Jimmy Carter Was No Friend of Union Workers Like Me : unions

[–] mojofrododojo 0 points 1 day ago

this article is garbage. taken by itself, his presidency had problems sure. compared to actual failures - including reagan - the man was stellar.

especially where it counted, piety without dogma, patriotism without jingoism, willing to risk his own life for a lifetime of service, carter was so much better than most of the schlubs we see.

reagan won through treason, never forget he pulled the same bullshit nixon did, conservatives never care if it requires dealing with hostage takers or prolonging wars as long as they get elected. fucking scumbags

[–] [email protected] 29 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Fuck man, to get back to a US president that actually cared about labor you probably need to go all the way back to FDR. JFK is debatable - RFK (not the junior fuck) would have probably been a strong advocate but JFK was more centrist.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 4 days ago (4 children)

We really gotta stop using "centrist" instead of pro-corporate. That's just establishment sleight of hand to make pro-corporate policies look like the defaults.

[–] breadsmasher 9 points 4 days ago

centrist is just “weakly pro billionaire”. Which is still pro billionaire.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If you like - personally centrist, in my mind, just means "Doesn't stand for shit except self enrichment"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

At best, a centrist indirectly supports the status quo, which in our time is Neoliberalism, at worst, they're ghouls underneath that mask.

[–] disguy_ovahea 1 points 3 days ago

Especially because the corporate support increases from center to right. Libertarians want to eliminate regulations on businesses, and the far right wants to accelerate inequality by lifting regulations on, and subsidizing the overhead for, the wealthiest corporations.

I agree that pro-corporate makes far more sense than centrist. “Not far-left” would also work, but it’s clunky.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] thrawn 21 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Kind of a weird question— and I’m not defending whatever the article is alleging— but what’s the point of trying to smear Carter’s memory?

He’s dead. Nobody praises the bad things he might have done. This feels like an attempt to instill even more tiredness into an already exhausted society— “see? Even the guy everyone likes sucked! Nobody should be thought of as good, you must keep this in mind.”

This doesn’t help unions. This doesn’t help the left. This doesn’t help anyone. Americans are rightfully haggard and all remaining energy should be spent trying to keep the upcoming administration in chaos to minimize harm or supporting good people. Why waste time trying to diminish the memory of a man who, far as I can tell, has done nothing but good the past 40 years?

And fuck, haven’t we had enough negativity? Many days I avoid social media entirely because it’s just negativity upon negativity. I genuinely can’t fathom a single positive or useful takeaway from media like this.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Why shouldn't someone that felt betrayed by a politician write about their experience? Why shouldn't people learn about these perspectives?

"Can everyone quit being so negative" is an awful take when talking about politics/politicians.

[–] mojofrododojo 1 points 1 day ago

because it only makes sense in a vacuum, if you compare carter's time to anyone else's, it holds up fine if not great.

it's bullllllshit

[–] thrawn -2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Why shouldn't people learn about these perspectives?

Well yeah, that’s why I’m asking what the point is. What is there to be learned from a bad story on this particular dead individual? I said a few times that I can see no discernible societal benefit. I’d love to see even a hypothetical of how this could lead to positive change.

I hate to be so results-oriented. Really, I do. But the left has lost and lost and lost so I struggle to see a purpose in aiming leftist attention away from the upcoming grim future.

"Can everyone quit being so negative"

I’ve noticed that people are more likely to respond to the last thing said, as if the rest was skimmed or forgotten. When I said it was more important to keep the upcoming administration in chaos, did you think I meant by praising them? Negativity is obviously useful when targeted correctly.

If you reread the comment, it’s pretty clear that my issue is with seemingly pointless negativity— the comment literally begins with “what’s the point?” Like I said, absolutely nobody is praising the bad things Carter may have done. The full focus is on the 40 years of civil service following his presidency. It’s almost always preceded with “he may not have been a good president, but…”

Aiming the limited public attention space at dead Jimmy Carter’s actions from over 40 years ago serves only the people presently planning on killing unions. Yet instead of trying to convince voters that unions aren’t that bad— something I’ve convinced even business owners of, when it’s not their employees— people would rather sit here and turn the never-ending stream of negativity on Current Famous Person.

So really, just tell me the point. If you have one I’m happy to give you that, and if it somehow outweighs the downside of leftist infighting, I’d be thrilled to admit wrong. I’m not here to pick fights and genuinely want to believe the left is trying to generate positive results or that this is article will do that. It’s been pretty hopeless recently watching the right surge forward while the left goes at each other and manages nothing.

Hell, Luigi Mangione alone changed more for society than we’ve managed in years. Probably because he wasn’t (allegedly) aiming at the wrong guy.

[–] buddascrayon 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I'm only going to answer the initial question of why they should bring up Carter's failures now that he is dead. And that answer is what we saw happen in this country in 2016 and this last November. And the intervening years between 2020 and now.

The democratic party is holding Carter up as some bastion of leftist ideology that should be the antithesis of conservatism. But he's not. At least not while he was president. And we now have neoliberals like Biden, Harris, Clinton, and yes even Obama who are painting a picture of liberalism around right wing centrism that is doing literally nothing for the working poor. Obamacare has been an utter disaster simply because it catered to the insurance companies while only offering some governmental pocket change to the American people. Biden stepped in to break the train conductors so that the country's commerce wouldn't be too badly impacted. All while ignoring the literal train wreck that is our failing railway infrastructure. Every "win" the Democrats have ends up being a loss for the American people. Meanwhile the Republican douche bags get to clean up by sowing dissent and disgruntlement while promising to fix everything and like the author of this article many people, in their unbridled frustration, turn around and vote for those assholes thinking that anything different would be better.

Which is why we are where we are.

That is why, as we reflect of Carter's life, we should remember his many failures as president along with his good deeds after he left office.

[–] thrawn 0 points 3 days ago

Good point and I generally agree. I suppose it comes down to:

But he's not. At least not while he was president.

Almost every time someone praises Carter, it’s prefaced with “presidency aside”. His presidency has been looked down upon for decades. If he hadn’t followed it with decades of humanitarian service, he wouldn’t be remembered.

Perhaps I just don’t see the Dems’ lines about how he’s the ideal leftist. In that context I understand the need to discuss the bads. But having not seen, well, any praise ever for his life as a politician this article comes off as trying to keep leftist spirits down. Still, the Dems doing that would fit right into the MO, so yeah good point.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The truth is important, regardless of how many pseudointellectual walls of text you generate.

[–] thrawn -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Insult and run: the standard response when you can’t actually defend your opinions. Some can explain why they hold a position, but this sure is easier.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If you want people to engage with you more, you should engage with what they want sincerely and succinctly instead of of making massive low density essays that don't have content your previous post didn't have. If you get these kinds of responses regularly maybe it's time for some introspection?

[–] thrawn 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah I can monologue a bit, but I have found that explaining in full avoids miscommunication and eventually gets a real response. I do get the weak replies that can’t justify their own ideas, but in my entire time on Lemmy, I have always eventually gotten a real explanation. Even this time.

I’d wade through a hundred of yous to get to someone willing to engage in length. It’s always worth it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The problem is that low information density writing is disrespectful of other people's time. You could have said what you said in 4 paragraphs in 2 sentences, but you wasted the time of every person that reads your post instead.

Doesn't help that complaining about people making and sharing blog posts because you think it is bad political strategy is asinine in the first place.

[–] thrawn 1 points 3 days ago

Two sentence comments get strawmanned, and since it’s not a work email, nobody has to read it. Manage your time better and skip it, skip this. Why bother with social media if you don’t want to read more than two sentences?

Not to get like, “back in my day about it”, but long comments and casual conversation used to be encouraged. Used to be seen as lazy to drop points for the sake of brevity. Your comments are short and this is the first time you’ve mentioned the actual topic since the og comment— potentially useful discussion is lost in the race to the bottom.

Poor political strategy is asinine. That one has real world effects.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Baffling.

We need to whitewash a genocidal war criminal because civility politics and uniting against trump. Because unique to one of 'our good ones' the event of their passing IS NOT a good time to retrospect their lives and impact. Because aren't we tired of the divisiveness of questioning our betters?

Starting to think liberals' brains haven't actually been fried by trump, they've always been feckless monsters

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 days ago

Liberals brains were fried by Bill Clinton. Starting with him they couldn't see the entire party's hard march to the right.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (3 children)

A neoliberal and a war criminal.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Hmm... how about I throw some links at you as well, to make your point

On Brzezinski, the national security advisor https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/05/john-helmer-zbigniew-brzezinski-svengali-jimmy-carters-presidency-dead-evil-lives.html

Foreign policy

https://afflictthecomfortable.org/2020/11/19/jimmy-carter-is-a-saint-now-was-a-war-criminal-then/

East Timor genocide funding https://web.archive.org/web/20170226181104/https://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/indoarms.html

Wow, and to think he's one of the least bloodiest presidents...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

We’re still living in Brzezinski’s shadow today in Ukraine. This is the proxy war he would have wanted, with the goal of collapsing the Russian state and balkanizing Russia. Weaponizing Europe, Countering Eurasia: Mackinder, Brzezinski, Nuland and the Road to the Ukraine War

[–] breadsmasher 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

is there a president that didn’t commit war crimes?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure that the President of my University never committed war crimes...

Oh you mean those presidents...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Even university presidents can't exactly meet this standard, mine pushed anti-Palestine and censored pro-Palestine rhetoric, arrested 20 protestors, fired the head of the student newspaper after they criticized the arrests, and kept inviting weapons manufacturer representatives on campus and probably had investments in them too.

[–] DougHolland 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

...of the USA? Not in my lifetime.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Not in any lifetime. Even the dude who was president for a month and died still got to the office over the dead bodies of Natives.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Did HW Bush do any (while president)?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago

Seriously, people look at these guys like they’re perfect shining examples of world leaders because the last presidents were so horrifically bad. I am not going to pretend that these assholes aren’t still huge pieces of shit because they did CONTROVERSIAL THINGS like stopping supporting Pinochet…. THAT SHOULD BE A NO BRAINER WTF WERE YOU GUYS SUPPORTING HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE? Like I feel like I’m losing my mind here. These are not good fucking people. Some people being worse does not make something else good.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

He's also a war criminal

[–] buddascrayon 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Every president since the founding of the country is a war criminal.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

Agree, I can't believe they wasted good tea by throwing it in the harbour

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (4 children)

The modern "heroization" of Jimmy Carter by people who never experienced his presidency has frustrated many of us who did experience it. Those were difficult times. But...

While I appreciate this dose of reality, I don't think the occasion of his death is the appropriate time to post it. Give the man and his family some respect.

He was a moral man who tried his best, made mistakes, and was possibly a little better person than we all strive to be. He brokered a Middle East peace treaty that was ground breaking. No need to shit on him now.

[–] DougHolland 8 points 4 days ago (4 children)

It's always appropriate to speak the truth.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

Fuck respect. He was as much of a war criminal as Kissinger.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

He did not in fact broker middle east peace.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's not what I said.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Normalizing Israel with Egypt without any gain for Palestinians was a massive gain for Israel and solved nothing. Israelis got handed their peace treaties which kept others from helping Palestinians. This only prolonged the issue of the Apartheid existing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

He was a moral man who tried his best, made mistakes, and was possibly a little better person than {most average U.S presidents} strive to be.

That's kinda true, post-presidency, he did try to redeem himself from the U.S's usual foreign policy.

Open to China's rise to power

“And do you know why? I normalized diplomatic relations with China in 1979. Since 1979 do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody? None. And we have stayed at war,” he said. The U.S., Carter said, has been at war for all but 16 years of its 242-year history. He called the United States “the most warlike nation in the history of the world,” because of a tendency to try to force others to “adopt our American principles.”

Carter suggested that instead of war, China has been investing in its own infrastructure, mentioning that China has 18,000 miles of high-speed railroad.

“How many miles of high-speed railroad do we have in this country?” Zero, the congregation answered.

“We have wasted I think $3 trillion,” Carter said of American military spending. “… It’s more than you can imagine. China has not wasted a single penny on war and that’s why they’re ahead of us. In almost every way.

Sympathetic to North Korea, to the point he even negiotiated with them in the 1990s to let them give up their nukes:

“And the North Koreans suffered because the United States did everything possible to destroy their economy. And we did everything possible to boost South Korea's economy. And so we condemn North Korea because its economy is lagging behind and its people are starving.”

And a Chavista:

“Electoral process in Venezuela is the best in the world." The comments were made in 2012, just three weeks before Venezuelans re-elected Chávez for his last term in office.

“There are 92 elections that we monitor, I would say that the electoral process in Venezuela is the best in the world,” he said in an annual speech at the Carter Center in Atlanta. He stressed that the system is fully automated, which makes counting faster.

He even admitted America's electoral flaws

At the time, Carter also revealed his opinion that in the US “we have one of the worst electoral processes in the world, and it's almost entirely due to the excessive inflow of money,” he said, referring to the lack of control over private campaign donations.

The Carter Center was one of the only Western NGOs to declare that the 2004 referendum in Venezuela (an attempted legislative coup, following the failure of the military coup in 2002) was fair and free.

And Palestine:

In his book Carter argues that Israel's continued control and construction of settlements have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle East. That perspective, coupled with the use of the word Apartheid in the titular phrase Peace Not Apartheid, and what critics said were errors and misstatements in the book, sparked controversy. Carter has defended his book and countered that response to it "in the real world…has been overwhelmingly positive."

Maybe less so than FDR, but at least Carter lived to atone his former sins somewhat

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Emkay... seems good

Still doesn't exonerate from introducing Ted Lasso liberal finance capital fascism (also known as Neoliberalism)

Introducing the hawkish national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski who did the following

the following

Supporting Iraq and Nicaragua contras before Reagan did it

Supporting Angolan anti-communists and Mujahideen Afghan rebels

Backing China and Khmer Rouge against Soviet ally Vietnam (for what? Stopping the genocide there)

Backing East Timor and Guatemala genocides

But what would I expect from a white sharecropper family in a SSettler SSnake society of the Disunited SStates of Amerikkka

But okay, I guess I'll respect that

[–] MataVatnik -3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Good thing Reagan was elected to fix that

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

👆 Whataboutism

[–] MataVatnik 1 points 3 days ago

I was just getting a really strong "but her emails" energy from this post