Did Jimmy Carter represent the abandonment of New Deal liberalism
>put down the fork and tighten that belt, chud
>>18414737Yes. More specifically he oversaw the end stages of the bi-partisan process to dismantle it that had begun in the 1950's. No longer could a president do as his predecessor Nixon had done and implement price controls, or nationalize industries of state importance, Carter helped dismantle the Governments ability to actually well, govern. The era of corporate supremacy began in earnest.
Jimmy Carter was the last, best chance America had. But no, it had died under LBJ when LBJ didn't go for a second term. And, explicitly, this was because he could not find an answer to the Vietnam War and was too much of a coward to admit failure and work with the NVA for a peace deal. Had LBJ done that in '68, as humiliating as it would be, South Vietnam would still be a country today and the US would have 50x the military presence in asia than present. The Shah would reigned until his death in the early 2000s, as American forces would be close enough to successfully assault the rioting students and IRGC.
>>18414806That was going to happen regardless. Carter at least put brakes on it. Reagan took it all off. But America was already fucked by that point, Nixon shouldn't have been allowed to return and as soon as he won we were on a permanent path ending with Trump. There is a direct line from Richard Nixon to Donald Trump.Today America's economy is out of gas. But in 1970, America was full of gas and wanted to spend it. It was a different time, with all the stuff people really wanted hampered by expensive and limited computers that the iphone totally replaced.
>>18414814lmao what,the only way LBJ could get a peace deal in 1968 would be explicitly handing South Vietnam over to North Vietnam. The reason his efforts failed were because he was the consummate politician that assumed there was some compromise that could leave all parties satisfied when he was dealing with two states that viewed the existence of the other as an existential threat
>>18414816Put the brakes on it? He's the one who shifted it into high gear. Oversaw both a storm of deregulation across all sectors of the economy, and normalized the office of the Presidency being "powerless" to do anything against corporate demand. He and Reagan are two heads of the same snake.
>>18414819Eisenhower could manage to get a peace deal out of Stalin and Mao despite the latter having the advantage. International recognition matters and a real peace would have let the NVA do what they wanted, Communism. They wouldn't get Saigon but Kim didn't get Seoul either. It is a trade that could have easily been made as the USSR is always interested in peace deals. LBJ had more opposition from the CIA and Republicans, Peace Deal '69 would have raped Democrats bad in '70 but the antiwar movement wouldn't have happened.
>>18414820Nixon was already doing that with the Longshoremen strike, Carter couldn't change course. Not that he necessarily would have, but this is really splitting hairs IMO as the US was already on a one way track into hell by this point.
>>18414816TDS
>>18414737yes people like to forget that it was everyone's liberal saint jimmy carter who ushered in neoliberalism. he appointed volcker to the fed and oversaw deregulation of several key industries. reagan took it in hyperdrive and clinton put it under a socially liberal lens, but idk neoliberalism was pretty inevitable after the bankruptcy of nyc in '75.
>>18415761>Clinton>socially liberalcome on now
>>18414741He was right and Americans were too chuddy to accept it
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."-- Frank Zappa
Carter won election almost as a fluke and was unpopular and considered an I can count to potato before he was even in office.
>>18414737>died December 29, 2024, aged 100Regardless of his policies, living to that age is still a feat in and of itself.
>>18415955by 90s standards, yes
>>18416498He was moderate at best and actual liberals back in the 90s were seething about him conceding to Republicans often.
>>18414806>begun in the 1950'shttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
