Assess the styles, policies, and records of Presidents Carter and Reagan. What constitute their major triumphs and defeats in your view (a couple), and how to what factors do you attribute them?
As most already know Reagan was aggressive towards communism and created one of the largest build ups of the military in history. His style exuberated his confidence as well as his ability to encourage optimism. Often characterized as “ cheerful and modest,” Reagan used his ability to be humorous to accomplish his goals. During “The Big Year,” Reagan worked swiftly in passing tax and spending cuts along with several key legislative pieces. Much of Reagans success was surrounding his policies around measures that were popular. One of Reagan’s major triumphs in office was his “supply side” economics, which later was called Reaganomics. Tax cuts were always popular to citizens and this one included tax reduction that would lead to economic success and greater tax revenue. This created an incentive to work more. Economically, Reagan decreased inflation from 13 percent to 4 percent by the end of 1983. While Reagan built up the military to prove a point to the Soviets, some see this as a defeat. The national debt went from $700 billion in 1980 to $2 trillion once he left office. The United States went from world’s largest creditor to the world’s largest debtor nation. Carter’s leadership style as the president was drastically different. He did not endorse the idea to bargain with congress, but to have a “town meeting style” type of communication. Although deemed an ambitious man, he is often referred to as a “low opportunity” president. Carter was seen as an outsider to the Washington world. He faced an increase in unemployment, inflation, and problems with energy policies also began to emerge. The worst part of his presidency was the 1979 hostage crisis in Tehran, which was followed by a grain embargo and U.S’s refusal to participate in 1980 Moscow Olympics. While Carter had good intentions on wanting to fulfill his policy pledges, he never focused on why his initiatives were failing. Many of his policies failed because he did not pay attention to the “political feasibility.” Carter failed to play the bargaining game correctly in Washington and therefore fell behind and was unable to accomplish his goals. Reagan was able to portray himself has a simple man but was feverishly working in the background with other politicians.
Reagan and Carter not only varied in ideology, but in life experience as well, which greatly shaped their leadership styles and the decisions they made as president. One point that I feel was not touched on as much in the movie was Carter’s Southern Baptist religion and the Evangelical movement’s maneuvers that got him to the highest seat in the country. He was quite an outlier for a democrat, especially by today’s standards. Reagan, by contrast, is thought of as having stuck to true conservative principles, but those do not include the secret sale of arms to an embargoed nation. I feel like that was obviously Reagan’s biggest controversy, the severity of which is much understated and misunderstood. Carter’s downfall was marked by the hostage crisis, yet somehow I feel he had less control of that than Reagan did of the Iran-Contra Affair, but that is just my opinion. Still, today I feel that both presidents are overall well regarded. Reagan is loved because of his Reaganomics, for better or for worse. And Carter because of what he has accomplished in world affairs since leaving office.
Jimmy Carter came into office at a time when people were suspicious, disgusted, and disappointed in the presidency. In the post-Watergate era, Americans had felt that President Nixon had betrayed their trust. It was on this reality that Jimmy Carter set out to restore Americans' faith in their leaders. Carter was ambitious and devoutly religious-two characteristics that shaped his presidential style immensely. Among his greatest achievements during his term was the The Camp David Accords in 1978. Carter was unique in that most of his achievements and successes occurred after he left office-such as his work in foreign policy and Habitat for Humanity. In contrast, Ronald Reagan was a very high-opportunity president. Formerly an actor, Reagan knew how to charm an audience. His intellect , humor and optimism was able to win the hearts of the American people. Many attribute the conclusion of the Cold War to Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and firm stance against the Soviet Union. In addition, his economic policy resulted in an economic boom that lasted over two decades.
I feel President Carter was laid back in addressing foreign policy concerns. This was seen in Iran’s hostage crisis, in which there were numerous embarrassments throughout it. For example, instead of acting aggressively, he decided to economically embargo Iran to win the release of the hostages. However, President Carter was not able to win the release of all the hostages. To add further salt to the wound, President Carter launched Operation Desert One, which failed miserably because the helicopters crashed before reaching their mission. Another failure of his was the OPEC crisis, in which the prices of oil raised dramatically. The prices at the pump lowered his popularity rating. Unable to win the release of the hostages because of his laid-back approach and the increase in oil prices, Jimmy Carter was replaced by Ronald Reagan. Unlike Carter, Reagan was far more aggressive in his approach to foreign policy. For example, Ronald Reagan faced the Soviet Union head on. Ronald Reagan disregarded SALT II because he felt the Soviet Union was violating the treaty. In addition, he increased the buildup of the army by initiating the Strategic Defense Initiative. With the increase in pressure towards the Soviet Union, they fell. Also, the economy greatly improved under Ronald Reagan. While Ronald Reagan was president, real GDP per capita grew 3.05% versus only 2.14% under Carter. Ronald Reagan’s aggressive approach against the Soviet Union and with “Reaganomics,” was able to get America’s prominence and economy back on track.
Today these two presidents are remembered in very different ways. Carter is often seen as a weak or failed president who furthered the economic downturn of the late 1970s and was soft on foreign policy. Reagan on the other hand is viewed in a much more positive light, seen as strong charismatic leader who put America back to work and ended the Cold War. Through this lens, Carter represents the failed philosophies of New Deal Democrats whereas Reagan is seen as the poster boy of the Republican Party.
Perhaps these legacies are shaped by the different presidential styles of these men. Carter ran as an honest “outsider” who promised to bring good government back to the white house. Yet once in office, Carter had a difficult time communicating his policy goals with Congress and the American people. Reagan, commonly referred to as the Great Communicator, often used the strategy of “going public” to garner support for his legislative policies which dealt specifically with cutting taxes and government spending.
However, the readings for this week touched on aspects of each president that are often times overlooked. Carter is defined by his last two years in office, which witnessed the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran as well as the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. Both of these events I believe were outside of Carter’s control and he was in many ways a victim of the time in which he served. I also found it interesting that Carter was much more moderate than history suggests. Under his term he used a lot of deregulation in hopes of moving his party towards the political center.
President Reagan has a much longer list of accomplishments than his predecessor but the Iran-Contra Affair, in which Americans essentially traded arms for hostages, proved to be a bruise under his administration. In addition, despite being remembered as anti big government Reagan’s excessive military spending actually increased the federal deficit and the overall power and size of government during his time in office.
I think Carter is one of the more interesting presidents to ever serve in the Oval Office. He is arguably the president elected in the worst possible time, as people were in low spirits after the travesties that both Nixon and Ford (Ford for his pardoning of Nixon) committed. This, combined with a rough decade for the United States, didn't leave Carter with a lot of wiggle room. However, I still greatly respect Carter for his service after his time in office-- the film we watched on Tuesday gives rise to that. Overall, as I understand it, Carter achieved a lot of foundational objectives with no landmark legislation or initiative. For example, the Department of Energy and the EPA are huge agencies that can be traced back to Carter's days in office.
Reagan's entry into the White House, on the other hand, could not have come at a better time relative to Carter. Gone were the 1970s trends of stagflation, increased global pressure from the Soviet Union, and energy shortages-- the 80s were a time to deal with those problems. Reagan mostly delivered on these aspects, including establishing cordial relations with Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev-- which arguably denoted the "beginning of the end" for the USSR's threat to the United States. In addition, Reagan's extensive tax reforms, while controversial to this day, at least showed his initiative and levels of support nationally and in a divided Congress. This is the element I am most impressed with about Reagan-- his experience as an actor must have contributed to his unprecedented speech delivery and communication skills. While I do not personally agree with every aspect that Reagan did, I greatly respect him for his fortitude and character.
To end, I find that both Carter and Reagan become entrenched in issues near the end of their respective terms. For Carter, the controversial move to boycott the 1980 Olympics raised a few eyebrows, and another energy crisis in 1979 painted him in a negative image at the exact time he was attempting to run for reelection. For Reagan, the Iran Contra affair put a mark on an otherwise reputable presidency. Overall, Reagan, to me, accomplished more when disregarding the situations both presidents were placed in.
Jimmy Carter is an interesting president in that he appeared to be more religious than political. His goal in presidency was to make the government competent and compassionate to be there for the people of the country and meet their expectations. One of Carter’s triumphs in the presidency would be his two new cabinets (the Department of Energy and the Department of Education) and outside of the country he did well parenting over the Iran hostage crisis. But the Carter presidency did face higher inflation and energy costs which led to many tensions, also nullified his attempt to have more triumphs during his presidency. Ronald Reagan was a conservative president that America had not seen in a long time. He stressed little government and constantly made the assertion that the government could not fix the nation and that it was the problem. Some of Reagan’s triumphs could be attributed to his little government notion which is seen when he reduced restrictions on small and big businesses and when he implemented many tax cuts (Reaganomics). He also was the man who ended the Cold War. But during Reagan’s years, he stripped away many unions which many say caused a widening gap between the rich and the poor (in terms of financial status).
Carter and Reagan had different styles as president and different challenges and opportunities that shaped each of their legacies. Carter was a deeply religious man and often opted to not get involved in the "politics" that his job would sometimes require. He was a Washington "outsider" and ran on principles and honesty in campaigns. On the other hand, Reagan was a renowned public speaker and good at manipulating peoples opinions, skills that he most likely picked up while he was an actor. In terms of policy, Carter focused on creating the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. Internationally, Carter had to deal with the Iran Hostage crisis and despite his long efforts at negotiations the hostages were not released until 30 minutes after his successor, Reagan, had taken office. Reagan's policy strategy is remembered primarily as Reaganomics and his trend toward conservatism. However, there was a large tarnish on his legacy was in foreign policy with the Iran-Contra affair. Carter has been seen as an inadequate president and his final years were tarnished with international turmoil. His achievements while in office are and were rarely recognized. Reagan has had a much more impressive remembrance by the people. His personality and temperament allowed him to weather the storms of the office and pacify the people despite their objections.
Between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan- both enjoyed the highest seat in office with different styles of governing, policies, and overall success rates. Jimmy Carter is often ridiculed as “one of the worst presidents in U.S. history” by many. Yet, he did enjoy some success as president of the U.S. Carter passed the SALT II, and even passed the notable domestic initiatives such as creating the department of education and energy. However, his failure was in his handling of the economy, and his inability to deal with the ever-rising rates of inflation. Reagan, like many before him, had successes and failures during his presidency. Reagan showed success through outstanding leadership qualities during his presidency- especially in the foreign policy realm. Reagan asserted the U.S.’s dominance during the Cold War, and restarted the nuclear weapons race, which some attribute the reason that the USSR collapsed. Many praised Reagan’s economic polices as well. “Reganomics,” as how it was referred to, there was economic growth that the nation enjoyed for a period. In, all both presidents had very differentiating styles, policies, triumphs, and defeats as president of the U.S.
Some people would say that Jimmy Carter had a more successful post presidency however I think he had a fairly successful presidency. Carter took more of a laid-back approach to certain aspects of governing however he accomplished some great feats. Carter was able to negotiate the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties, and the second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT II). However he was unable to rescue everyone involved in the Iran Contra Affair and he did boycott the 1980 summer olympics. This is why people feel his post presidency has been more successful. Ronald Reagan is most known for the initiative of Reaganomics. Which was essentially the reduction of taxes and the promotion of unrestricted free-market activity. 15 million new jobs were created during his presidency. He was instrumental in ending the Cold War when he issued a trade embargo with the Soviet Union and told Gorbachev "tear down this wall!" Both Reagan and Carter have led extremely successful political lives.
When President Jimmy Carter began his term in office, many Americans were more skeptical and critical of the government following the Watergate scandal with President Nixon. These circumstances provided a difficult challenge for Jimmy Carter that Ronald Reagen would not have to face. Despite this, President Carter would have some success in his presidency, with the highlight being the Camp David Accords. However, President Carter would come to be seen as weak, with some of his major criticisms involving the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis and the fact that President Carter failed to make much progress in the economy, which was getting worse during his presidency. I think much of the negative events that happened with President Carter were outside his control though. President Ronald Reagen, in contrast to the perceived weakness of Jimmy Carter, was known for his strong stance against Communism. Calling them an "Evil Empire", Ronald Reagen increased defense spending and created the Strategic Defense Initiative. Later on he would also famously tell Mikhail Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall", referring of course to the Berlin Wall. His increase in defense spending raised the deficit quite a bit however. He was also heavily criticized for the Iran-Contra scandal. I think these things were not outside of Reagen's control the way that events like the Iran Hostage Crisis were outside of Jimmy Carter's control. In the case of the Iran-Contra scandal, President Reagen knowingly did something that was illegal. Despite their failures, both presidents did have some notable successes and it's important not to forget them.
When assessing the presidencies of Carter and Reagan, their are specific events that characterize their trumps and defeats. Specifically, during the candidacy of Carter, some of his greatest attributes were his emphasis on the energy policies and conservation. His popularity later eroded and he was defeated by Reagan in 1980. The Iranian Hostage Crisis and the Energy Crisis on 1979 both led to a decrease in approval from the American public and through the positivity Reagan offered and his strong image, he was successful in defeating Carter in the election. Reagan's trumps canter around his ability to be a strong leader. He is known as the "great communicator" and was capable of instilling positivity and motivation in the American public. This was essential to ending the Cold War. Another lasting reputation of Ronald Reagan is in his initiatives to lower taxes and encourage free-market activity. This is known as his Reaganomics plan. His discrepancy as a president is the Iran-Contra affair. Overall, both Presidents had effective styles of leading. Reagan would be assessed as having a more positive record than Carter when looking back on their reputations.
President Jimmy Carter's term had several triumphs throughout it, most notably including his influence in prioritizing developing more efficient sources of energy and the Camp David accords. His term also included several defeats as well which led to him failing to be re-elected for a second term. The most notable defeat of his term was the Iranian Hostage Crisis as soon after that he saw a sharp decrease in popularity, partly due to the failed rescue mission that cost several American lives. President Ronald Reagan on the other hand had a very successful presidency, most of which can be attributed to his unheralded ability to communicate with both leaders of other states and the American people. He was the first president since the development of nuclear weapons to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction treaty wight the Soviet Union, which is a major triumph of his part. His only defeat, however, was the Iran-Contra affair, during which several members of his cabinet were linked to an operation that sold arms to Iran for hostages. This led to a fall in his popularity with the American people, but soon after he successfully negotiated the treaty with the Soviets so his public opinion recovered. Both Presidents were effective in their policies, but most people agree President Reagan had a more successful presidency.
A stark difference between the Carter and Reagan administrations was the differing approaches each carried into office. Carter sought to reestablish the public trust in the presidency following the Watergate era and Ford's pardon of president Nixon. Reagan arguably sought to reestablish the public trust in American exceptionalism. While Carter may have had several successes, such as the Camp David Accords, his international resume was tainted by the Iran Hostage Crisis. It is arguable that many of the things that shadowed Carter's presidency were out of his control. Reagan's conservative rhetoric and charismatic, confident personality brought a new perspective to the presidency. Thought the Iran Contra Affair my now be viewed as an international blemish on the Reagan record, his economic and rhetorical campaign against the Soviets is largely admired
Carter entered the Oval Office in a tough predicament following America's distrust in the presidency after Nixon and Watergate. Carter's religion shaped his presidency significantly at a time when America needed someone to bring trust into the country. However, Carter was often seen as weak, especially on foreign policy. This is seen in his handling of the Iran hostage Crisis and Operation Desert One which both were pretty much failures.
On the other hand, Reagan was known as the "Great Communicator." He was extremely charismatic and often went to the public to gather support for his legislative policies. To me, Reagan's biggest accomplishment was ending the Cold War. I think there is something to be said about ending a "war" without an actual battle occurring. Reagan was far more aggressive in his foreign policy approach as is seen in the Cold War. Furthermore, under Reagan the economy experienced a much needed boost and put America back on the path towards prosperity once more
Carter's style was definitely more laid back. It might have seemed to his opponents and people that didn't like him that he was a weak president because he wasn't as aggressive and preferred to take the more diplomatic way in solving international afford instead of sending in the military, but I feel that is was a strength not a weakness. An overly aggressive president might have made things even worse for the events that happened during his term. For example the Hostage crisis in Tehran was a situation that needed to be handled delicately. Still, I do consider that one of his greatest failures. Even though he had to deal with it, it was Reagan who got the praise for the hostages being set free because the inauguration had already happened. Carter never had the chance to tell the world. His biggest successes were EPA and all the energy policies that he put forth that changed the way the country thought about energy consumption.
Reagan's style was a little more aggressive than Carter's but you wouldn't really be able to pick up on that fact because of Reagan's mastery of humor to get his point across. It wasn't so much what he said as how he said it. His biggest success was for sure reaching a nuclear arms deal with Russia, which no president before him since the start of the Cold War was able to do. This was the beginning of fear of nuclear Armageddon to start to go down.
I think that both president handled their time in office as best they could with the circumstances that were thrown at them. Carter may seem to be an unsuccessful president but when you look at it through the right perspective, what else more could have been done. In Reagan's case, other than Iran-Contra his presidency was placed in a good time in history.
I think that the best way to assess the Presidencies is by taking a look at their biggest successes and failures. These events tend to show what the President was focused on during his Presidency. I think that the biggest failure of Jimmy Carters Presidency is also one that cost him a shot at reelection. This was the Iranian hostage situation. Although the end result was a success, it technically came during the first few hours of Reagan's Presidency, even though Carter was largely responsible for it. However, with the hostages taken for well over a year and the failed rescue attempt, it i hard to really call this event anything other than a failure for Carter. But, Jimmy Carter also had some great accomplishments like his conservation and energy efforts. The biggest of these accomplishments, in my opinion, was the creation of the Department of Energy. Jimmy Carter may not have had a very long lasting Presidency, but he is best remembered and thought of for his work around the world after he left office. President Reagan also had his share of successes and failures. The thing that most associate with Reagan is the Iran-Contra affair. Any time that a President does a "hush hush" deal with a foreign country and that deal becomes public knowledge, the President will be the bad guy. This case was especially troubling as guns were essentially traded for American hostages. President Reagan also had his successes, with the biggest being the Arms treaty with the USSR. This deal was something that helped end the Cold War, as it helped to reduce the number of weapons and how close they could be to each country. This was one of many steps that Reagan took to help bring peace during the Cold War.
I believe that the greatest differences between Reagan and Carter's leadership styles lay in the level of assertiveness displayed and the main areas of concentration. Reagan definitely appeared to be more aggressive in his approach to policy, especially foreign policy, than Carter was. As Cory Mcgee cleverly mentioned in her blog comment, Reagan's ability to communicate and inspire emotional responsiveness played a significant role in his foreign policy success of ending the Cold War. Had he not possessed that characteristic, the fall of the Soviet Union could have gone very differently. Carter's approach to the presidency was, or at least appeared to be, much less assertive.
In the aftermath of Nixon’s criminality, Jimmy Carter entered the office on a wave of public support for his promise to deliver both an honest leader and an open government. Carter eschewed some of the more “imperial” powers of the presidency that had been accrued by his recent predecessors and utilized trustee leadership. Carter’s greatest accomplishments were in the energy and environmental protection sectors of government. The demands of the time allowed him to do this being that the recently formed OPEC created a need for a major policy in these areas. Despite his successes, Carter is best known for his failings. His complete failure in the health care domain was partially attributable to his unwillingness to bargain with Congress, although many speculate that his goals would have failed regardless of his skill. Another hit to his administration came in the form of public relations. Carter’s public image was one of a humble peanut farmer with no capacity for artifice, which allowed him to be elected. Later in his presidency, this image backfired as he came to be viewed as incompetent and simple-minded especially during the hostage situation in Tehran. These shortcomings caused Carter to lose his reelection to Ronald Regan. Regan was a far more conservative leader and had no qualms about using powers some dubbed “imperialistic.” Regan’s largest success was indisputably the ending of the Cold War. This can be attributed to a number of factors including the new soviet leadership, but Regan’s policies certainly had an impact. He actively increased the US military especially in the area of weapons technology. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) generated fear that the US could protect itself from an attack in ways that no other country was capable. Although SDI was unsuccessful in its goals, it still had a psychological influence concerning the Cold War. Regan’s most notable pitfall was the Iran-Contra affair. The president was caught breaking the law set forth by the Congress when his administration sent funds to support the Contras. He experienced the number one sharpest drop in approval rating within the span of a week when the ratings dropped from 67% to 46% approval.
President Carter came into office when Americans had cause to be suspicious of their executive leader. The Nixon/Ford fiasco certainly wasn't helpful (President Ford being unforgiven for his pardon of President Nixon). His religious and humble background did well to get him into office, but it didn't combat the pessimistic attitude towards the Presidency. I believe President Carter's greatest triumphs are in foreign policy, despite the way historians define his presidency via the Iran Hostage Crisis. The negotiations of the Panama Canal Treaties, Camp David Accords, and the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (II) (which I believe lead the way to the end of the Cold War) are each hefty accomplishments for any president's resume. As for defeats, I would say that President Carter's idealist policies, such as the boycott of the summer olympics in Moscow, only lead to a strain on the President's perception.
President Reagan is known by conservatives for his strong stance against the spread of communism and his "ending of the Cold War," though it is doubtful that his policies should retain all the credit for that. Reagan did earn the nickname "the Great Communicator," and, in my eyes, foreign policy was probably President Reagan's best accomplishment. On the contrary, his failure is his popularization of "trickle-down economics" and his excessive government spending. Though the 80's experienced an economic boost, such a boost was not the consequence of President Reagan, and today conservatives swear by an economic system that leaves corporate CEOs with more money for luxury items and lower-middle class members with empty pockets.
The style, favored policies, and overall record of the Reagan and the Carter presidency present two polarizing perspectives. In terms of style, Reagan provided his key staff with much more room for decision making. The success in the passage of landmark legislation was rendered from effective congressional relations. Furthermore, he was an avid, persuasive speaker with the ability to empathize with the public. In contrast, Jimmy Carter's suspicion towards his staff and members of congress inhibited the passage of potential landmark legislation. It was not only his refusal to cooperate with Washington insiders an obstacle for his presidential success, but his unfamiliarity with the insider crowd led to legislative stalemate. While their styles greatly differ, so did their choice of policy. While Reagan succeeded in the passage of landmark legislation which emphasized on substantial tax cuts and on decreasing the size of the federal government despite increasing federal funds directed to Social Security and Medicare. Jimmy Carter's approach advocated environmental and energy legislation. Nonetheless, failure to cooperate with members of his own party served as an obstacle to pass landmark legislation. Despite the differences in styles and policy views, they both had major triumphs and defeats. If it wasn't for such an impressive public approval rating, Reagan could have been impeached for serious infringement to Constitutional barriers, better known as the Iran-Contra Affair. Nonetheless, The huge improvement of the economy, excelling ability to handle foreign affairs, and political savvy in the realm of public relations were considerable factors for Reagan's triumphs. Carter's inability to deal swiftly with decision making and tendency to immerse into the specifics of every detail of a particular legislation served as failure that contributed to his re-election loss. In essence, I would thus consider Reagan as the more effective President with high opportunity in the political environment. Carter had indeed a low-opportunity political environment as his style did not complement the processes in which legislation is enacted.
Reagan was a strong president and he made a lot of strong choices. especially considering communism. He was able to get the support of the people and that enabled him to be a successful president. He was very assertive and he got legislation. On the other hand, Carter was much less assertive and did not get as much done as Reagan did.
As far as their successes and impacts on the perspectives of the American people, Carter and Reagan couldn't be farther apart. Carter took office in 1977, and only lasted one term as presidents. Carters term saw a rise in unemployment, a sharp increase in inflation, and the deterioration of the foreign impression of America. The Iran hostage situation towards the end of his term only worsened his standings in the peoples eyes. Carter was seen as indecisive, and ineffective when he did make a move. Whether the disasters of his term were his fault or not, other presidents have certainly handled such matter more effectively than Carter was able to.
Reagan, again, was the opposite in every way. His approval rating was very high, save a dip after the Iran Contra scandal, but he handled this gracefully, unlike his predecessor. Under Reagan the economy recovered, although the debt did increase significantly. Almost too perfectly, the Iranians released their American hostages the day of his inauguration. Lastly, the end of his term was met with the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union, and the rise of the US as the sole remaining super power. Reagan had all the success where Carter had failed, and perhaps it is the reflection and comparison between the two the makes Carter deemed so poor when Reagan is widely hailed.
The dynamics of the Carter and Reagan Presidencies introduce substantial and dynamic approaches to executive power. Carter played his position as a humble public servant, dedicated to peace, believing that the U.S. was a nation among many that could play a role in the role. Ronald Reagan used his administration to unapologetically assert U.S. power and destiny, used his charisma to give hope to his citizens and was unafraid to use military might and influence.
Carter had a major strength in being a statesman in working toward Middle Eastern peace. He was largely a decent and humble person, which might have made him miscast as being the President of the United States. Carter had the flaw of timing and being unable to move U.S. out of stagflation, foreign policy decline, and a lack of confidence. His policies and weakness in asserting a path were detrimental to his administration.
Something that I found unusual was how people often forget that Reagan suffered two years of recession before the 1984 elections. The country went further into economic decline before rising again. Reagan was strong, assertive in confronting communism, limiting government, and pushing a Judeo-Christian vision of U.S. prominence. His failure to have an effective control over his administration led to the Iran-Contra scandal, and his economic policies have been largely criticized for expanding wealth inequality and poverty. Reagan also had issues coming back from certain scandals, like the bombing of U.S. soldiers in Lebanon and Iran-Contra.
Reagan gets much credit for having a sunny and infectious optimism that was similar to the legendary FDR. Carter has forced his citizens to endure hardships for the coming time. The position of U.S. dominance is a highlight of many American's memories of the 1980s, where we were at the top of our power and prominence. Reagan was a man as fortunate in timing as he was in creating his own destiny, and bringing the nation closer to his dream as the "shinning city on a hill."
We should just make sure not to paper over the flaws of Reagan, and solely remember Carter as a failure.
In my opinion a notable difference between Reagan and Carter was their methodologies while in office. Carter’s main focus was rebuilding the trust of the American public after Watergate. Reagan also focused on the reestablishment the American trust. Although Carter excelled in some areas, international success was hindered due to the Iran Hostage Crisis. Reagan’s ability to not only capture conservatives, but also the majority of the American public brought new appeal to the presidency.
As most already know Reagan was aggressive towards communism and created one of the largest build ups of the military in history. His style exuberated his confidence as well as his ability to encourage optimism. Often characterized as “ cheerful and modest,” Reagan used his ability to be humorous to accomplish his goals. During “The Big Year,” Reagan worked swiftly in passing tax and spending cuts along with several key legislative pieces. Much of Reagans success was surrounding his policies around measures that were popular. One of Reagan’s major triumphs in office was his “supply side” economics, which later was called Reaganomics. Tax cuts were always popular to citizens and this one included tax reduction that would lead to economic success and greater tax revenue. This created an incentive to work more. Economically, Reagan decreased inflation from 13 percent to 4 percent by the end of 1983. While Reagan built up the military to prove a point to the Soviets, some see this as a defeat. The national debt went from $700 billion in 1980 to $2 trillion once he left office. The United States went from world’s largest creditor to the world’s largest debtor nation. Carter’s leadership style as the president was drastically different. He did not endorse the idea to bargain with congress, but to have a “town meeting style” type of communication. Although deemed an ambitious man, he is often referred to as a “low opportunity” president. Carter was seen as an outsider to the Washington world. He faced an increase in unemployment, inflation, and problems with energy policies also began to emerge. The worst part of his presidency was the 1979 hostage crisis in Tehran, which was followed by a grain embargo and U.S’s refusal to participate in 1980 Moscow Olympics. While Carter had good intentions on wanting to fulfill his policy pledges, he never focused on why his initiatives were failing. Many of his policies failed because he did not pay attention to the “political feasibility.” Carter failed to play the bargaining game correctly in Washington and therefore fell behind and was unable to accomplish his goals. Reagan was able to portray himself has a simple man but was feverishly working in the background with other politicians.
ReplyDeleteReagan and Carter not only varied in ideology, but in life experience as well, which greatly shaped their leadership styles and the decisions they made as president. One point that I feel was not touched on as much in the movie was Carter’s Southern Baptist religion and the Evangelical movement’s maneuvers that got him to the highest seat in the country. He was quite an outlier for a democrat, especially by today’s standards. Reagan, by contrast, is thought of as having stuck to true conservative principles, but those do not include the secret sale of arms to an embargoed nation. I feel like that was obviously Reagan’s biggest controversy, the severity of which is much understated and misunderstood. Carter’s downfall was marked by the hostage crisis, yet somehow I feel he had less control of that than Reagan did of the Iran-Contra Affair, but that is just my opinion. Still, today I feel that both presidents are overall well regarded. Reagan is loved because of his Reaganomics, for better or for worse. And Carter because of what he has accomplished in world affairs since leaving office.
ReplyDeleteJimmy Carter came into office at a time when people were suspicious, disgusted, and disappointed in the presidency. In the post-Watergate era, Americans had felt that President Nixon had betrayed their trust. It was on this reality that Jimmy Carter set out to restore Americans' faith in their leaders. Carter was ambitious and devoutly religious-two characteristics that shaped his presidential style immensely. Among his greatest achievements during his term was the The Camp David Accords in 1978. Carter was unique in that most of his achievements and successes occurred after he left office-such as his work in foreign policy and Habitat for Humanity.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, Ronald Reagan was a very high-opportunity president. Formerly an actor, Reagan knew how to charm an audience. His intellect , humor and optimism was able to win the hearts of the American people. Many attribute the conclusion of the Cold War to Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and firm stance against the Soviet Union. In addition, his economic policy resulted in an economic boom that lasted over two decades.
I feel President Carter was laid back in addressing foreign policy concerns. This was seen in Iran’s hostage crisis, in which there were numerous embarrassments throughout it. For example, instead of acting aggressively, he decided to economically embargo Iran to win the release of the hostages. However, President Carter was not able to win the release of all the hostages. To add further salt to the wound, President Carter launched Operation Desert One, which failed miserably because the helicopters crashed before reaching their mission. Another failure of his was the OPEC crisis, in which the prices of oil raised dramatically. The prices at the pump lowered his popularity rating. Unable to win the release of the hostages because of his laid-back approach and the increase in oil prices, Jimmy Carter was replaced by Ronald Reagan.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Carter, Reagan was far more aggressive in his approach to foreign policy. For example, Ronald Reagan faced the Soviet Union head on. Ronald Reagan disregarded SALT II because he felt the Soviet Union was violating the treaty. In addition, he increased the buildup of the army by initiating the Strategic Defense Initiative. With the increase in pressure towards the Soviet Union, they fell. Also, the economy greatly improved under Ronald Reagan. While Ronald Reagan was president, real GDP per capita grew 3.05% versus only 2.14% under Carter. Ronald Reagan’s aggressive approach against the Soviet Union and with “Reaganomics,” was able to get America’s prominence and economy back on track.
Today these two presidents are remembered in very different ways. Carter is often seen as a weak or failed president who furthered the economic downturn of the late 1970s and was soft on foreign policy. Reagan on the other hand is viewed in a much more positive light, seen as strong charismatic leader who put America back to work and ended the Cold War. Through this lens, Carter represents the failed philosophies of New Deal Democrats whereas Reagan is seen as the poster boy of the Republican Party.
ReplyDeletePerhaps these legacies are shaped by the different presidential styles of these men. Carter ran as an honest “outsider” who promised to bring good government back to the white house. Yet once in office, Carter had a difficult time communicating his policy goals with Congress and the American people. Reagan, commonly referred to as the Great Communicator, often used the strategy of “going public” to garner support for his legislative policies which dealt specifically with cutting taxes and government spending.
However, the readings for this week touched on aspects of each president that are often times overlooked. Carter is defined by his last two years in office, which witnessed the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran as well as the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. Both of these events I believe were outside of Carter’s control and he was in many ways a victim of the time in which he served. I also found it interesting that Carter was much more moderate than history suggests. Under his term he used a lot of deregulation in hopes of moving his party towards the political center.
President Reagan has a much longer list of accomplishments than his predecessor but the Iran-Contra Affair, in which Americans essentially traded arms for hostages, proved to be a bruise under his administration. In addition, despite being remembered as anti big government Reagan’s excessive military spending actually increased the federal deficit and the overall power and size of government during his time in office.
I think Carter is one of the more interesting presidents to ever serve in the Oval Office. He is arguably the president elected in the worst possible time, as people were in low spirits after the travesties that both Nixon and Ford (Ford for his pardoning of Nixon) committed. This, combined with a rough decade for the United States, didn't leave Carter with a lot of wiggle room. However, I still greatly respect Carter for his service after his time in office-- the film we watched on Tuesday gives rise to that. Overall, as I understand it, Carter achieved a lot of foundational objectives with no landmark legislation or initiative. For example, the Department of Energy and the EPA are huge agencies that can be traced back to Carter's days in office.
ReplyDeleteReagan's entry into the White House, on the other hand, could not have come at a better time relative to Carter. Gone were the 1970s trends of stagflation, increased global pressure from the Soviet Union, and energy shortages-- the 80s were a time to deal with those problems. Reagan mostly delivered on these aspects, including establishing cordial relations with Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev-- which arguably denoted the "beginning of the end" for the USSR's threat to the United States. In addition, Reagan's extensive tax reforms, while controversial to this day, at least showed his initiative and levels of support nationally and in a divided Congress. This is the element I am most impressed with about Reagan-- his experience as an actor must have contributed to his unprecedented speech delivery and communication skills. While I do not personally agree with every aspect that Reagan did, I greatly respect him for his fortitude and character.
To end, I find that both Carter and Reagan become entrenched in issues near the end of their respective terms. For Carter, the controversial move to boycott the 1980 Olympics raised a few eyebrows, and another energy crisis in 1979 painted him in a negative image at the exact time he was attempting to run for reelection. For Reagan, the Iran Contra affair put a mark on an otherwise reputable presidency. Overall, Reagan, to me, accomplished more when disregarding the situations both presidents were placed in.
Jimmy Carter is an interesting president in that he appeared to be more religious than political. His goal in presidency was to make the government competent and compassionate to be there for the people of the country and meet their expectations. One of Carter’s triumphs in the presidency would be his two new cabinets (the Department of Energy and the Department of Education) and outside of the country he did well parenting over the Iran hostage crisis. But the Carter presidency did face higher inflation and energy costs which led to many tensions, also nullified his attempt to have more triumphs during his presidency.
ReplyDeleteRonald Reagan was a conservative president that America had not seen in a long time. He stressed little government and constantly made the assertion that the government could not fix the nation and that it was the problem. Some of Reagan’s triumphs could be attributed to his little government notion which is seen when he reduced restrictions on small and big businesses and when he implemented many tax cuts (Reaganomics). He also was the man who ended the Cold War. But during Reagan’s years, he stripped away many unions which many say caused a widening gap between the rich and the poor (in terms of financial status).
Carter and Reagan had different styles as president and different challenges and opportunities that shaped each of their legacies. Carter was a deeply religious man and often opted to not get involved in the "politics" that his job would sometimes require. He was a Washington "outsider" and ran on principles and honesty in campaigns. On the other hand, Reagan was a renowned public speaker and good at manipulating peoples opinions, skills that he most likely picked up while he was an actor.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of policy, Carter focused on creating the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. Internationally, Carter had to deal with the Iran Hostage crisis and despite his long efforts at negotiations the hostages were not released until 30 minutes after his successor, Reagan, had taken office. Reagan's policy strategy is remembered primarily as Reaganomics and his trend toward conservatism. However, there was a large tarnish on his legacy was in foreign policy with the Iran-Contra affair.
Carter has been seen as an inadequate president and his final years were tarnished with international turmoil. His achievements while in office are and were rarely recognized. Reagan has had a much more impressive remembrance by the people. His personality and temperament allowed him to weather the storms of the office and pacify the people despite their objections.
Between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan- both enjoyed the highest seat in office with different styles of governing, policies, and overall success rates. Jimmy Carter is often ridiculed as “one of the worst presidents in U.S. history” by many. Yet, he did enjoy some success as president of the U.S. Carter passed the SALT II, and even passed the notable domestic initiatives such as creating the department of education and energy. However, his failure was in his handling of the economy, and his inability to deal with the ever-rising rates of inflation.
ReplyDeleteReagan, like many before him, had successes and failures during his presidency. Reagan showed success through outstanding leadership qualities during his presidency- especially in the foreign policy realm. Reagan asserted the U.S.’s dominance during the Cold War, and restarted the nuclear weapons race, which some attribute the reason that the USSR collapsed. Many praised Reagan’s economic polices as well. “Reganomics,” as how it was referred to, there was economic growth that the nation enjoyed for a period. In, all both presidents had very differentiating styles, policies, triumphs, and defeats as president of the U.S.
Some people would say that Jimmy Carter had a more successful post presidency however I think he had a fairly successful presidency. Carter took more of a laid-back approach to certain aspects of governing however he accomplished some great feats. Carter was able to negotiate the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties, and the second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT II). However he was unable to rescue everyone involved in the Iran Contra Affair and he did boycott the 1980 summer olympics. This is why people feel his post presidency has been more successful.
ReplyDeleteRonald Reagan is most known for the initiative of Reaganomics. Which was essentially the reduction of taxes and the promotion of unrestricted free-market activity. 15 million new jobs were created during his presidency. He was instrumental in ending the Cold War when he issued a trade embargo with the Soviet Union and told Gorbachev "tear down this wall!" Both Reagan and Carter have led extremely successful political lives.
When President Jimmy Carter began his term in office, many Americans were more skeptical and critical of the government following the Watergate scandal with President Nixon. These circumstances provided a difficult challenge for Jimmy Carter that Ronald Reagen would not have to face. Despite this, President Carter would have some success in his presidency, with the highlight being the Camp David Accords. However, President Carter would come to be seen as weak, with some of his major criticisms involving the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis and the fact that President Carter failed to make much progress in the economy, which was getting worse during his presidency. I think much of the negative events that happened with President Carter were outside his control though.
ReplyDeletePresident Ronald Reagen, in contrast to the perceived weakness of Jimmy Carter, was known for his strong stance against Communism. Calling them an "Evil Empire", Ronald Reagen increased defense spending and created the Strategic Defense Initiative. Later on he would also famously tell Mikhail Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall", referring of course to the Berlin Wall. His increase in defense spending raised the deficit quite a bit however. He was also heavily criticized for the Iran-Contra scandal. I think these things were not outside of Reagen's control the way that events like the Iran Hostage Crisis were outside of Jimmy Carter's control. In the case of the Iran-Contra scandal, President Reagen knowingly did something that was illegal. Despite their failures, both presidents did have some notable successes and it's important not to forget them.
When assessing the presidencies of Carter and Reagan, their are specific events that characterize their trumps and defeats. Specifically, during the candidacy of Carter, some of his greatest attributes were his emphasis on the energy policies and conservation. His popularity later eroded and he was defeated by Reagan in 1980. The Iranian Hostage Crisis and the Energy Crisis on 1979 both led to a decrease in approval from the American public and through the positivity Reagan offered and his strong image, he was successful in defeating Carter in the election. Reagan's trumps canter around his ability to be a strong leader. He is known as the "great communicator" and was capable of instilling positivity and motivation in the American public. This was essential to ending the Cold War. Another lasting reputation of Ronald Reagan is in his initiatives to lower taxes and encourage free-market activity. This is known as his Reaganomics plan. His discrepancy as a president is the Iran-Contra affair. Overall, both Presidents had effective styles of leading. Reagan would be assessed as having a more positive record than Carter when looking back on their reputations.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePresident Jimmy Carter's term had several triumphs throughout it, most notably including his influence in prioritizing developing more efficient sources of energy and the Camp David accords. His term also included several defeats as well which led to him failing to be re-elected for a second term. The most notable defeat of his term was the Iranian Hostage Crisis as soon after that he saw a sharp decrease in popularity, partly due to the failed rescue mission that cost several American lives.
ReplyDeletePresident Ronald Reagan on the other hand had a very successful presidency, most of which can be attributed to his unheralded ability to communicate with both leaders of other states and the American people. He was the first president since the development of nuclear weapons to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction treaty wight the Soviet Union, which is a major triumph of his part. His only defeat, however, was the Iran-Contra affair, during which several members of his cabinet were linked to an operation that sold arms to Iran for hostages. This led to a fall in his popularity with the American people, but soon after he successfully negotiated the treaty with the Soviets so his public opinion recovered. Both Presidents were effective in their policies, but most people agree President Reagan had a more successful presidency.
A stark difference between the Carter and Reagan administrations was the differing approaches each carried into office. Carter sought to reestablish the public trust in the presidency following the Watergate era and Ford's pardon of president Nixon. Reagan arguably sought to reestablish the public trust in American exceptionalism. While Carter may have had several successes, such as the Camp David Accords, his international resume was tainted by the Iran Hostage Crisis. It is arguable that many of the things that shadowed Carter's presidency were out of his control. Reagan's conservative rhetoric and charismatic, confident personality brought a new perspective to the presidency. Thought the Iran Contra Affair my now be viewed as an international blemish on the Reagan record, his economic and rhetorical campaign against the Soviets is largely admired
ReplyDeleteCarter entered the Oval Office in a tough predicament following America's distrust in the presidency after Nixon and Watergate. Carter's religion shaped his presidency significantly at a time when America needed someone to bring trust into the country. However, Carter was often seen as weak, especially on foreign policy. This is seen in his handling of the Iran hostage Crisis and Operation Desert One which both were pretty much failures.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Reagan was known as the "Great Communicator." He was extremely charismatic and often went to the public to gather support for his legislative policies. To me, Reagan's biggest accomplishment was ending the Cold War. I think there is something to be said about ending a "war" without an actual battle occurring. Reagan was far more aggressive in his foreign policy approach as is seen in the Cold War. Furthermore, under Reagan the economy experienced a much needed boost and put America back on the path towards prosperity once more
Carter's style was definitely more laid back. It might have seemed to his opponents and people that didn't like him that he was a weak president because he wasn't as aggressive and preferred to take the more diplomatic way in solving international afford instead of sending in the military, but I feel that is was a strength not a weakness. An overly aggressive president might have made things even worse for the events that happened during his term. For example the
ReplyDeleteHostage crisis in Tehran was a situation that needed to be handled delicately. Still, I do consider that one of his greatest failures. Even though he had to deal with it, it was Reagan who got the praise for the hostages being set free because the inauguration had already happened. Carter never had the chance to tell the world. His biggest successes were EPA and all the energy policies that he put forth that changed the way the country thought about energy consumption.
Reagan's style was a little more aggressive than Carter's but you wouldn't really be able to pick up on that fact because of Reagan's mastery of humor to get his point across. It wasn't so much what he said as how he said it. His biggest success was for sure reaching a nuclear arms deal with Russia, which no president before him since the start of the Cold War was able to do. This was the beginning of fear of nuclear Armageddon to start to go down.
I think that both president handled their time in office as best they could with the circumstances that were thrown at them. Carter may seem to be an unsuccessful president but when you look at it through the right perspective, what else more could have been done. In Reagan's case, other than Iran-Contra his presidency was placed in a good time in history.
I think that the best way to assess the Presidencies is by taking a look at their biggest successes and failures. These events tend to show what the President was focused on during his Presidency. I think that the biggest failure of Jimmy Carters Presidency is also one that cost him a shot at reelection. This was the Iranian hostage situation. Although the end result was a success, it technically came during the first few hours of Reagan's Presidency, even though Carter was largely responsible for it. However, with the hostages taken for well over a year and the failed rescue attempt, it i hard to really call this event anything other than a failure for Carter. But, Jimmy Carter also had some great accomplishments like his conservation and energy efforts. The biggest of these accomplishments, in my opinion, was the creation of the Department of Energy. Jimmy Carter may not have had a very long lasting Presidency, but he is best remembered and thought of for his work around the world after he left office.
ReplyDeletePresident Reagan also had his share of successes and failures. The thing that most associate with Reagan is the Iran-Contra affair. Any time that a President does a "hush hush" deal with a foreign country and that deal becomes public knowledge, the President will be the bad guy. This case was especially troubling as guns were essentially traded for American hostages. President Reagan also had his successes, with the biggest being the Arms treaty with the USSR. This deal was something that helped end the Cold War, as it helped to reduce the number of weapons and how close they could be to each country. This was one of many steps that Reagan took to help bring peace during the Cold War.
I believe that the greatest differences between Reagan and Carter's leadership styles lay in the level of assertiveness displayed and the main areas of concentration. Reagan definitely appeared to be more aggressive in his approach to policy, especially foreign policy, than Carter was. As Cory Mcgee cleverly mentioned in her blog comment, Reagan's ability to communicate and inspire emotional responsiveness played a significant role in his foreign policy success of ending the Cold War. Had he not possessed that characteristic, the fall of the Soviet Union could have gone very differently.
ReplyDeleteCarter's approach to the presidency was, or at least appeared to be, much less assertive.
In the aftermath of Nixon’s criminality, Jimmy Carter entered the office on a wave of public support for his promise to deliver both an honest leader and an open government. Carter eschewed some of the more “imperial” powers of the presidency that had been accrued by his recent predecessors and utilized trustee leadership. Carter’s greatest accomplishments were in the energy and environmental protection sectors of government. The demands of the time allowed him to do this being that the recently formed OPEC created a need for a major policy in these areas.
ReplyDeleteDespite his successes, Carter is best known for his failings. His complete failure in the health care domain was partially attributable to his unwillingness to bargain with Congress, although many speculate that his goals would have failed regardless of his skill. Another hit to his administration came in the form of public relations. Carter’s public image was one of a humble peanut farmer with no capacity for artifice, which allowed him to be elected. Later in his presidency, this image backfired as he came to be viewed as incompetent and simple-minded especially during the hostage situation in Tehran.
These shortcomings caused Carter to lose his reelection to Ronald Regan. Regan was a far more conservative leader and had no qualms about using powers some dubbed “imperialistic.” Regan’s largest success was indisputably the ending of the Cold War. This can be attributed to a number of factors including the new soviet leadership, but Regan’s policies certainly had an impact. He actively increased the US military especially in the area of weapons technology. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) generated fear that the US could protect itself from an attack in ways that no other country was capable. Although SDI was unsuccessful in its goals, it still had a psychological influence concerning the Cold War.
Regan’s most notable pitfall was the Iran-Contra affair. The president was caught breaking the law set forth by the Congress when his administration sent funds to support the Contras. He experienced the number one sharpest drop in approval rating within the span of a week when the ratings dropped from 67% to 46% approval.
President Carter came into office when Americans had cause to be suspicious of their executive leader. The Nixon/Ford fiasco certainly wasn't helpful (President Ford being unforgiven for his pardon of President Nixon). His religious and humble background did well to get him into office, but it didn't combat the pessimistic attitude towards the Presidency. I believe President Carter's greatest triumphs are in foreign policy, despite the way historians define his presidency via the Iran Hostage Crisis. The negotiations of the Panama Canal Treaties, Camp David Accords, and the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (II) (which I believe lead the way to the end of the Cold War) are each hefty accomplishments for any president's resume. As for defeats, I would say that President Carter's idealist policies, such as the boycott of the summer olympics in Moscow, only lead to a strain on the President's perception.
ReplyDeletePresident Reagan is known by conservatives for his strong stance against the spread of communism and his "ending of the Cold War," though it is doubtful that his policies should retain all the credit for that. Reagan did earn the nickname "the Great Communicator," and, in my eyes, foreign policy was probably President Reagan's best accomplishment. On the contrary, his failure is his popularization of "trickle-down economics" and his excessive government spending. Though the 80's experienced an economic boost, such a boost was not the consequence of President Reagan, and today conservatives swear by an economic system that leaves corporate CEOs with more money for luxury items and lower-middle class members with empty pockets.
The style, favored policies, and overall record of the Reagan and the Carter presidency present two polarizing perspectives. In terms of style, Reagan provided his key staff with much more room for decision making. The success in the passage of landmark legislation was rendered from effective congressional relations. Furthermore, he was an avid, persuasive speaker with the ability to empathize with the public. In contrast, Jimmy Carter's suspicion towards his staff and members of congress inhibited the passage of potential landmark legislation. It was not only his refusal to cooperate with Washington insiders an obstacle for his presidential success, but his unfamiliarity with the insider crowd led to legislative stalemate.
ReplyDeleteWhile their styles greatly differ, so did their choice of policy. While Reagan succeeded in the passage of landmark legislation which emphasized on substantial tax cuts and on decreasing the size of the federal government despite increasing federal funds directed to Social Security and Medicare. Jimmy Carter's approach advocated environmental and energy legislation. Nonetheless, failure to cooperate with members of his own party served as an obstacle to pass landmark legislation.
Despite the differences in styles and policy views, they both had major triumphs and defeats. If it wasn't for such an impressive public approval rating, Reagan could have been impeached for serious infringement to Constitutional barriers, better known as the Iran-Contra Affair.
Nonetheless, The huge improvement of the economy, excelling ability to handle foreign affairs, and political savvy in the realm of public relations were considerable factors for Reagan's triumphs. Carter's inability to deal swiftly with decision making and tendency to immerse into the specifics of every detail of a particular legislation served as failure that contributed to his re-election loss.
In essence, I would thus consider Reagan as the more effective President with high opportunity in the political environment. Carter had indeed a low-opportunity political environment as his style did not complement the processes in which legislation is enacted.
Reagan was a strong president and he made a lot of strong choices. especially considering communism. He was able to get the support of the people and that enabled him to be a successful president. He was very assertive and he got legislation. On the other hand, Carter was much less assertive and did not get as much done as Reagan did.
ReplyDeleteAs far as their successes and impacts on the perspectives of the American people, Carter and Reagan couldn't be farther apart. Carter took office in 1977, and only lasted one term as presidents. Carters term saw a rise in unemployment, a sharp increase in inflation, and the deterioration of the foreign impression of America. The Iran hostage situation towards the end of his term only worsened his standings in the peoples eyes. Carter was seen as indecisive, and ineffective when he did make a move. Whether the disasters of his term were his fault or not, other presidents have certainly handled such matter more effectively than Carter was able to.
ReplyDeleteReagan, again, was the opposite in every way. His approval rating was very high, save a dip after the Iran Contra scandal, but he handled this gracefully, unlike his predecessor. Under Reagan the economy recovered, although the debt did increase significantly. Almost too perfectly, the Iranians released their American hostages the day of his inauguration. Lastly, the end of his term was met with the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union, and the rise of the US as the sole remaining super power. Reagan had all the success where Carter had failed, and perhaps it is the reflection and comparison between the two the makes Carter deemed so poor when Reagan is widely hailed.
The dynamics of the Carter and Reagan Presidencies introduce substantial and dynamic approaches to executive power. Carter played his position as a humble public servant, dedicated to peace, believing that the U.S. was a nation among many that could play a role in the role. Ronald Reagan used his administration to unapologetically assert U.S. power and destiny, used his charisma to give hope to his citizens and was unafraid to use military might and influence.
ReplyDeleteCarter had a major strength in being a statesman in working toward Middle Eastern peace. He was largely a decent and humble person, which might have made him miscast as being the President of the United States. Carter had the flaw of timing and being unable to move U.S. out of stagflation, foreign policy decline, and a lack of confidence. His policies and weakness in asserting a path were detrimental to his administration.
Something that I found unusual was how people often forget that Reagan suffered two years of recession before the 1984 elections. The country went further into economic decline before rising again. Reagan was strong, assertive in confronting communism, limiting government, and pushing a Judeo-Christian vision of U.S. prominence. His failure to have an effective control over his administration led to the Iran-Contra scandal, and his economic policies have been largely criticized for expanding wealth inequality and poverty. Reagan also had issues coming back from certain scandals, like the bombing of U.S. soldiers in Lebanon and Iran-Contra.
Reagan gets much credit for having a sunny and infectious optimism that was similar to the legendary FDR. Carter has forced his citizens to endure hardships for the coming time. The position of U.S. dominance is a highlight of many American's memories of the 1980s, where we were at the top of our power and prominence. Reagan was a man as fortunate in timing as he was in creating his own destiny, and bringing the nation closer to his dream as the "shinning city on a hill."
We should just make sure not to paper over the flaws of Reagan, and solely remember Carter as a failure.
In my opinion a notable difference between Reagan and Carter was their methodologies while in office. Carter’s main focus was rebuilding the trust of the American public after Watergate. Reagan also focused on the reestablishment the American trust. Although Carter excelled in some areas, international success was hindered due to the Iran Hostage Crisis. Reagan’s ability to not only capture conservatives, but also the majority of the American public brought new appeal to the presidency.
ReplyDelete