Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use.
However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution. Source: Eras. Jan, Vol. Author s : Haidar, Danny. A shortage of raw materials, of arable land, or of pure air, are all real conditions that must be accepted and then corrected or accommodated. Dealing with limitations wisely and successfully is a sign of greatness.
Business should readily understand this concept. Limits are taken for granted in the competitive arena. Alternative products are on the market. Competitors are striving to be better, more desirable, or more efficient than you are. In business, limits are acknowledged and expected. The same principle should apply to political leadership. Yet that message of limits and restraints is tough to convey, particularly in politics. And I was not always successful in getting it across. This way of thinking is very attractive to the American people.
These are messages they like to hear. And if someone is poor, or destitute, or deprived, it must be because God looks on them with disfavor. But it is a politically attractive approach. Part of leadership is telling people news they may not want to hear.
Is another part willingness to hear bad news from advisers? The stronger and more self-assured a leader is the more likely he or she is to seek diversity of advice. I deliberately chose advisers with disparate points of view. The media criticized this as indicating disharmony in my administration. But especially in matters of foreign policy, I wanted the very conservative, stable, and cautionary reaction of the State Department on the one hand and the more dynamic, innovative advice from the National Security Council staff on the other hand.
Sometimes the two points of view conflicted. But in foreign policy and defense, the final decisions were always mine. I wanted a broad assortment of opinions before I made a judgment. In general, the American people credit the president with excessive power and authority in the field of economics. A little, but not much. He can affect the budget deficit. In economics and finance, the president must share authority with a tremendous free enterprise system and with the Congress and the Federal Reserve Board.
But in matters of foreign policy and defense, the president does have tremendous power and unique authority. Occasionally, he can even act unilaterally. Because there is a misapprehension among the American people about this delineation of power, one responsibility of the executive officer is to define his or her authority and influence properly.
I was not against using my legal authority to a maximum degree, but I was very careful to make sure that it was legal and proper when I did exercise authority. As stated earlier, I also consulted with others as much as possible.
Whenever I made a decision concerning foreign policy or defense, I worked it out in advance, initially with the secretary of state, secretary of defense, the joint chiefs of staff, the National Security Council, and the key members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. He was beset by a staggering economy and an oil crisis fomented by the Iranian revolution.
Kennedy took a commanding lead in the polls even before his November launch announcement. Gallup measured Jimmy Carter's approval rating at a low of 28 percent in June He would rebound, briefly, in the early stages of the Iran hostage crisis.
But Kennedy crumbled under the weight of two developments: one of his own making, and one far beyond his control. Three days before his announcement, CBS aired a Kennedy interview with Roger Mudd that became legendary for Kennedy's inability to coherently answer the simple question of why he was running for president.
Ironically, the other saving grace for Carter was the seizure of American hostages in Iran on the same day the Mudd interview aired. The immediate effect was a surge in Carter's approval rating. The hostage crisis would ultimately prove to be a large part of Carter's undoing in the general election against Ronald Reagan, but it benefited Carter in early primary states.
Carter ran off a string of primary victories, interrupted only by Kennedy's home-state win in Massachusetts. Though they battled through the rest of the spring, Kennedy's fate had been sealed. So, too, had Carter's. Kennedy had driven a wedge through the heart of the Democratic Party. At the Democratic National Convention, his speech further divided the party, and he forced Carter to chase him to try to arrange a unity photograph.
It wasn't the reason Carter lost, but it was a moment of national embarrassment for the sitting president heading into the general election. Carter couldn't recover from the Iran hostage crisis. His failed April attempt to rescue the hostages, dubbed "Operation Eagle Claw," was such a colossal debacle that more than 20 years later, Defense Secretary Bob Gates, who was an intelligence official at the time, cited it in his initial opposition to the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
Kennedy wasn't able to capitalize on it because Carter already had wrapped up most of the Democratic primaries by then, but that aborted mission, in which eight service members were killed, was part of a larger narrative of Carter's weakness that helped sweep Reagan to victory. Reagan won of the electoral votes, carrying all of Carter's Deep South base outside of Georgia. When Carter returned home after his defeat, he had little idea what to do with himself, other than write a memoir and build a presidential library.
He describes the genesis of his post-presidency as an epiphany he had one night. He could use his power to convene world leaders to mediate conflicts. That's been at the core of the Carter Center's mission for nearly 35 years. Those who know Carter well say that if he had won a second term, he wouldn't have been the man to define the term "post-presidency.
For years, even presidents of his own party have kept careful distance from a man who has consistently been rated by historians in the bottom tiers of US presidents. As Brinkley observed , Clinton shunned Carter at almost every turn, including issuing a weak and sure-to-be-turned-down invitation to attend the Democratic convention in Chicago.
Clinton, a fellow Southern Democrat, had lost his first gubernatorial reelection bid after Carter placed Cuban refugees in Arkansas. True to form, Carter has defined his post-presidency pursuits by his perception of what is right, regardless of whether it's politically popular. In some cases, such as his involvement with Habitat for Humanity and his efforts to rid developing countries of guinea worm and other diseases, there's either broad support for the work or little controversy surrounding it.
But he's repeatedly made himself a lightning rod by conducting unofficial diplomacy, criticizing Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, and publicly chastising his successors on foreign policy — upending the traditional notion that politics end at the water's edge. He's met with tyrants and terrorists, including officials from Hamas. That episode "exemplified Carter's post-presidential career," Princeton historian and political scientist Julian Zelizer wrote :.
Carter defiantly took unpopular stands about foreign affairs, but stands that he fervently believed in, displaying almost no concern about who would dislike him as a result. With Clinton's secret approval, Carter helped negotiate a nuclear nonproliferation accord with North Korea that was later undone by the Bush administration, which charged that Pyongyang wouldn't abide by it.
But even in that case, Carter angered Clinton administration officials by going on CNN to announce a deal before the White House was ready to sign off. In March , he warned against the pending invasion of Iraq, calling it an unjust war in a New York Times op-ed. He had also opposed the Iraq War. More recently, he accused Obama of having "waited too long" to combat the rise of the Islamic State.
That penchant for speaking his mind, for giving voice to ideas, issues, and people who have little power, has further isolated him from official Washington and polite American political society. But it has also provided a unique service to his country, and the world, in elevating issues of human rights, peacemaking, racial equality, poverty reduction, and disease eradication.
It's not enough to respect Carter for his decency and his diligence while treating him like a political leper. He's always desired the respect of his peers and the public more than he's wanted to be included in any club. His self-righteousness almost demands exclusion. But even when he's wrong, and even when his actions serve to inflate that sense of self-righteousness, Carter's persistent appeal is to our better angels.
That's a rare quality in life, and even rarer still in the realm of politics. For that, the ultimate outsider deserves full recognition as a great American leader. Unbeknownst to the residents, Hooker Chemical had been dumping toxic wastes into the canal making the site unsuitable for human occupation.
During the s, a growing number of complaints to the public health department led to the realization that the area was extremely unsafe. Not only was Love Canal unsafe, it turned out, but so were a number of sites across the United States.
President Carter was more interested in creating comprehensive solutions than scoring political points. He wanted to fix the problem at all of the hazardous waste sites across America. Unlike the more recent Wall Street bailouts, Carter believed that those responsible should pay the costs for their misdeeds. The financial burden for solving this problem would fall on the shoulders of those who had created it.
What a novel idea! Special legislation was enacted that became known as the Superfund and, on December 11, , shortly before he left office, President Carter approved the Superfund to control toxic wastes at sites throughout the United States. President Carter was the first leader to provide a comprehensive assessment of the environmental challenges confronting humankind.
Destruction of the ozone layer, increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and alteration of oceanic flow patterns are examples of the problems we must understand before changes are irreversible or the consequences inevitable. In , we released the Global Report and it was a an eyeopener and it really gave birth to this international environmental agenda.
This represented the most serious accident in U. Given the lax regulatory standards put in place before Jimmy Carter became president, the crisis tested his leadership. Once again, he sought a comprehensive solution to the problem.
His administration was the first to rewrite the regulations which governed the nuclear power industry. More stringent standards meant a reduced likelihood that future accidents would occur as subsequent history has demonstrated. He had campaigned for the presidency by telling people he had served as a nuclear physicist and nuclear engineer in the navy.
Carter traveled to the site of the damaged nuclear facility to reassure a frightened public. He followed his visit with the establishment of a presidential commission which recommended stringent standards for the future operations of any nuclear power plant in the United States. Jimmy Carter continued to live the values and champion the causes in which he believed long after leaving the presidency.
Carter, unlike all of his successors, has refused to be paid for giving speeches. Nor has he been paid for sitting on corporate boards. The only income he receives, outside of his government pension, is through the sales of his books. Like other presidents, Carter uses his particular type of celebrity to raise money.
0コメント