President Carter wins Nobel Peace Prize

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Rich Douglas, Oct 11, 2002.

Loading...
  1. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

  2. Orson

    Orson New Member

    I'm more ambivalent about this award...

    and I wrote as much the Nobel Committee (and I have Norwegian ancestry).

    Yes--Carter tried to promote peace, bring warring parties together (Egypt and Israel). He has monitored elections in nascent democracies. That's the good.

    But Carter has also revealed profound ill-judgement in sucking up to various well-known dictators, mass-murderers, and human-rights violators!

    As Sample compiled by Jonah Goldberg (May 15, 2002):

    "As the 'human rights president,' Carter noted that Yugoslavia's Marshall Tito was also 'a man who believes in human rights.' Carter saluted the dictator as 'a great and courageous leader' who 'has led his people and protected their freedom almost for the last 40 years.' He publicly told Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, 'Our goals are the same. . . . We believe in enhancing human rights. We believe that we should enhance, as independent nations, the freedom of our own people.' He told the Stalinist first secretary of Communist Poland, Edward Gierek, 'Our concept of human rights is preserved in Poland.'"

    The list of Carter's suck-ups-to-evil continues, including Haiti's Cedras and the Soviet Union's Breznev, and continued onegregiously.
    <http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20020515.shtml>

    So--can I agree he's "truly great"? No. Good, yes, for he meant and means well--but "Great?"

    A great man would have excercised better judgement--I mean these were 'no-brainers' to brave men--and have been on the right side of history in the fall of Communism, like Reagan. Although, that alone doesn't mean I think R.R. was great--I don't! I count several unnecessary military interventions by him, and hold them against him, too (I opposed and organized protests in the 80s)!

    Yet, I have to reluctantly point out and accept the far greater good that defeating communism did for humanity and the cause of world peace; only now can near nuclear disarmament become a serious reality.

    R. J. Rummel, author of "Power Kills!" counts--I think--66 million civillian deaths, out of 76 million total, committed under communism since WWII. Surely the great good done through the fall of communism counts for more praise than Reagan will ever receive in his own country. I know it does in Russia and elsewhere liberated from its anthills of oppression.

    --Orson
     
  3. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    And a truly horrible President.


    Bruce
     
  4. Orson

    Orson New Member

    Mine (and others) ambivalences asside,

    there is a nuanced case to be made for Carter. I think University of Chicago Poli Sci Professor Daniel W. Drezner gets the balace about right (***emphasis mine***), so perhaps this is my retraction of the above:

    "OK, smart guy, who do you think merits the award?***Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar***, for coming up with the idea of using U.S. assistance to control loose nukes. Sit back and think about what the world would look like right now if that program never came to fruition.


    "Put aside the idiotic reasoning of the Nobel committee [SNIP!] Put aside the fact that others have equal standing to merit the prize. [SNIP!] The question is, does Carter merit the prize for his accomplishments? Damn straight. Consider the accomplishments:


    1) Camp David. Sadat and Begin deserve the bulk of the credit, but saying that Carter didn't have an important role to play is like saying that because the acting in a movie is terrific, the director doesn't deserve an Oscar.


    "2) Human rights. ***Carter was the first president to make it a high-profile issue in U.S. foreign policy.*** There were short-term costs, but the goodwill that initiative bought the U.S. in the rest of the world cannot be underestimated. ***It's not a coincidence that the third wave of democratization started to take off during his administration.***


    "3) Election monitoring. Carter was at the forefront of this vital tool of consolidating democracy.


    4) Being an adult during the first two years of the Clinton administration. Remember those years? Recovered from the nausea? Clinton's foreign policy team was not ready for prime time. Carter helped to bail them out of invasions of Haiti and North Korea. He did it in a sanctimonious, undemocratic, and at times unauthorized way, yes, but he still did it.


    "5) Development in Africa. In a largely critical essay of Carter's post-presidential legacy, Chris Sullentrop of Slate acknowledges: ***"Carter has done admirable work since he left office, particularly in Africa, where he has helped nearly to eradicate some deadly diseases. ***And when he's brokering a cease-fire during a civil war in Ethiopia, or promoting new agricultural techniques in sub-Saharan Africa, he's actively making the world a better place."


    "6) Without him, Reagan never gets elected. For other reasons like this, check out this P.J. O'Rourke comparison of Carter to Clinton. [See original for link.]


    "Carter is far from perfect, and his vision of how to conduct foreign affairs will always be handicapped by his failure to understand the role that force plays in world politics. But his accomplishments are also tangible, and should not be spat upon just because of the Nobel committee's flawed worldview. Some will point to Carter's ass-kissing of brutal despots as proof that his commitment to human rights is not genuine (see also here). [See original for link.] Please. ***You could find similar quotations from every cold war president about some despicable dictator. ***


    "I'm sure in the next few days there will be endless posts on endless blogs about the various flaws of Jimmy Carter. I'm sure Carter will deserve some of those posts. But based on his record, he also deserves the award."
    --Friday, October 11, 2002
    <http://drezner.blogspot.com/2002_10_06_drezner_archive.html#82842119>
     
  5. Peter French

    Peter French member

    Re: Re: President Carter wins Nobel Peace Prize

    ...and he and Castro are mates - isn't that a form of treason?

    Ask George Undevelopedtree ;)

    It is also treason to have a nobel committee while we have a noble dubya :) :) - don't beleive me? ... ask him then
     
  6. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Thanks for remembering how this individual was a flack for the Nicky 'n' Elena Show.
     
  7. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: President Carter wins Nobel Peace Prize

    An opinion you are certainly entitled to, and one others share. But still others think elsewise.

    Carter was the President coming off the Nixon era. There was zero trust in government, the economy was a shambles, the military was hollow after Vietnam, etc. One could argue that--despite some flawed characters that every President seems to nominate--the Carter presidency helped restore the notion that the president wasn't a crook. Reagan doesn't get the opportunities he enjoyed without that restored confidence.

    The biggest albatross around Carter's neck was the one he didn't cause, and was powerless to solve: the hostage crisis. He was even bold enough to order a military rescue, but the military was in such bad shape, they couldn't pull it off. (I was on active duty then, as well as during the Reagan, Bush, and most of Clinton's presidencies.)

    Carter was a good guy and a good President, saddled with solving what only time could solve. Reagan was the beneficiary of all of that, and he still had more than 100 people indicted or convicted, sold arms to Iran, funded the Contras illegally, exploded the national debt with enormous budget deficits, and empowered a radical right that still won't shut up. (He did good stuff, too. I'm pretty convinced his economic policies, while coming at a huge price, helped the country get back on its feet. That, more than the military build-up, was responsible for the fall of Communism; they couldn't keep up.)

    The fact that Carter dedicated his life to good works, instead of cashing in like Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, is a good object lesson.

    Ironic, isn't it? Carter is awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace at a time when our current President is clamoring to invade a country that poses absolutely no military threat (and has made no threats) to the U.S. No wonder political cartoonists always show the "Shrub" sitting in an oversized chair. A boy trying to do a man's job, lowering himself to pick a fight instead of solving a problem. I just hope he doesn't get a lot of Americans killed that would not have died at the hands of the Iraqis.

    We could use more of Jimmy and less of the Shrub, who wants to go to war because he can't solve the economic issues or capture the leaders of the Taliban and al Queda.

    Peace.
     
  8. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    I took an awful lot of flack in liberal circles for defending the Afghanistan War, Rich, but I think we're in agreement on Iraq. Unless there's something his foreign policy team knows that I don't, this looks like a very costly excuse to cash in on post-9/11 patriotism and give some November elections to the Republicans.


    Peace,
     
  9. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    But now that I've given my liberal slant, there's still a conservative voice in my head that goes: You know, if he's bluffing, this would be a very nice way of putting Iraq's leadership in a situation where it had to abide by U.N. resolutions.

    I'm undecided, but skeptical.


    Cheers,
     
  10. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: President Carter wins Nobel Peace Prize

    I believe that Carter is a good honest man that has impressed me much more after leaving office than when he was in office.

    I believe that Saddam is an insidious evil threat. I read the report from the G.B. intelligence agency and believe it to be reasonable. Being the leader of a country, Saddam is able to create weapons that, I believe, could eventually end up on boats in harbors around the USA (and world), San Diego, San Fransisco, NY, London, etc. He's also a coward and I believe/hope will cave into the demands if he feels personally threatened.

    Regards,
    Bill
     
  11. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Willy Brandt wasn't much of a chancellor in West Germany, either. But when he dropped to his knees at the Warsaw Memorial it meant something. If Carter drops to his knees in penance at any one of any number of places in Romania that signify the brutality and ruin left by the Communists in general and the C--------s in particular, it would mean something. I'm not holding my breath. Carter's moral self-congratulation is far too pervasive for that.
     
  12. Orson

    Orson New Member

    Re: Re: Re: President Carter wins Nobel Peace Prize

    NOT ironic--the committee, as is often the case with the "Peace Prize," explicitly says they're "kicking a leg" (if I recall the phrase right) out from under the Hawk Bushies.

    I disagree. The Left, like these cartoonists, keeps underestimating Bush. As Newsweek's Howard Fineman argues consistently on Chris Mathew's MSNBC "Hardball," they're often underestimating Bush, and Bush (at least throught the advice of Karl Rove) always likes to surprise the perennial Doubting Thomas's of the Left. The Lesson? Don't. Know your enemy or opponent well if you hope to defeat him.

    Agreed--but I think this is not likely. As someone said--was it Tom Friedman, yes?--his friends in Jordan tell him that Saddam's men are already defecting. Having soldiers already surrenduring BEFORE a war even starts is not a good sign. Friedman said his diplomatic contact assures him it will be a mercifully short war--two weeks, perhaps.

    AND we know what kind of track record tyrants have for instigating loyalty when, in truth, they rule by fear. (Plus, Dems do war less quickly than Pubies, historically.)
    BUT THAT'S not the reason for a war against Iraq! Have a read of Bill Keller's profile of Undersectretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in the NYTimes (Sunday) Magazine (mid- or early September).

    One learns what I have believed since last winter: the real reason for "regime change" in Iraq is revolution from within the Muslim world. Sort of a reverse domino theory: create one popularly governed sphere, and then it will spread within the stagnant Arabic and Persian worlds. It may foment revolt against theocratic Iran. At the very least, U.S. bases in Saudi can be extracted, removing a thorn from the bin Laden mindset ("the infidel occupation of the land of the Holy cities"), and pressure them to adopt popular checks in government which gains a foothold inside an oppressive Monarchy that Freedom House rates just as unfree as Iraq is now!

    That said, I'm with Tom Head in nonetheless remaining ambivalent about the project. It is high risk. It may, as Tom Friedman says, take 20 years! Equally important, it gets our priorities wrong: we still have to support nascent democracy along the Islamic frontiers--as Ralph Peters argues--Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan. Something the Bushies have neglected.

    Furthermore, Pakistan really really does have nukes!--and is unstable--why worry about potential nukes in Bagdad when there are too many Islamists in Pakistan, ready to take up a nuke jihad? Then there is the "Wild West" frontier of Paki that's likely to be a guerilla source against a free Afghanistan, as well as any US friendly Paki government, for decades to come; and finally, what about Madrassas reform throughout the Islamic world, but especially in Paki and Egypt?

    Where's Bush been? SO--why Iraq when there are much better priorities?

    The last lesson I draw is that our Anti-war Party has been way too lame, way too unengaged with the problems of security and terrorism. This has meant the Dems and Gore have no proper critique. They underestimate their opponent because they know not what he's really trying to do! Consequently, they can't counter the militarist agenda and debate the substantive issues--i.e., where the "Iraq War" for social, economic (employed Saudi's won't have time for Jihad), and political modernization meets an anti-militarist alternative that gains the same goals but achieve through peaceful, much lower risk gradualist means. Unfortunatley, because of their recent record, I would never expect Jimmy Carter, like the rest of the Dems, to get that engaged with these goals.

    And finally, I'm offering the view that considers 911 not a harbinger of things to come, as the Bushies do, but as an unlikely outlier, an exception, leaving behind a threat now better met through policing, diplomacy, promotion (e.g, Pakis for trade training in place of Koran memorizing). In other words, the pre-911 US casualty list--admittedly the biggest enemy we've had since Vietnam at 800-1, 000 lives lost between 1979 and 2001, and therefore a serious, long-term, peristent threat, just as Bush (and Sen. Gary Hart) r3egards it--but countered through non-militarist means, nudging and educating the Muslim world into modernity, not capturing and catapulting them like an abusive Big Brother!

    This view means that an average of 50 American's lost through Islamist terrorism that we put up with before 911 is an "acceptable loss." (A rate, by the way, almost unchanged since 911.) But since about half these deaths were US "occupying" troops, these casualties can be cut roughly in half by simply withdrawing them from harms way.

    But who--with the loud megaphones--will take up this argument?
    (We don't get the debate we Americans, or the World, deserve! tha's for sure.)

    --Orson
     
  13. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Re: Re: Re: President Carter wins Nobel Peace Prize

    Good guy, yes. Great guy as a matter of fact. Great human being. I hope my daughter marries someone just like him...honest, faithful ("lust in his heart" aside), trustworthy.

    He was still the second worst President in my lifetime, which has nothing to do with being a bad person (unlike the worst President, Bubba Clinton).


    Bruce
     
  14. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    Carter

    As an outsider, my observation is that nothing he touched while president had any lasting effect.

    Ronald Reagan should have won the Peace Prize for confronting Communism and destroying it without firing a shot.

    History has shown that the Churchills of the world create more lasting peace than do the Chamberlains.

    Why do the lightweight weenies get respect as peacemakers?
     
  15. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I don't have a lot of objection to this award.

    Carter is certainly a well-meaning fellow, although with what (to me) seems like a great deal of naivete. He seems to spend most of his time in pursuing what are to him good works.

    I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to call him a "truly great human being", but frankly, I don't know what that phrase means.

    Carter's great strength is less in what he has accomplished than in the model that he has been for retired world leaders. While these people could use their elder-statesman status to try to do good and to leave the world a better place, too many of them seem to spend all of their time playing golf and arranging their memories.

    In a strange way, being a former world leader can destroy a man. People spend their life pursuing a goal, and once it is reached they are left without a purpose.

    Of course, there is a very real danger that a retired leader won't give up the spotlight, and will attempt to upstage the current leaders and remain as an unofficial co-president or something. But Carter seems to have avoided that temptation rather well. All in all, I'm impressed.

    Does that deserve a Nobel Peace Prize? I don't know.

    Personally, I don't have tremendous use for either the Nobel Peace or Literature prizes. They don't carry the same weight in my mind as the Nobel science prizes. The problem is that the Peace and Literature prizes are so heavily laden with the aesthetic tastes and with the political agendas of the judges.

    The prizes may be great expressions of that taste, but I'm not completely clear about why I should join the judges in sharing it.

    What is great literature? I don't know. And can contributions to world peace ever be separated from utopian political agendas?

    Obviously, the science prizes involve making controversial choices too, but at least science exists within such a robust and (within its limits) objective interpretive system that there is little dispute about what a great contribution to medical science or to chemistry would look like.
     
  16. Tracy Gies

    Tracy Gies New Member

    I suppose if Yasir Arafat has done enough for world peace to deserve the prize, than Jimmy Carter certainly has. Come to think of it, if Arafat can get one, then we should all be in the running.

    Regarding the Nobel Prize (in general, not just the Peace Prize), P.J. O'Rourke, wrote this amusing little gem for the Atlantic Monthly:

    Nobel Sentiments: Pious thoughts from wise fools
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2002
  17. Orson

    Orson New Member

    Thanks Tracy.

    A first rate O'Rourke read. Which raises a question itself: Why can't they ever reward a humorist with a Nobel? Surely they do more good than most Peace Prize or Literature winners--does humor--written or visual--really not travel across culture and langauges well-enough to deserve the silent treatment?

    --Orson
     
  18. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    I have a hard time having much respect for Ronald Reagan. The evidence suggest that his ideas were not his own and he had little if anything to do with the actual running of his own administration. An administration that was the most indicted ever. Did he confront communism? I believe that is a fair assesment, but I also believe that communism fell of its own weight and corruption.

    Carter on the other hand, came in on an agenda that the beltway rejected before his arrival. His thinking and decision making were clear and intelligent. After his presidency he went on to devote his time and energy to humanitarian goals without seeking attention. I think it is fair to call him a great man.

    One mistake I keep seeing is comparing the economy to a President's ability and success. It is clear the economy is beyond the direct contol of any one person with the possible exception of Mr. Greenspan. I certainly blame neither Carter nor George W. for the economy during their reigns. I also give absolutely no credit to Clinton.
     
  19. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Now that IS a deep philosophical question: How can a person's thought's not be his own? Telepathy? Docetism? Buddhist 'no self' theory?
     
  20. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    Poor wording on my part. The puppet on a string theory. If a President does what he is told to and puts forward the political ideas he is told to, can he be a great President? Now presentation is another story. Regean was clearly an artist here.
     

Share This Page