
The un-celebrity president: Jimmy Carter shuns riches, lives modestly - siberianbear
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/08/17/feature/the-un-celebrity-president-jimmy-carter-shuns-riches-lives-modestly-in-his-georgia-hometown/
======
gumby
Like Cincinnatus, returning home after the war and taking up his plow.

Two things have always struck me about Jimmy Carter:

1 - He was willing to nominate Volker to Fed chair even though he knew
Volker's plan of raising interest rates massively would cost him (Carter) re-
election. I believe he would have survived even the Iran crisis but for that,
but it was the right thing to do. Reagan got all the credit for it since it
started under Carter's watch and finished under Reagan's.

2 - he has such a reputation for Polite gentility and self sacrifice (see
above) yet his maneuvering through the primary season and at the democratic
convention was masterful -- he was dispassionate but brutal in putting the
(political) knife into rivals, and was happy to do so publicly. That
genteel/man of the people schtick extended to his use of the pronunciation
"nukular" even though he had worked for Rickover and attended to the navy's
nuclear school!

A complex guy whether you like him or not.

~~~
madengr
The Iranian hostages were released the day of Reagan’s inauguration. Reagan
would have bombed Iran. Carter’s diplomacy were just about effective as
Obama’s lines in the sand. Sometimes diplomacy through a gun barrel is needed.

~~~
detaro
Reagan, whose government later sold weapons to Iran while talking up an
embargo to keep Iran away from the Soviets and to potentially help release
hostages from Lebanon? Got a source on that claim?

------
pmyteh
Jimmy Carter is without question one of the all-time great ex-presidents.
Whatever the successes or failings of his administration, he's used his time
since to improve the world, and is honest, uncorrupt, and suitably
(ex-)presidential.

~~~
BrainInAJar
Funny you should say that on the anniversary of the Gwangju uprising, where
Jimmy Carter sent the military to go massacre students protesting the US-
installed military dictatorship in South Korea

~~~
tenken
Can you please provide a source for this info?

I can't find Jimmy Carter's name in this research:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising)

~~~
BrainInAJar
[http://articles.latimes.com/1996-10-07/local/me-51336_1_sout...](http://articles.latimes.com/1996-10-07/local/me-51336_1_south-
korea)

~~~
hfdgiutdryg
Your claim that, "Jimmy Carter sent the military to go massacre students" is
not supported by that article. It was an interesting read, though.

~~~
leereeves
> According to declassified U.S. documents I obtained under the Freedom of
> Information Act, the Carter administration gave prior approval to Chun to
> use the army to quell the wave of unrest that shook South Korea in the
> spring of 1980. The hundreds of State Department and Pentagon cables
> contradict the official U.S. claims that the Carter administration was
> surprised by Chun's resort to force and had no advance knowledge he was
> deploying paratroopers trained to fight in North Korea against his own
> citizens.

~~~
hfdgiutdryg
Again, your claim that, "Jimmy Carter sent the military to go massacre
students" is not supported by that article.

You appear to have a reading comprehension problem.

------
siberianbear
I decided to submit this because I have always been fascinated with Jimmy
Carter. What a genuine, decent person. But history has judged him as one of
the worst presidents.

I was in third grade when Carter was running for re-election against Ronald
Reagan. Our teacher gave us an assignment to create a campaign poster for your
favorite candidate. I chose Jimmy Carter, and added the campaign slogan, "I
will gladly trade peanuts for the American hostages" (referring to to Carter's
history as a farmer and to the Iran hostage crisis [1]). I thought I was
really clever at the time, but now I think I was just being a stupid smartass.

Whenever I have seen Carter in the press since his presidency, it always seems
like he is going something unambiguously good, like building houses with
Habitat for Humanity or trying to negotiate peace agreements between
unfriendly countries as an unbiased mediator.

I think we won't have this great man with us for much longer. The world will
be a worse place when he departs.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis)

~~~
tonyedgecombe
_But history has judged him as one of the worst presidents._

I wonder if that is a fair judgement or whether he was just the victim of the
economic cycle and external forces.

~~~
paulpauper
Not stopping the overthrow of the Shah (and then admitting him to the United
States) may have been a mistake because of the hostage crisis that unfolded
and also created geopolitical instability that continues to this day.

~~~
EvilEndures
> Not stopping the overthrow of the Shah (and then admitting him to the United
> States) may have been a mistake because of the hostage crisis that unfolded
> and also created geopolitical instability that continues to this day.

Fighting to defend a dictator the West effectively installed to suppress a
populist movement was unlikely to have a better outcome than the Shah being
ousted.

People in the West seem to forget the Iranian Revolution was _extremely_
popular in Iran.

Why was it popular?

Because the Shah was a corrupt and oppressive regime that was hated by the
Iranian people. The Iranian Revolution wasn't the first time he was forced out
of Iran either.

This delusion that Iran could be "ruled" by the Shah as a positive outcome
needs to stop. It isn't borne out by the facts and it would have ended up
collapsing eventually. Popular leaders don't need organizations like SAVAK to
torture its own people.

------
ethbro
If you're interested in where Carter came from, I can't recommend _An Hour
Before Daylight_ [1] highly enough. The man's a great writer, and he grew up
in a fascinating time and place.

You've also got to give a lot of respect to someone who could have made
themselves much wealthier, but said "No."

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Hour-Before-Daylight-Memories-
Boyhood...](https://www.amazon.com/Hour-Before-Daylight-Memories-
Boyhood/dp/0743211995/)

~~~
humanrebar
Lots of people take off work to be with their family. Lots of people work for
non-profits as a career. Great teachers are notoriously underpaid. Though most
of them don't write memoirs.

~~~
yborg
Most of them were not elected President of the United States.

------
m_alexgr
Jimmy has his priorities straight. A humble man who tells the truth. And knows
what is most important in this life. Hint: it's neither wealth nor power.

~~~
rectang
I get you, but rhetorical power is just another form of power. Carter
maximizes the power of his truths by eschewing wealth and direct
organizational power.

~~~
pulisse
It's true (pretty much by definition) that rhetorical power is a form of
power. But it's a further, cynical step to conclude that if someone acts in a
way that confers rhetorical authority, they must be doing so just for the sake
of that authority. You're assuming away the possibility that someone might be
genuinely acting, at least in part, from principle.

~~~
rectang
I disagree that it's cynical. I think maximizing the power of your ideas and
principles is laudable, and can have great returns. Tying ethics to tangible
reality _increases_ the value and urgency of ethical behavior.

------
pmiller2
How has no one pointed out after 8 hours that this man who “shuns riches”
receives a pension that puts him in the 97.7th percentile of income[0], a
fully funded office, medical benefits, and no housing costs other than
property tax? For a majority of America, that would be riches beyond belief.
Let’s not forget he plays golf with billionaires.

I’m sure Mr. Carter donates a substantial portion of his income and lives
rather modestly by choice, but most people don’t have that choice.

Edit: slight numerical correction, source.

[0]: [https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-
calculator/](https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/)

~~~
mattkrause
I’m not really sure where you’re going with this.

The point of the article, it seems to me, is that he has consciously chosen a
modest, communitarian life, even though he could certainly arrange for more
lavish surroundings.

Is your argument that he’s paid too much? If so, what do you think is
reasonable compensation for one of the most stressful jobs on earth?

~~~
pmiller2
My point is that we have a system of government that is for and by the rich,
where billionaires tell the millionaires in government what they want, and
then they get it. Your opinion does not matter to them [0].

Someone receiving a $206K/year pension, according to the 4% safe withdrawal
method, is the equivalent of having $5.1M in a retirement account, except this
is better, because it doesn’t run out. Most people won’t see that much money
over their entire careers. This is not someone we should hold up and say “this
person shunned riches,” because it’s not true.

[0]: [https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-
congr...](https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-
doesnt-care-what-you-think)

~~~
mattkrause
Sure, he has access to money—-no argument there—-and his life will always be
comfortable.

On the other hand, how can you say that he’s not shunning riches, or at least
their trappings? They live in Plains, Georgia. Their big Sunday dinner is
casserole and one Solo cup of “bargain Chardonnay” with the neighbors. They
turned down living quarters in favor of a pull-out couch in their office. It’s
not at all the stereotypical lifestyle of someone with millions in the bank.
Hell, parts of it make my lifestyle (academic scientist) seem opulent—-we at
least have IKEA wineglasses!

------
musgrove
He's not the exception. Our presidents who leave office and amass enormous
wealth (as well as celebrities and wealthy people Americans want to vote into
office) are the global exceptions. Most "civil servants" in other countries
serve their terms and go back to their regular jobs. The real story would be
why America is the cultural anomaly.

~~~
pasbesoin
Truly, we in the U.S. need to look _at ourselves_ for what we have wrought and
currently suffer under.

We claim to want these things, then attack those who manifest them.

We preach understanding and forgiveness, then refuse to exercise it in
understanding limitations others face -- external as well as internal -- and
working with them to improve things.

No society's perfect. But, America has managed to raise sloth and hypocrisy to
new levels.

As I've aged and observed, I've come to think of us more and more, as and
become a bully nation.

Of course, a man like Carter doesn't "fit" into that. Which is a credit to
him.

Or, depending upon your perspective, his ultimate failing.

(Something I associate with all too well.)

------
rectang
Modest living sets individuals and their ideas free.

~~~
WillPostForFood
_The tennis court at former President Jimmy Carter’s private home is swept
twice a day, his pool is cleaned daily and his grass cut, his flower beds
weeded and his windows washed on a regular basis — all at taxpayers’ expense_

Relatively modest.

~~~
mattkrause
From a few lines below in that article:

“President Carter would be glad to reduce the frequency of routine maintenance
at the discretion of the Park Service,” Ms. Congileo said.”

The back story is that he donated the house to the National Park Service. And,
as even the Republican who oversaw that said, the cost is essentially a
rounding error.

------
ornel
We remember him in Panama for signing the treaty that gave us back the Canal
and the surrounding military bases. He's the only US president I would shake
hands with

~~~
musgrove
You should check out "Panama's Rusty Lock."

------
iambateman
I loved the quip about the presidential cooler that they use to store
leftovers.

President Carter is the kind of down-to-earth person I would want to hang out
with, while at the same time using his position to build thousands of homes
and fight river blindness and give vaccines to millions of people.

I wonder if another person like him will ever ascend to lead the United
States.

~~~
ethbro
I generally try to vote for the presidential candidate who grew up with
greater economic hardship. It tends to be a pretty decent predictor of
character. (Admittedly, a pool selected for those who did _and_ who rose to
become candidates)

No comment on the opposite...

~~~
r00fus
Regressing one step further you could also vote in the primary for the same
criteria (within reason).

------
RickJWagner
An admirable man. He is doing great work today.

His leadership came at a tough time, and he did not bring prosperity. The
country did much better under his successor, Reagan.

We all have potential for good, in our own ways.

------
marcoperaza
He has yet to apologize for going to Venezuela and legitimizing the re-
election of Hugo Chavez, who was violently repressing independent media and
rounding up dissidents, by calling the Venezuelan election process "the best
in the world".

~~~
humanrebar
The downvote brigade in this thread belies the appreciation of a kinder, more
civil approach to public life.

------
tessi3r
Easy for a lame-duck to say...

------
DanielGee
The most "un-celebrity"? I'd say carter is the most "celebrity" ex-president
we've had in a long time. He has used his celebrity to advocate for his
charities ( habitat for humanity for example ) and for human rights ( same sex
marriage, race equality, etc ) and political issues ( north korea, iran, etc
).

If you equate celebrity with making it rain in clubs, then I guess carter is
"un-celebrity". But the guy has been the most visible ex-president in media.
Think that makes him the most celebrity ex-president in history.

~~~
freddie_mercury
I just read a story about Obama and Arethra Franklin yet you think Carter is
the most visible ex-president?

~~~
humanrebar
OK. Second most celebrity is fair. Why downvote a valid opinion, folks?

~~~
freddie_mercury
I didn't downvote you but my guess: because your "opinion" included facts that
were so obviously incorrect that they could only be the result of tremendous
amounts of bias that make you unable to correctly judge reality. Which makes
your "opinion" not a useful contribution on a site that (tries to) value
correctness.

If you were able to express your opinion without resorting to tremendous
amounts of hyperbolism that make it trivially easy to imagine you as a
frothing-at-the-mouth partisan you probably would have been able to more
effectively convey whatever it was you wanted to get across to the readers at
HackerNews.

~~~
humanrebar
That wasn't my post.

------
megamindbrian2
His privilege is showing. Just like only 10% of the America is rich, only 10%
of the world has at most a lower class American standard of living.

