The Carter Presidency And The Game Of Thrones

[bent branch]

I just popped in to say modern politics and ASOIAF really don't mix, but after reading people's comments I will also make a recommendation for "White Trash. The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America" by Nancy Isenberg. It is a history book and may help some see this last election in a wider context. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

I always took it to mean that being a good person doesn’t necessarily make you a good ruler. However, I see a number of people take an extra step and seem to think that being a good person stops you being a good ruler, and I don’t necessarily think that.

Certain qualities that make you a good person might get in the way of effective ruling, as Ned’s experience proves – it means that you might have trouble getting your hands dirty in politics, it means you might not be ruthless at a time when ruthlessness, etc is necessary. However, there are drawbacks to being a bad person too, when trying to rule. We’ve seen with the Boltons and the Freys that a reputation for treachery and cruelty means that many people with have a problem trusting or being loyal to you, some will hate you. It was exactly the reputation for honour that meant that Northerners loved the Starks. I wonder whether Roose Bolton’s tenure as Warden of the North will last as long and be as successful as Ned’s?

I’m not saying being a good person is all that’s needed to be a good ruler, but it has a lot of uses that I think can often be overlooked when we head it too cynical a direction. We could look at two extremes – Maegor and Jaenaerys I . The former was vicious, the latter generally considered “good”. The latter was by far the more successful king, by any measure.

I’ve said on here before when we’ve discussed similar topics – there’s a strong argument to be made for there being a pragmatic case for morality. People would often like to know that their ruler will be fair and honest. They are more likely to support a “good person” than a bad person, all else being equal.

[Dorian Martell's son]

Much of what happened with Carter during his presidency were things that were out of his control.  Fickle american attention spans, a lack of good civics education and the inability to see beyond an election cycle, combined with tactics perfected by Lee Atwater are why Carter is remembered as a less than stellar president.  

[Moiraine Sedai]

3 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I always took it to mean that being a good person doesn’t necessarily make you a good ruler. However, I see a number of people take an extra step and seem to think that being a good person stops you being a good ruler, and I don’t necessarily think that.

Certain qualities that make you a good person might get in the way of effective ruling, as Ned’s experience proves – it means that you might have trouble getting your hands dirty in politics, it means you might not be ruthless at a time when ruthlessness, etc is necessary. However, there are drawbacks to being a bad person too, when trying to rule. We’ve seen with the Boltons and the Freys that a reputation for treachery and cruelty means that many people with have a problem trusting or being loyal to you, some will hate you. It was exactly the reputation for honour that meant that Northerners loved the Starks. I wonder whether Roose Bolton’s tenure as Warden of the North will last as long and be as successful as Ned’s?

I’m not saying being a good person is all that’s needed to be a good ruler, but it has a lot of uses that I think can often be overlooked when we head it too cynical a direction. We could look at two extremes – Maegor and Jaenaerys I . The former was vicious, the latter generally considered “good”. The latter was by far the more successful king, by any measure.

I’ve said on here before when we’ve discussed similar topics – there’s a strong argument to be made for there being a pragmatic case for morality. People would often like to know that their ruler will be fair and honest. They are more likely to support a “good person” than a bad person, all else being equal.

I would not go so far in praising the Starks.  They are not universally well-regarded.  The current generation are quite the barbarians. 

[Angel Eyes]

29 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

I would not go so far in praising the Starks.  They are not universally well-regarded.  The current generation are quite the barbarians. 

Well, there’s nobody else to root for since they’re the closest thing to a good family we have in the setting. Who doesn’t like a nice family? Should we root for Tywin’s treatment of Tyrion?

[A Ghost of Someone]

Jimmy Carter was/is Book Smart but just was inept in a position of that Magnitude.

[Guest]

Presidents and kings are difficult to compare but I suppose a good king should make the land and people prosper just like a president. 

I think GRRM would prefer if his endgame rulers found a balance between fighting dirty and appealing to honor, in the service of making the land prosper. I think Sansa will be really important here - she will be able to push for reforms. She'll bewitch them. 

Re: Jon. If people are flayed and terrorized by Ramsay what difference does it make if Jon saves them from the Others? Qhorin wants to warn the Starks because he knows they can rally the North. How could Jon even accomplish that as Mr. Impartial Lord Commander? I think Jon's only mistake was announcing his intentions so boldly and attacking without really understanding his enemy first. 

Sometimes I wonder if people would rather Jon chop his dick off and get a lobotomy the way they want him to become a slave to their very particular version of "duty." Its like they want Unsullied!Jon.

[Varysblackfyre321]

15 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Certain qualities that make you a good person might get in the way of effective ruling, as Ned’s experience proves – it means that you might have trouble getting your hands dirty in politics, it means you might not be ruthless at a time when ruthlessness, etc is necessary. However, there are drawbacks to being a bad person too, when trying to rule. We’ve seen with the Boltons and the Freys that a reputation for treachery and cruelty means that many people with have a problem trusting or being loyal to you, some will hate you. It was exactly the reputation for honour that meant that Northerners loved the Starks. I wonder whether Roose Bolton’s tenure as Warden of the North will last as long and be as successful as Ned’s?

This seems to be conflating reputation with being  actually good. Like LF has committed treason throughout the series for strictly his self-advancement-and the man isn’t known to be disloyal and unrealiable, because he isn’t brazen about his treachery, and mindful of the potential backlash of his actions. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 10/21/2018 at 11:09 AM, Enuma Elish said:

A quiet land.  A quiet people.  With that in mind, Aerys was getting the job done because Westeros was prosperous under his rule.  True, his appointees were responsible for the success but he was smart enough to pick capable advisers.   Despite his brutality, men like Roose Bolton can be good leaders.  George is willing to overlook injustice as long as peace is kept and prosperity is taking place.  

True to a degree. If Aerys’ reign is ever to be honestly evaluated the things that people would look at is how his actions affected the kingdom as a whole, not how his actions affected a select group of individuals whose suffering or comfort, did not affect his kingdom; like his appointment of Tywin was a good decision and totally acceptable to give credit to him as a King; the fact he raped his queen on a nightly basis or raped plenty of servent women  in the red keep does not.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

Just now, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This seems to be conflating reputation with being  actually good. Like LF has committed treason throughout the series for strictly his self-advancement-and the man isn’t known to be disloyal and unrealiable, because he isn’t brazen about his treachery, and mindful of the potential backlash of his actions. 

Well, one way of building a reputation for being good is being good. 

Of course, you could be a shitty person with good PR, though in my experience most people eventually see through that.

My point was quite a simple one though. Being honourable and honest fosters loyalty and respect. It's the kind of quality you can take to the bank. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

11 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

I would not go so far in praising the Starks.  They are not universally well-regarded.  The current generation are quite the barbarians. 

If you don't substantiate statements like that, it comes across as if you are trolling. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Well, one way of building a reputation for being good is being good. 

Of course, you could be a shitty person with good PR, though in my experience most people eventually see through that.

My point was quite a simple one though. Being honourable and honest fosters loyalty and respect. It's the kind of quality you can take to the bank. 

Another way is simply doing enough good things in public to get people thinking you’re good-like LF, whose now in control of 2 provinces in theory, and was honestly considered by Jaimie to be the next hand.

Not necessarily and I would wager not nearly as often as you or I think is should. 

Of course that’s why LF tries to foster a reputation of having honor, and being honest. 

My point was there was no innate advantage from being a good person-being honest, and honorable, are things plenty “bad”people could do by virtue of it being practical-like keeping your word, and being honest, make people more inclined to work with you. They do need to have some degree of empathy. 

A good ruler, should know all these things, he should know when to lie, when to be honest, when to be dishonorable. 

Tywin was not a successful career because he did bad things all the time-he was successful because he could most of the time figure out what he needed to do in the moment. If he needed to be merciful, he was merciful. If he needed to be merciless, he was merciless. He was adaptive or at least tried to do whatever was called for in a given situation. 

 

[Bernie Mac]

17 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

 It was exactly the reputation for honour that meant that Northerners loved the Starks.

No, it was not. No idea why this is constantly brought up. The Starks, like the other Overlords, rule through a mixture of fear and respect. 

Honour is not nearly as important as either. 

17 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I wonder whether Roose Bolton’s tenure as Warden of the North will last as long and be as successful as Ned’s?

Of course it won't, but it is a pretty dumb comparison to begin with. Ned's family have ruled the North for thousands of years and his reign was backed up by his close allies the King of Westeros and the Lords of the Riverlands and Vale. Roose has taken over a fractured North. Had the  Crown chosen a  Northerner who had been honourable his whole life it  would have made little difference to Stannis, the Stark loyalists or other factions that were ambitious and saw a weakened Warden.

 

 

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Another way is simply doing enough good things in public to get people thinking you’re good-like LF, whose now in control of 2 provinces in theory, and was honestly considered by Jaimie to be the next hand.

Not necessarily and I would wager not nearly as often as you or I think is should. 

Of course that’s why LF tries to foster a reputation of having honor, and being honest. 

My point was there was no innate advantage from being a good person-being honest, and honorable, are things plenty “bad”people could do by virtue of it being practical-like keeping your word, and being honest, make people more inclined to work with you. They do need to have some degree of empathy. 

A good ruler, should know all these things, he should know when to lie, when to be honest, when to be dishonorable. 

Tywin was not a successful career because he did bad things all the time-he was successful because he could most of the time figure out what he needed to do in the moment. If he needed to be merciful, he was merciful. If he needed to be merciless, he was merciless. He was adaptive or at least tried to do whatever was called for in a given situation. 

 

I don't think we're disagreeing all that much to be honest. 

There are advantages and disadvantages to both pure cynicism and to rigid honourable behaviour, of course. 

A healthy balance of pragmatism and morality is to be preferred, and when to deploy one or the other, and to what degree, is the essence of wielding power I think.

[Darth Sidious]

On 10/20/2018 at 1:25 PM, Mordred said:

Our favorite author has expressed on more than one interview that he believes Jimmy Carter was truly a good man.  However, he has also said of Carter that he was not a good president.  What does the author consider a failure of the Carter presidency?   Was it the failed hostage rescue mission?  

Pls. Admins, do not delete this post.  It has real politics but I believe the answer will shed some light on our author's ideas. 

I can't wait to hear what George thinks of the Trump administration.  What he says may surprise us.

[Angel Eyes]

On 10/21/2018 at 7:15 PM, SFDanny said:

Absolutely NOT George's message.

Good. Just checking.

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 10/22/2018 at 3:20 PM, Angel Eyes said:

Well, there’s nobody else to root for since they’re the closest thing to a good family we have in the setting. Who doesn’t like a nice family? Should we root for Tywin’s treatment of Tyrion?

There are plenty of people to root for.  They're all in Essos for me.

I have never liked the Starks.  That's probably why I get a delight when their enemies give them a beating.

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

On 10/20/2018 at 8:36 PM, John Suburbs said:

Hey there old timer. I remember the Carter years very well too. How about Watergate? I remember there were no good TV shows on for a good two weeks because of the all-day hearing coverage. And both mom and dad were pissed because they were Nixon supporters going back to 1960.

To the OP: the Carter admin was a time of general uneasiness about American democracy and our ability to compete in an increasingly statist-leaning world economy. The word of the day was malaise. Carter seemed ill-equipped to change course, although he did accomplish several notable feats, including the creation of the Departments of Energy and Education, airline deregulation and a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. But these were overshadowed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran hostage crisis, both of which accentuated the impression that Carter was not up to the challenge of being president.

So all in all, I agree with George that Carter was a good guy but a bad president.

Voters angry with Nixon helped get Carter elected.  You see the same swing today.  Rage against Obama helped put Trump in office.

[H Wadsworth Longfellow]

On 10/23/2018 at 3:28 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

True to a degree. If Aerys’ reign is ever to be honestly evaluated the things that people would look at is how his actions affected the kingdom as a whole, not how his actions affected a select group of individuals whose suffering or comfort, did not affect his kingdom; like his appointment of Tywin was a good decision and totally acceptable to give credit to him as a King; the fact he raped his queen on a nightly basis or raped plenty of servent women  in the red keep does not.

Raping his queen was bad.  Very bad.  No excuse.  I am only suggesting that we put it in context with the other nobleman and men of his time.  I would put a wager that a lot of women and wives suffered the same kind of horrific abuse from the men in their lives.  Aerys was not alone in that.  As disgusting at it was, it cannot be labeled aberrant behavior for the period.  And the wildlings that many in the reader community sympathize with treat their women worse than any of the Targaryen kings treated theirs.  There are also hints that women in the north are treated less nicely than in the south.  

So he strangled Brandon and cooked Rickard Stark.  I find it hard to sympathize with the Starks because I am a fan who bought into southron ambitions being a plot to take down the Targaryens.  Aerys definitely had a right to protect his person and his reign.  Damn that Stannis Baratheon probably cooked more people than Aerys ever did in his time.  And the Starks, how many people did they kill to fertilize their tree over a span of thousands of years!  

All in all, Robert and the Starks did more harm to Westeros when they won the rebellion.  Westeros has never been in this bad of a shape.  We can thank the Starks, Lannisters, and the Baratheons for driving the realm into ruin.  They thought they could do better than the Targaryens.  Well, they can't and it's been proven.  

 

[H Wadsworth Longfellow]

On 10/23/2018 at 5:11 AM, Bernie Mac said:

No, it was not. No idea why this is constantly brought up. The Starks, like the other Overlords, rule through a mixture of fear and respect. 

Honour is not nearly as important as either. 

Of course it won't, but it is a pretty dumb comparison to begin with. Ned's family have ruled the North for thousands of years and his reign was backed up by his close allies the King of Westeros and the Lords of the Riverlands and Vale. Roose has taken over a fractured North. Had the  Crown chosen a  Northerner who had been honourable his whole life it  would have made little difference to Stannis, the Stark loyalists or other factions that were ambitious and saw a weakened Warden.

 

 

 

Agree