Text 4437, 100 rader
Skriven 2007-06-04 16:40:46 av Alan Hess
Ärende: Carter vs. Bush
=======================
Steve Chapman finds the two more alike than different:


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.chapman04jun04,0,5150030.
story?coll=bal-pe-opinion

From the Baltimore Sun
Not so different after all


Steve Chapman

June 4, 2007

CHICAGO -- Jimmy Carter backtracked from his comment suggesting that in foreign
affairs, President Bush is the worst president in history, and let's hope his
gesture soothes relations between the two. Because if there is a place in the
next world where unsuccessful presidents go to pay for their sins, Mr. Carter
and Mr. Bush will be sharing a cell for a long, long time.

Mr. Bush had a Carteresque moment the other day when a bird left a calling card
on his sleeve during an outdoor news conference. Like his predecessor's 1979
confrontation with a killer rabbit, it suggested the president is so unpopular
that even lower species are turning against him.

Failing at the job and suffering low approval ratings are not the only things
the two have in common. Beyond surface differences such as party and ideology,
there is ample evidence that Mr. Bush is to Mr. Carter what Mary-Kate is to
Ashley.

Mr. Carter presided over a country wracked by economic chaos, violence,
political disarray and a sense of national decline. Mr. Bush does as well -
though this time, the country is Iraq rather than the United States. Mr. Carter
stood helpless as Iran took Americans hostage at our embassy in Tehran. Mr.
Bush has stood helpless while Iran pursues the means to hold its neighbors
hostage with nuclear weapons.

Mr. Carter was responsible for a military debacle, the 1980 effort to rescue
our Iran hostages, that killed eight American service personnel. Mr. Bush is
responsible for a military debacle, the occupation of Iraq, that has killed
more than 3,300 American service personnel. Under Mr. Carter, Islamic
insurgents in Afghanistan bled the Soviet military. Under Mr. Bush, Islamic
insurgents in Afghanistan bleed the U.S. military.

Mr. Carter, as an ex-president, helped negotiate a nuclear deal with North
Korea that the other side failed to live up to. Mr. Bush negotiated a nuclear
deal with North Korea that the other side has failed to live up to. Mr. Carter
acquired a reputation as stubborn, self-righteous and unwilling to listen to
anyone outside his inner circle.

Notice a pattern here?

Both men had life-altering religious experiences as adults and profited from
evangelicals' support.

Both campaigned in favor of a more modest foreign policy. Mr. Bush's 2000
declaration that we should be "a humble nation" echoed what Mr. Carter said in
1976: "A strong nation, like a strong person, can afford to be gentle, firm,
thoughtful and restrained." Once in office, though, their restraint abated. In
its place emerged a messianic dream of remaking the world in our image. One
thought we could spread democracy and human rights by moral suasion. The other
thought we could spread democracy and human rights by invasion. They were
surprised by the world's resistance to reform.

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, who later served as President Ronald Reagan's ambassador
to the United Nations, wrote in 1979 that the Carter administration had fallen
victim to three misconceptions about governments it didn't like, such as those
of Iran and Nicaragua: "first, the belief that there existed at the moment of
crisis a democratic alternative to the incumbent government; second, the belief
that the continuation of the status quo was not possible; third, the belief
that any change ... was preferable to the present government." Mr. Bush took
those errors and applied them to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Oil prices soared under Mr. Carter as the economy stagnated. Oil prices have
soared under Mr. Bush as the economy prospers. Mr. Carter preached fiscal
discipline but let federal spending rise by 17 percent more than inflation
during his four years. Mr. Bush preached tax cuts but let federal spending rise
by 19 percent more than inflation during his first four years.

The two illustrate the dangers of taking a reasonable approach too far. The
39th president was overly eager to negotiate and thus let other countries get
away with actions that harmed our interests. The 43rd president is overly
reluctant to negotiate and thus lets other nations get away with actions that
harm our interests.

Both found that their policies in the Persian Gulf had the unintended
consequence of inflaming Islamic extremism. Both found their trust in Russian
leaders to be unwarranted. Both caused their parties to lose control of at
least one house of Congress.

The Bush experience proves that philosopher George Santayana was too
optimistic: Even those who remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. His column usually
appears Mondays in The Sun. His e-mail is schapman@tribune.com.

Copyright + 2007, The Baltimore Sun | Get Sun home delivery

--- Msged/2 6.0.1
 * Origin: tncbbs.no-ip.com - Try the CROSSFIRE echo - all welcome (1:261/1000)