Saying you like Jimmy Carter is broadcasting that you are a bleeding heart liberal. I take it your anon isn't, hence the dig. This is how it is in the US nowadays: obnoxious. Many conservatives consider Jimmy to be the worst president in US history, and Reagan the greatest. I'm certainly cutting a lot out here, but that's the gist of it.
Carter came in at a strange time in American history, where the political culture was trying to shake off the scandal of Watergate. He was really, not a man meant to be President, and I mean that with all due respect. He is, seemingly, a sincere, intelligent and caring man and successful businessman who tried to do what was right, but seemed overmatched by the position. It seems like the factors at play at the time (economy, political turmoil, Iran, Cold War) would conspire to scuttle any president.
People that remember the Iran hostage crisis and the lines at the gas pump blame him for those things. Let's not talk about Reagan trading arms to Iran for the hostages via Israel and funneling the funds to the Contras in Nicaragua. Nobody wants to hear about that stuff, especially not your run of the mill right wingnut.
Trust me, I'm no Reagan apologist. But I don't think you can view any president's success simply by their party affiliation. Simply stated - they can't have had no success simply because they had failures...because all of them have had both on varying scales.
As a registered Democrat, would i elect Jimmy Carter today (the younger version)? No, sorry. I just don't think his particular skillset was best suited for executive governmental leadership. Saying that doesn't mean I have to like Reagan - I don't. Though I do think that Ronnie had some positive impact on the country in terms of leadership and belief in ourselves. Like him or not, he restored some of the pride that was stolen during Watergate (only to sully that legacy with Iran-Contra).
To me, some of my faves:
-First term Clinton
-Polk (yes Polk)
Final scene of Game of Thrones where heads are depicted on spikes after 'traitors' have been executed (trying not to spoil for anyone) - one of the heads on the spikes is George W. Bush's head, barely disguised!
Republicans are going batshit, and calling for all good conservo-trons to boycott the show.
The producers say they didn't even notice till after the show aired and a fan pointed it out, that they rent 'prosthetics of all kinds in bulk' and that there was no slight intended to W.
Look, I doubt it was intentional, so there's that. There's better things to get worked up about.
But I can see why some might be unnerved or upset by it. Its a violent image of a real person who inspired animosity among some. If it was intentional, it only adds to the versus climate in America right now.
Is it a huge deal - no, but I'd be lying if I said people would not be worked up if it was Obama or Clinton, or anyone seen as an active part of the current political climate.
I thought you didn't read the posts between your "actual discussion."
Tsk, tsk. Tell us again how if it had been Obama or Clinton blah blah blah? I don't think Fox has covered that enough yet. CNN is a little slack on "Bush is the worst president of ALL TIME." That's Squid's part, though. Can't have that.
I'll tell you what, I'll pretend we're engaging rationally.
My point is not whether the image matters...the fact that its open for discussion is likely just another unforeseen disadvantage to this whole internet thing.
My point is, if you happen to be more left of center, I don't think you can deny that even if you didn't react to a image of Obama or Clinton like that, you can't deny that there are people that would be up in arms about it and making it news (or news that was making it news).
the polarization works both ways...neither the left or the right has a monopoly on rational behavior.
I would have actually paid for the DVD box set if all the heads were former presidents.
I think all outgoing presidents should have to face a national approval poll. If they score less than 40%, then their head should go on a spike on the White House lawn for the new president to look at and ponder during his term.
I bet we'd suddenly start having useful presidents.
In a not at all pedantic way - but in the spirit that I know you'd be interested in this, Hep...
That quote (as you suspected) isn't de Tocqueville.
Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) wrote in 1811: Toute nation a le gouvernement quelle merite. ("Every nation has the government it deserves.") De Maistre was credited with the saying in the 19th century, but it became popular in the United States in the 20th century, frequently without credit to De Maistre.
A popular version is In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve, with an incorrect credit to Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), author of Democracy in America. Many have questioned the statement, arguing that it blames the victim (citizens/voters) for bad regimes that cannot easily be voted outeven in a democracy.
It goes on to say that de Maistre was a hereditary monarchist and a big fan of hierarchy. More if you're interested:
Yeah, I knew it probably wasn't de Tocqueville. That's why I put (possibly) after. I tried briefly to look it up, but it kept coming back to him.
Should have gone with this gem from George Carlin instead, "Where do you think American politicians come from? They come from the American people. You got fat, stupid and lazy people - you get fat, stupid, and lazy politicians. Garbage in, garbage out."
I believe he said it with more swear words though.
And he was right. From my experience, Sarah Palin represents the average American much better than Barack Obama does, and I don't mean that as a complement.
I tend to agree with the critics of that argument though, that there are forces in play that are larger than the body politic being stupid alone. I mean, they're certainly responsible at some point since 1776 for letting it happen... but as I noted in my plutocracy thread the other day - it's pretty hard for the little guy to get much done in the face of being out-shouted by a billion dollars to $300.
I mean look at the 99% movement. Does anyone deny that it's probably a good thing that we have a conversation about wealth distribution in our country? Yet those folks were belittled, reviled, marginalized, called trustifarians, stinky hippies, tased, and fairly systematically discredited to the point where I wonder if we can truly say they accomplished much. I mean, it's not like they prevented J.P. Morgan from losing, what, $7 Billion last month.
Please understand I'm not opening a debate about the relative merits of the 99% movement - I'm questioning whether ANY movement can succeed that's not fully supported by the plutocracy.
As exhibit B, I'll submit the Tea Party movment. I think the plutocracy was a little bit split on whether this movement of the hoi polloi either served or hurt their interests. I think a lot of moderate Republicans with money were seriously turned off by the social conservatives co-opting the Tea Party and moved to distance themselves (and their money) from them. A lot of other Republicans embraced them. So the outcome of this rift within their party was first it being a contributing factor McCain's loss to Obama, second some significant gains in Congress, and third utter gridlock as the Republican establishment couldn't control the monster they created by electing all of these morons.
So in the end, the Tea Party hasn't really succeeded in its mission either, right? We forge ahead on Government spending - just on spending things the plutocracy wants.
So, I think a fairer statement since Citizens United is, "Well, it's still better than Burma for the average Joe. Just try to work within the system and enjoy your 80 years or so." I mean, stick a fork in representative participitory democracy - it's done.
But the whole reason that a billion dollars can buy an election is because people are too stupid to realize when they are being pandered to, too lazy to do their own research, and complete suckers for slick marketing.