Jump to content

The Carter Presidency And The Game Of Thrones


Mordred

Recommended Posts

On 10/27/2018 at 9:33 AM, Silver Bullet 1985 said:

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

If George is as politically informed as many of you claim.  What does he think of Rodrigo Duterte?  The man is brutal but he has cleaned up a lot of corruption in his own country.  He's brutal with drub addicts and drug pushers.  The EU has been very critical of his methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2018 at 6:55 PM, Angel Eyes said:

So we should be like Rose Bolton, who flays people and rapes women on their wedding nights?

You take your pick.  The Starks were cutting people's throats to nourish their tree.  The Umbers and the north continued to practice the lord's right to the first night.  Brandon deflowered a maiden and left her in tears.  Is Roose that much worse?  

I will take back what I said in a previous post.  I don't think George is willing to overlook gross injustice but he is a realists and I believe if the situation calls for harsh he will support harsh over weakness any day.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Enuma Elish said:

You take your pick.  The Starks were cutting people's throats to nourish their tree.  The Umbers and the north continued to practice the lord's right to the first night.  Brandon deflowered a maiden and left her in tears.  Is Roose that much worse?  

I will take back what I said in a previous post.  I don't think George is willing to overlook gross injustice but he is a realists and I believe if the situation calls for harsh he will support harsh over weakness any day.  

So he’s of the Hobbes school of thought?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I look back now on what we did in Iraq.  Might we be better off had we left Saddam Hussein and his Baath party in power?  He was brutal but he kept the extremists in check.  Isis would not be what it is today if Saddam had remained in power.  That's how I see the reign of King Aerys II.  He kept the Faith in check.  The realm respected the Targaryen right to rule and when they called them to battle, they answered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2018 at 10:46 AM, 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.

 

This right here. I think his message is that Being Good /=Being Good Ruler, not that Being Good automatically means Being Bad Ruler. One could be both, but that's not necessarily the case. I don't really think that GRRM has a set "this is *the* way to be a good ruler" in mind as much as an exploration and analysis of the concept, and how even the effective rulers have flaws. We see good people who are effective rulers and ineffective rulers, Evil people who are effective rulers and horrible rulers (Joffrey for one). Even Tyrion, who was probably the most pragmatic ruler who walked the line between Good and Evil had some severe flaws in leadership.

Remember that a lot of this analysis came from GRRM reading "And Aragorn ruled wisely" and questioning that statement. Hence "What was Aragorn's tax policy and plans for reconciliation with the orcs?"  He wasn't saying that Aragorn was by default a bad ruler because he was Good, just rejecting the unilateral statement that Good Person = Good Leader.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you guys are so hard on Jimmy Carter. GRRM is so hard on Jimmy Carter.

Comparing him to Robert Baratheon - Carter was an obsessive copper-counting skinflint and the White House has never cost the taxpayer less than it did in his administration (well, not in the 20th century, in real terms. The 19th century presidents seemed to pay for most of the staff and dinners and crockery and what not from their independent fortunes, and it was the Regans that brought in the idea of offering out rooms to big donors like it was some kind of high class hotel). Although, Carter was an excellent entrepreneurial  businessman- that was how he restored the fortunes of his peanut farm, he was also ideologically opposed to making the White house work for him that way, and a man of simple tastes besides. 

In spite of the second Opec oil crisis and the resulting stagflation (a global rather than a national economic situation, not caused by anything he did, and dealt with fairly competently, although with mixed success - I can't think of a place in the opec-dependant economies that dealt with the situation better, and while his deregulation of the Nixon price controls were very unfortunately timed for him politically, they were not so bad that Reagan didn't see fit to continue them. Also, Carter had the foresight to see that a gulf war would only make things worse) the majority of Americans had prospered during his administration. I guess you could say that about Robert Baratheon and the Seven Kingdoms, too, except Robert's only crisis appears to have been the Greyjoy Rebellion (a national rather than a global, military rather than economic) and Robert did see a short sharp 'bomb 'em and get the hell out of dodge' type war as the solution. Lucky for him and his Kingdoms, it worked.

I guess GRRM doesn't feel personally obligated to Carter for ending the persecution of draft dodgers, because he wasn't one of them. And I think the USA in general was better off with price-controlled electricity, stable unionised workplaces, affirmative action policies, a Department of education (This last has survived several Republican administrations that could have dismantled it but chose not to - including one or two that had made election promises to take it down). Also worth bearing in mind that the alternative to Carter was Ford and Dole (who I suspect would do as much for Trump, if he could.) Robert Baratheon's economic policies were more like Reagan's, based on pumping money into the economy, military and militaristic spending mostly, letting the big fish get most of it, trusting that there would be plenty of crumbs for the little fish if they did, without doing much or anything to ensure they would not be worse off as a result.

Jimmy Carter's middle east policy was better and fairer, and more like doing something, than anything the USA has done since then. His management of the CIA (cutting it right back to a lean cadre of extremely knowledgeable, professional and capable agents) and especially his support for the Mujahadeen after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan - strictly limited in extent, but very effective and strategic, and invaluable to the insurgents...Al Qaeda was not taught how to make IED's or given plastics and RPG's on his watch. Would that it had stayed that way.  He sorted Panama. Except that he was the bunny that happened to be in power when the Iranian revolution finally happened (as it was destined to do - the Shah's regime was oppressive and his true base of support had been US and UK oil interests rather than any of the people who had to live under it.), he did good work overseas. If Operation Eagle Claw had succeeded, he would have been a hero. I can still remember watching (on TV) the Muslim students in Tehran burning an effigy of Carter and cheering 'Regan, Regan, Regan' after the 1980 election results were announced, as if that was going to be a great thing for them.

Unlike Eagle Claw, most of what he did was pedestrian and truthfully a bit boring,  but good stuff that needed doing. Really, Robert seems a lot more like Regan - disproportionately interested in building up the military forces, sparing no expense at his court, an extremely popular face, good at the circus aspect of being a king, not so much the bread part, and leaving the money to the money-men to deal with. Also, Robert grew increasingly physically bloated and disenchanted with the business of ruling - not quite the same as Regan's increasing Alzheimer's, but with the same effect - he became more and more removed from the decision-making in his administration.  Jimmy Carter continued to get up early and take an active interest in US and international affairs every day of his presidency and nearly every day since.

Also, Robert Baratheon does not seem to be a likely contender for a peace prize. Although the Nobel peace prize has gone to some odd people for even odder reasons (eg. Kissinger, Aung San Suu Kyi, Obama, various Israeli/Palestine war criminals), Robert's negotiation style would not at any time give anyone the idea that he warranted a peace prize, or was more likely to act like a peace-prize winner if he had one. Carter on the other hand, does seem to have truly merited his peace prize, and has (as far as I know at the moment) done nothing to make the Nobel committee look like idiots for giving one to him. 

Since he left office, Carter has done good work in this world. I'm really sorry his cancer has metastasised, not the least because, at 94 years of age, he still has so much to do in the world.  Without rating him with the likes of Lincoln, Adams, or Washington, I think history will be kinder to him than GRRM is. There have been many less stellar presidents of the USA, and coming between one of the worst and the one that gave the Republicans the idea that the ideal background for a winning presidential candidate was an elderly racist entertainer (and hey, who am I to disagree - they won the vote), the Carter administration was at least a breath of sanity. 

The best thing his administration gave the world - APRAnet/the Internet. I know the guys that wrote it were already working on it in the Nixon era, and that Eisenhower started the agency. One might say Carter's main role in bringing it about was only to cut back non-core projects so hard that this particular technology migrated into academia and Berkeley along with it's principle people, and leaked into the academic and commercial world from there. But I'd counter that the Carter administration made sure publicly funded projects were accessible to the public in a way that seems almost unimaginable now (especially projects originating under the banner of the Department of Defence.) I don't think the internet would be the freely accessible, chaotic, semi-democratic chronically open and insecure thing it is, if it had happened under any other administration of the 20th century. Not that it is likely to stay that way, since 9/11 the days of the open internet are numbered. Still, Bobby B didn't seem to give a toss about transparent governance, and apart from Ned, no-one on his council seemed inclined to ensure the people of the Seven Kingdoms got any benefit from or access to the government projects they paid for.

Really, Carter reminds me more of Quentyn Martell. Not at all flashy, not likely to catch the voter's eye or appeal to them when there were more charismatic contenders. He was mud, cooling the fever, nurturing and nourishing where fire could only consume... although,  now I remember (I first visited the USA in the lead up to the 1980 election - interesting times) it was really hot that summer, and even that fall, so probably not the best analogy - especially considering Quentyn Martell's ultimate fate. If I had to draw an ASoIaF analogy, I'd say Carter sometimes came across like Doran Martell, who seemed to be doing nothing about situations that were out of control around him - but who actually put a lot of time and energy doing apparently nothing or on schemes that come to nothing because of fate, or being too little too late, or ineffably subtle. But really George, Bobby B?      

There is this difference between Robert Baratheon and Jimmy Carter, too : Jimmy Carter was an honest man and ran an honest administration as well as a frugal one. Robert Baratheon was a wife-bashing bruiser who just wanted to drink, whore and fight. I'm not at all sure he was a good man, although he did his best to be a good king in spite of his personal preferences. And I'm not sure he did that badly at kinging, in retrospect, even if  he couldn't look his best friend in the eye and his administration was corrupt and nepotic.

TL:DR Hard to think of two rulers less alike than Jimmy Carter and Robert Baratheon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2018 at 3:41 AM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

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.

You act as though there is a distinct difference between doing something that you find moral and pragmatic. Being charitable can be seen as a moral act-it can also be pragmatic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I wonder what other parallels between real political figures that are alive today that Martin would equivate to one of his characters; like who would be the Hillary Clinton.

15 hours ago, Walda said:

His management of the CIA (cutting it right back to a lean cadre of extremely knowledgeable, professional and capable agents) and especially his support for the Mujahadeen after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan - strictly limited in extent, but very effective and strategic, and invaluable to the insurgents...Al Qaeda was not taught how to make IED's or given plastics and RPG's on his watch. Would that it had stayed that wayHe sorted Panama. Except that he was the bunny that

This seems extreme. You’re really counting supporting religious extremists in a foreign count as a point in  favor of Carter? And haven’t we done the same thing since then? Like in Syria? And I am forced to agree with you as pertaining comparing Robert to Carter; Tytos seems a more fair comparison if one thinks Carter was a weak president. Robert’s failings were due to pure negligence. Most(even Martin), would see Carter’s failing due to his ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2018 at 12:45 PM, Enuma Elish said:

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.  

 

:agree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2018 at 2:25 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You’re really counting supporting religious extremists in a foreign count as a point in  favor of Carter?

I'm praising Carter for not giving unlimited support to nutjobs just because they were not communists, the way both Regan and Nixon did.   The CIA cultivated the anti-communist nutjobs, but gave them medical kits and communications equipment and (the bit I don't approve of) small arms - kalashnikov knock-offs, so they could bleed the communist state but not defeat it.

Even when the funding and support were turned up to eleven in the Regan administration, it wasn't that which brought down the communists in Afghanistan. It was the collapse of the Soviets, and their reluctance to continue to pay for such reluctant dependant colonies.  

Of course it would have been better if the USA had stayed out of Afghanistan entirely, but there was no realistic chance of that happening. And of course they were going to support the anti-communists no matter how truly disgusting a force they were to ally with to do it. Carter was as anti-communist as any US president, he couldn't/wouldn't let the Communists do their thing without CIA involvement, but he did the next best thing, which was only to give the nutjobs first aid and radio kits, not money or RPG's  or US training  or recognition.

So, yeah, not like Syria or Yemen, or what Regan did in Afganistan with the Mujadhadeem, or like what Nixon did in Cambodia (thinking on it, Kampuchea was a good example of what happens when the CIA just pulled out and did nothing. On the one hand, getting Air America out of there was a good thing. On the other hand the killing fields was a really bad thing.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2018 at 12:54 PM, Enuma Elish said:

If George is as politically informed as many of you claim.  What does he think of Rodrigo Duterte?  The man is brutal but he has cleaned up a lot of corruption in his own country.  He's brutal with drub addicts and drug pushers.  The EU has been very critical of his methods.

I have never been to the Philippine Islands but I have done research since your question was posted.  President Duterte enjoys a very high approval percentage from the Filipinos.  Over 80 percent according to one program on youtube.  He's doing something that the people of the Philippines find valuable.  He's solving a major problem that the Filipino people want solved.  The drug problem is overwhelmingly huge.  Many government officials and law enforcement personnel are involved.  Duterte warned them ahead of time to stop destroying the young people of his country.  He will kill them if they don't.  They didn't listen.  Many are now dead.  A ranking police officer was killed yesterday while trying to sell crystal meth.  It isn't just drugs.  Muslim militants are trying to undermine the government in many parts of his country.  Poverty is high.

It is sad that some of the killed drug dealers were small-time people who were only trying to make a living.  It is understandable in a poor country that the source of good money is through drugs, but it cannot be accepted.  It is one of those things where you can understand but cannot tolerate.  I guess I can understand why a desperate man would sell drugs to feed his family but I'm not going to allow it.  His bad lot in life does not entitle him to ruin the lives of other people by selling drugs.  This person should be stopped and if he refuses to be arrested then stronger measures should be taken.  A lot of behavior can be accepted but drug dealing shouldn't be accepted by any country.  A religious group who wants to destabilize the government and take control of the country can't be accommodated.  Within game of thrones,  Maegor and Visenya did the right thing when they came down harshly on the faith militants.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2018 at 12:54 PM, Enuma Elish said:

If George is as politically informed as many of you claim.  What does he think of Rodrigo Duterte?  The man is brutal but he has cleaned up a lot of corruption in his own country.  He's brutal with drub addicts and drug pushers.  The EU has been very critical of his methods.

I don't know what George Martin thinks of President Duterte.  He's a harsh man with brutal, but effective methods.  I wish him all the success in his war on drugs. 

Does anyone know of country who has successfully won its own war on drugs?  If you do, please let me know.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Walda said:

I'm praising Carter for not giving unlimited support to nutjobs just because they were not communists, the way both Regan and Nixon did.   The CIA cultivated the anti-communist nutjobs, but gave them medical kits and communications equipment and (the bit I don't approve of) small arms - kalashnikov knock-offs, so they could bleed the communist state but not defeat it.

Even when the funding and support were turned up to eleven in the Regan administration, it wasn't that which brought down the communists in Afghanistan. It was the collapse of the Soviets, and their reluctance to continue to pay for such reluctant dependant colonies.  

Of course it would have been better if the USA had stayed out of Afghanistan entirely, but there was no realistic chance of that happening. And of course they were going to support the anti-communists no matter how truly disgusting a force they were to ally with to do it. Carter was as anti-communist as any US president, he couldn't/wouldn't let the Communists do their thing without CIA involvement, but he did the next best thing, which was only to give the nutjobs first aid and radio kits, not money or RPG's  or US training  or recognition.

So, yeah, not like Syria or Yemen, or what Regan did in Afganistan with the Mujadhadeem, or like what Nixon did in Cambodia (thinking on it, Kampuchea was a good example of what happens when the CIA just pulled out and did nothing. On the one hand, getting Air America out of there was a good thing. On the other hand the killing fields was a really bad thing.) 

Far more reasonable. Thanks for clarifying your views here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2018 at 2:11 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. 

Projection and generallizing? I feel many of a fandom often project the feelings they have on x character on to people in universe. Like when people act like the NW  will undoubtably be enraged at Jon’s assasanation; as if Jon was particularly popular. And they generalize how the Starks as if they’re monolithic; which is simply not right . Brandon Stark was not nearly honorable as his brother Ned, not every Stark lord was honorable, not every Stark lord was fair, it’d be odd if every rebellion that northern houses have ever waged against them were done without  the slightest bit of justification and that the Starks were the aggrevieved party in every instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Projection and generallizing? I feel many of a fandom often project the feelings they have on x character on to people in universe. Like when people act like the NW  will undoubtably be enraged at Jon’s assasanation; as if Jon was particularly popular. And they generalize how the Starks as if they’re monolithic; which is simply not right . Brandon Stark was not nearly honorable as his brother Ned, not every Stark lord was honorable, not every Stark lord was fair, it’d be odd if every rebellion that northern houses have ever waged against them were done without  the slightest bit of justification and that the Starks were the aggrevieved party in every instance.

The other popular assumption is that the Northern lords place honour that highly on their (Maslow's) hierarchy of needs. Honour is pointless if all it does is get them embroiled in unwinnable wars and neglects them preparing for winter or being able to defend their own homes. 

A leader being able to keep them safe, prosperous and victorious in war all trump him being honourable, I imagine Ned's deserved popularity in the North comes from those factors than his 'honour'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2018 at 3:02 AM, The Wondering Wolf said:

I can not believe you are justifying the murder (I say murder because these people get killed without trial) of thousands (among them addicts) by order of a president. Fighting something wrong by using wrong methods always creates a backlash.

Collateral damage also happens when developed nations drop bombs in the enemy territory.  Bombs and missiles don't just kill the guiltiest.  It kills the innocents too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Let us break down this BS that has nothing to do with martin's ASOIAF.

 

1. Our favorite author has expressed on more than one interview that he believes Jimmy Carter was truly a good man.

Where is the link?

2. However, he has also said of Carter that he was not a good president.

Where is the link?

3. What does the author consider a failure of the Carter presidency?

If you had provided the link perhaps it may have gave the answer.

4. Was it the failed hostage rescue mission?  

That is a sleazy slimy statement.

5. 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.

Actually I am curious why this thread stayed as long as it did. BECAUSE your shyte questions shed no, nada, zilch, zero light on martin's ideas as it relates to ASOIAF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

 

 

1. Our favorite author has expressed on more than one interview that he believes Jimmy Carter was truly a good man.

Where is the link?

http://entertainment.time.com/2011/04/18/grrm-interview-part-2-fantasy-and-history/

 

GRRM: "And a lot of fantasy makes it seem simply: a good man will be a good king. Well, a good man is not always a good king. And a bad man is not always a bad king. You know, it’s much more complicated than that. It’s you know, I look at in my lifetime, I think probably the best man to serve as President in my lifetime was Jimmy Carter. As a human being, the best human being, but he was not a good President. He was not. General goodness did not automatically make flowers bloom."

Quote

2. However, he has also said of Carter that he was not a good president.

Where is the link?

http://entertainment.time.com/2011/04/18/grrm-interview-part-2-fantasy-and-history/

GRRM: "And a lot of fantasy makes it seem simply: a good man will be a good king. Well, a good man is not always a good king. And a bad man is not always a bad king. You know, it’s much more complicated than that. It’s you know, I look at in my lifetime, I think probably the best man to serve as President in my lifetime was Jimmy Carter. As a human being, the best human being, but he was not a good President. He was not. General goodness did not automatically make flowers bloom."

 

Quote

3. What does the author consider a failure of the Carter presidency?

If you had provided the link perhaps it may have gave the answer.

Seems he does not consider Carter to have been an effective President

GRRM: "And then you look at what I think are bad men, like Richard Nixon. Nixon was a bad President too in some ways, but in other ways, he was a very effective President doing things like opening China and things like that."

 

GRRM's not really saying anything controversial here, Carter is not considered to have been a great leader, the readers of Time magazine are, for the most part, not in need of GRRM to qualify that statement. Carter's average approval rating was 45.5%, the third lowest recorded. Carter has been far more effective as a former President than he ever was in the White House.

 

Quote

Actually I am curious why this thread stayed as long as it did. BECAUSE your shyte questions shed no, nada, zilch, zero light on martin's ideas as it relates to ASOIAF.

Is there any need for you to react like this? Can't we all be civil?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...