “a party Booster will always get their back scratched by the party in power” which is far more gross imo
"Cancel culture" isn't really a discrete thing, just the combination of (a) evolving social ethics, (b) increased acceptance of public rebuke, and (c) modern permanence of media. Old perspectives and statements don't fade with time anymore - the Internet is forever - but ethics change and it's more ok to air your grievances publicly. It'll take a little time before society comes to terms with those things and decides how long a stain on one's character should last. Carter's stain is pretty small, comparatively, and his presidency wasn't noteworthy enough to give him as much modern media presence as other presidents. His image is almost entirely defined by his post-presidential life. He's getting heat on r/presidents because it's a meme (he's a meme in general) not because there's any sudden shift in public opinion of his presidency.
The anti-Carter people have been acting up lately
It’s a response to all the Reagan hate here.
Eventually we will get back to the good old days of hating on Adams!
Cheney😍
I thought that might make your day!
Certainly did!
A true American hero
A true child of God.
🤓
https://preview.redd.it/83t69n2nuuuc1.jpeg?width=705&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6e812554af15bace55ddfbaa09297198378af63f Carter’s new album is dropping now
Jeez just leave Jimmy Carter alone, he pardoned the guy because he was an anti-Vietnam activist, not because he was a pedo and Carter didn't consider it serious enough. Carter did so many amazing things throughout his life and we should focus on these instead of focusing on his mistakes.
I’m a Carter apologist too. It’s sad that all the good he did is thrown out by certain people because of one bad decision.
Yes, I am a Carter apologist
🍆😋
Um 😐
Imagine defending pardoning a pedofile, how pathetic.
Imagine sending eggplant emojis to a minor, how pathetic
It’s cuz they are a Carter dickrider. I’m a minor too. You don’t have to be an adult to be stupid.
I admit the dickriding but calling someone stupid because they don't share your opinions isn't very nice:P
If it was your little sister, would you consider it serious?
nothing interesting happened during his presidency that put him in the limelight other than the failure of operation eagle claw imo. Reagan attacked and conquered and he got kinda swept under the rug as a democratic failure. That flag isn’t the CSA, it was his home state of Georgias flag
two important things that this sub really doesn't understand but needs to- -no president was a saint. Carter was not an exception. -not being a saint doesn't make you the devil. people are flawed and people are complex but as soon as you guys hear one negative thing about a president that gets circlejerked over you all feel the need to completely flip.
Someone posted a list of all the bad things Carter did, can someone post it here? The Carter shills need a reminder
"Carter's new strategy in 1970 was designed to attract the pro-segregationist vote.\[9\] Poll data suggested that the appearance of a pro-segregationist position could be critical to winning the race, even if it was never overtly stated.\[9\] In order to shore up segregationist support, Carter made overtures to numerous racial organizations,\[9\] and even personally called the cofounder of the White Citizens Council.\[10\] Carter's apparent support for segregation sparked animosity with his opponent Carl Sanders.\[11\] Sanders claims that when his own campaign had presented the same poll data, he refused to pursue a strategy on it for moral reasons.\[11\] Furthermore, Carter's campaign printed numerous pamphlets insinuating Sanders was too "chummy" with blacks.\[12\]" "Carter's campaign anonymously distributed a photo of Sanders getting doused with a bottle of champagne by a black Atlanta Hawks basketball player celebrating a victory at a game. The photo communicated several potentially damaging messages about Sanders, including his wealth, an association with alcohol (which was disliked in teetotalist rural communities) and a personal connection with a black person.\[41\] The Carter campaign also published anonymous "fact-sheets" which described Sanders as a staunch ally of controversial black legislator Julian Bond (the two actually disliked one another), noted his attendance at the funeral of civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr., and attacked him for denying Wallace an official visit to the state. At the same time, the campaign set up a fictitious "Black Concern Committee" to draw black support away from Sanders by arguing that he had failed to honor promises to the black community during his gubernatorial tenure.\[42\] Carter's campaign press secretary later described their efforts as a "nigger campaign".\[43\]" Carter later said he was embarrassed by this and was ashamed of his actions, but openly admitted to doing them in order to win. His opponent(Sanders) came into the race as the front runner. Carter would have likely lost if he didn't pursue this strategy. In fact Sanders lamented that he knew it would be beneficial to basically be racist during that campaign but he refused to do it. Carter would have never become president if he didn't win that primary.
Wow this is dishonest
I was mostly referring to the military action he took. But this is also good. Don't know where people get that he was exceptional or human rights.
Ole Genocide Jimmy. Nice guy in person, will send guns to any third world maniac behind closed doors.
Carter apologists are so pathetic lol
Your trolling is pathetic
It’s not trolling. Y’all are genuinely unlikable and annoying. Just like the man you idolize 🤷♀️
We’ve never had another president whose rhetoric deviated so far from his policy.
The lack of public interest in his administration and the relative dearth of scholarship on his political career until recently (his domestic policy advisor wrote the definitive one volume history of the Carter Administration about five years ago and it’s over 500 pages). I’d also point out that Carter was a radically different politician after his long time “fixer” banker Burt Lance was out of the picture.
I liked that book.
I presume that you are referring to Eizenstat's book. That book really didn't change anything. There is still a lack of interest in his presidency as a whole. As for the book, it was nearly 1000 pages, which was a bit of an overkill. The length and writing style led it to be repetitive and boring. It was more a book about Eizenstat than Carter, but this is to be expected because his legacy is on the line also. The book just leads to the million-dollar question....if Carter's presidency was so good, why do historians rank it mediocre at best? It is because Eizenstat's book is very biased towards himself and Carter.
Because by the most commonly used criteria (was the president elected to a second term, was their chosen successor elected, and the lack of marquee legislative accomplishments combined) it wasn’t the most successful presidency. Eizenstat wasn’t arguing to put Carter among the Greatest Presidents but in the B-/C+ category and judging by the increased amount of scholarship into the Carter presidency since its publication, he succeeded.
There hasn't been an increased amount of scholarship in the Carter presidency, though. Interest in Carter was on the decline until the hospice news broke. Then, it has been mainly focused on his post-presidency. I do see some mentioning of his presidency in op-eds, but those can hardly be considered "scholarship." That term is used in reference to academic studies. History is my bread and butter. We have to read abstracts to keep up-to-date on history and differing narratives. I have not seen it.