Jump to content

The Carter Presidency And The Game Of Thrones


Mordred

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I got Chief of Staff. In terms of responsibilities and their primary function Vice-presidents are meant to succeed the president in case the president dies or is unable to continue. 

Yeah, my first guess was Lord High Steward in the old money, or Prime Minister in the new. Both are public  offices, a higher honour for someone who is already a Lord than Chief of Staff, are more to do with the legislature than the executive side of things, more to do with serving the realm on the King's behalf, than serving the King so the King can serve the realm.

In the Westminster system Chief of Staff would be more like Thomas Cromwell - he signed himself something like "confidential secretary to the King" before he was given a seat and higher honour. His position was invented by Henry and himself, not a high office that had existed since the Conqest, not a position that a great Lord would feel honoured to serve in (but for low born people like Cromwell, a very great honour indeed).

In the modern system, chief of staff for the Prime Minister is not a great institution with a swearing in and a ceremonial chain of office. In Britain it is a relatively new position, established by Tony Blair when he was PM. In Australia we have had the position for longer (Gough Witlam formalised the title in 1972, but the civil servant with the title 'Principle Private Secretary' was called chief of staff for years before that... it wouldn't surprise me if the title had been informally coined during WWII, when Douglas MacCarthur came to Australia in 1942 and the alliance with America became more important to Australia than the alliance with Britain) Canada has had chiefs of staff since 1987.

The 'principle private secretary'  was always a public servant. The chief of staff is too, but after they are appointed by the PM, the whole point of the office being, the PM can appoint whomever the PM wants, rather than select or be given a member of the civil service. Since Blair's time, the appointee has often been a senior party operative. Some claim this  has led to a more partisan and poll-driven style of government, a more remote PM, the kind of governance that The Thick of It satirised.

Some seem to think of the position  as a reward for loyal party  or factional service to the PM, or as a security that the PM's faction will be represented in policy when the PM is in office. But at the end of the day, the PM's chief of staff serves the PM rather than the realm. They don't have a chain of office or a swearing in, they are not regarded as public people and when the papers occassionally treat them like politicians there are a slew of opinion pieces about their having the ordinary person's right to privacy, and their acting for the PM - and if they are not, that is the PM's fault for not giving them direction or reining them in. There is a secretarial function inherent in the role - they are constantly organising flights to and from the PM's engagements, checking the security detail,  emailing PM's speeches and answers to enquiring journalists, managing his staff, it is a busy backroom kind of job, not in Henry VIII's time or now one that a Lord in his own right would regard as an honour too high to refuse without giving offence. In fact, if a Lord was given the job, they probably would take offence (unless they were a factional associate and didn't want/have/take their seat in the house.)

The president's chief of Staff is a public role. There is a swearing in, if not a chain of office. Still, I think the role is more about serving the POTUS than serving America. The Hand seems to be largely about serving the realm in the King's absence, and holding a cabinet position as the King's principle advisor in matters of state. I'd say Secretary of State was closer to Hand of the King than chief of staff.

When Ned took the throne, he seemed to adopt a more legislative than executive approach - viewing his duty as one of brining the King's Justice and keeping the King's peace, rather than considering what Robert would want him to do. At one point he hands in his badge of office,  so we know he has the power to resign his appointment. Robert doesn't fire any of his Hands, but we know from the reign of Arys that hands can be dismissed by the king, or executed by him. 

While Aerys did not anticipate any of his hands would succeed to the throne, there have been Targaryens who appointed Hands with the idea that they would succeed. And Robert Baratheon had appointed Ned Hand with the idea that he would rule the realm in Robert's absence, and be Joffrey's Regent until the boy came of age, if Robert should die before then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2018 at 7:33 AM, DMC said:

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.  Manderly does seem to have deep love for the Starks, but he still definitely behaves as a powerful lord in his own right.  And while the Glovers aren't technically lords, both brothers seem pretty high up in the command s

I don’t think anyone was arguing that they were.  A child could love his parents and yet still fear their wrath when the child does something wrong.  A good feudal overlord or King should a healthy dose of both from the people they govern. Love  is an apt tool as well; but fear and respect  is far more crucial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2018 at 11:32 AM, Walda said:

Ah, should have checked the date as well - didn't realise the discussion was about the show.  Still good to know it wasn't King Robert he was talking about. Although it seems to me that neither Ned's or Robert's identity would need to be concealed for fear of season two spoilers. Stannis, Daenarys, Robb, Renly, Balon and Joffrey were our season two rulers.

GRRM's not concealing anything, the biggest talking point of season 1 was Ned, the presumed hero of the series, death and how he was Hand and still lost from a position of power where he thought he was in control. He literally lost the game of thrones. 

Quote

No, the hand is the equivalent of the vice-president.

No, a Hand is more powerful than a Vice President, in reality more powerful than a President. The Hand is, in theory, the equal of the King in authority, it is also the top job you can be given in Westeros. America is a democratic republic and Westeros a monarchy so they have different methods of electing the person for the country's most important job. 

 However you are missing the point, GRRM's making a generalization about good men not necessarily making good leaders and how fantasy fiction authors rarely cover this, but come to the conclusion that a bad man is a bad leader and a good man a good leader. There is nothing in that interview about job specifications. 

Carter and Nixon were just easy examples that everyone reading Time would get, it would be a stretch for him to come up with two well known Vice Presidents or Chief of Staffs that are as well known and seen as good/bad. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

GRRM's not concealing anything, the biggest talking point of season 1 was Ned, the presumed hero of the series, death and how he was Hand and still lost from a position of power where he thought he was in control. He literally lost the game of thrones. 

The concealment I was referring to was made by James Poniewozik - I've bolded the bit where Poniewasik mentions redacting the interview, and underlined the bit that I believe is GRRM comparing two of the season two rulers to historic rulers (probably Carter and Nixon), in that they did not follow the good man=good ruler, bad man=bad ruler formula

Quote

Boromir basically wants the ring because he wants to do what he sees is the right thing.

He wants to take this thing and use it, yeah. So you know, that kind of stuff has always interested me. But I also want to respond—I’ve read a lot of history about feudal history and Roman history and so forth, about politics in those days. I follow contemporary politics. And you know, what strikes me is that these issues are horrid. 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.

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. [Spoilery discussion redacted, about two of his characters who encounter difficulties in ruling.] I wanted to show what decisions they made and the possible consequences of those decisions and how thing worked or how things failed to work. So that sort of stuff has always interested me.

 

(James Poniewozik, 'GRRM Interview Part 2: Fantasy and History', in Time magazine 'Tuned In' section April 18, 2011 [accessed http://entertainment.time.com/2011/04/18/grrm-interview-part-2-fantasy-and-history/ 17th November 2018])

It seems clear to me that they started by talking about Boromir and Aragon, moved on to Nixon/Carter and from there to two characters who encountered difficulties in ruling in season two of Game of Thrones. (I'll concede that Nixon/Carter parallels are a better fit for Robert/Ned than for Boromir/Aragon or Aragon/Boromir., though)

And yes, the hand is more powerful than a vice president, but an absolute monarch is more powerful than a US president. The office of the president was designed to be weaker even than that of George III, a constitutional monarch well contained by his parliament. 

I dispute your claim that the office of the Hand was ever more powerful than that of the King. The Hand was appointed by the King and could be dismissed by him. A Hand with a flair for administration or a powerful personality could get more done than a King without these blessings, but the office ranked below that of the king, always.  JonCon and Rossart were never more powerful as Hands than Aerys was as King, and I would not say that Ned as hand was more powerful than Robert, either. People like Tywin and Criston Cole could certainly wield more power than their monarchs, and might even have chosen their kings, but because of their personal qualities and ambitions, and perhaps also because of the comparative weakness of their monarchs. Not because the office of the Hand gave them the authority to usurp their monarch's power.

From the assassination plot for Daenarys, it seems implicit that the hand was sworn to abide by the king's will, hence Eddard being obliged to hand in his badge when he refuses to approve the assassination Robert had willed. 

The similarity between the Hand and the Vice President is that both are public offices with a broad remit to serve the realm rather than merely the current head of state. Both require the holder assume the position of head of state when the head of state is indisposed, overseas, or dead. Both involve being sworn into office, having a chain or badge of office, having a place in the cabinet/on the small council. Neither are subordinate to any other member of the cabinet/small council. The office has existed a long time, has a basis in law, is not an office that exists only at the discretion of the incumbent head of state. As far as we know, every King since the conquest has had a Hand. 

The relative rank of the president and vice president to the monarch and the hand, is what makes me think they are analogous. The chief of staff seems to me more like a seneschal - someone like Reznak who the incumbent head of state could decide was surplus to requirements and decide not to have one at all. Someone that served the person of the head of state. rather than the state itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2018 at 1:47 AM, Walda said:

Ah ha! Glad for the link, and glad you clarified that bit

I had to pluck a few nerves but someone did eventually supply the link to the topic.

Sharing information is vital for communication.

You have made some very interesting observations.

I am now continue :read:ing the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2018 at 7:49 AM, Walda said:

The president's chief of Staff is a public role. There is a swearing in, if not a chain of office. Still, I think the role is more about serving the POTUS than serving America. The Hand seems to be largely about serving the realm in the King's absence, and holding a cabinet position as the King's principle advisor in matters of state. I'd say Secretary of State was closer to Hand of the King than chief of staff.

Honestly, perhaps trying to do compare positions that exist in modern republics, to a position that exists in a feudal-Monarchy, isn’t really wise. 

To be clear I fully acknowledge I’ve done this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 11/3/2018 at 1:02 PM, 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.  

Harsh is fine.  It needs to be consistent.  Wishy washy application of punishment is not alright.  The manner in which Jon Snow and Robb Stark handled matters of justice are not acceptable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

Harsh is fine.  It needs to be consistent.  Wishy washy application of punishment is not alright.  The manner in which Jon Snow and Robb Stark handled matters of justice are not acceptable.  

Sometimes harsh is bad. You don't want to be Tywin, who is emotionally abusive to his son Tyrion and had his men gang-rape Tyrion's first wife. All this earned Tywin a pair of crossbow bolts in the chest. 

If harsh is fine, should we be like Maegor the Cruel, who caused harm to all levels of society? Threaten our sons because they don't match up to our standards of being a man like Randyll Tarly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Angel Eyes said:

Sometimes harsh is bad. You don't want to be Tywin, who is emotionally abusive to his son Tyrion and had his men gang-rape Tyrion's first wife. All this earned Tywin a pair of crossbow bolts in the chest. 

Tywin is the kind of man who succeeded in business but his home life is sad.  He is the professional who gave it all to his career and succeeded.  His family though is not so good.  He was not balanced.  His children were always his Achilles' Heel.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2018 at 5:40 PM, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

Harsh is fine.  It needs to be consistent.  Wishy washy application of punishment is not alright.  The manner in which Jon Snow and Robb Stark handled matters of justice are not acceptable.  

I can agree with that.  Lack of consistency means a lack of justice.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2018 at 5:54 PM, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

Tywin is the kind of man who succeeded in business but his home life is sad.  He is the professional who gave it all to his career and succeeded.  His family though is not so good.  He was not balanced.  His children were always his Achilles' Heel.  

But he is not alone in this.  Doran Martell and Ned Stark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rickard Stark belongs on that list.  He can't even manage his own children.  His daughter ran off with a married man and caused embarrassment to the family.  Brandon commits treason when he threatened to kill the Targaryens.  Stark family issues keep dragging the north to war.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2018 at 5:47 PM, Angel Eyes said:

Sometimes harsh is bad. You don't want to be Tywin, who is emotionally abusive to his son Tyrion and had his men gang-rape Tyrion's first wife. All this earned Tywin a pair of crossbow bolts in the chest. 

If harsh is fine, should we be like Maegor the Cruel, who caused harm to all levels of society? Threaten our sons because they don't match up to our standards of being a man like Randyll Tarly?

He'll never be father of the year but if he worked in a corporate setting, sure, he might get Administrator Of the Year award.  I agree with you.  He had no right to do that to Tysha.  Well, he did legally, but morally, no.  He put his pride ahead of his son's happiness.  Though happiness is not the most important duty for Tyrion.

Okay, let's talk about Randyll Tarly.  The man had a responsibility to his people (peasants and farmers) to make sure that the future lord is a strong man.  Someone who can maintain order and carry out justice.  He owed it to them to give them a lord who can protect them from harm.  That future lord is not going to be Samwell.  My only criticism of Tarly is his refusal to allow Samwell to join The Citadel.  It's foolish pride in my opinion.  Walder Frey leads a much richer house than the Tarlys and he doesn't have a problem letting his sons join The Citadel.

Maegor was facing a threat from a militant religious group.  Harsh action was needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

He'll never be father of the year but if he worked in a corporate setting, sure, he might get Administrator Of the Year award.  I agree with you.  He had no right to do that to Tysha.  Well, he did legally, but morally, no.  He put his pride ahead of his son's happiness.  Though happiness is not the most important duty for Tyrion.

Okay, let's talk about Randyll Tarly.  The man had a responsibility to his people (peasants and farmers) to make sure that the future lord is a strong man.  Someone who can maintain order and carry out justice.  He owed it to them to give them a lord who can protect them from harm.  That future lord is not going to be Samwell.  My only criticism of Tarly is his refusal to allow Samwell to join The Citadel.  It's foolish pride in my opinion.  Walder Frey leads a much richer house than the Tarlys and he doesn't have a problem letting his sons join The Citadel.

Maegor was facing a threat from a militant religious group.  Harsh action was needed.

You got a point with Randyll Tarly. But Maegor didn’t have to murder half his family and turn the entire country against him.

My overall point is that harsh doesn’t work with your family. And nothing illustrates that better than Tywin having his men rape Tysha and Tyrion giving him a half-Mozambique drill years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/17/2018 at 10:40 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Honestly, perhaps trying to do compare positions that exist in modern republics, to a position that exists in a feudal-Monarchy, isn’t really wise. 

To be clear I fully acknowledge I’ve done this.

 

It's not a perfect comparison but not at all inappropriate.  The people in the story are human beings and they have that in common with real life.  So for example, it is not unwise to compare what the Yellow Vests in France are doing to what the mob did at KL.  Angry masses who want to fight the governing body, Macron and Joffrey respectively.  Yellow jackets are less violent because the France of today is less so than the KL mob of the story.

Some presidents didn't get second terms because the voters wanted change.  We hold elections.  Westeros assassinates their leaders if they want change.  Joffrey was incompetent and the people below killed him.  Jon was incompetent and unfit to lead so the crows killed him.  Different methods but accomplish the same thing.  Our system can impeach if it should become needed.  Westeros has to result to war and assassination to remove an unwanted leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 10/20/2018 at 6:47 PM, The Bard of Banefort said:

Jimmy Carter is indeed a very good man, but he was also extremely detail-oriented and moralistic. He was unable to make a dent in the stagflation phenomenon that had been sweeping the country since Nixon was in office, and he was unable to negotiate a release for the victims of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. As much as the country loathed Nixon, he had a knack for foreign relations, and probably would have proved more effective than Carter in this instance.

Carter was also the politician who first introduced the use of extreme public displays of religious piety in presidential candidates. A lot of people don't realize that this was not the norm in the US prior to then; our Founders were speculative deists who, in Jefferson's case at least, actually edited their Bibles by cutting out the sections that didn't agree with, and their successors didn't have any reason to incorporate God into their campaigns, seeing as most Americans were church-going Protestants themselves--there was simply nothing to prove. Gerald Ford, himself a devout Dutch Calvinist, privately found Carter's public declarations of belief to be rather creepy and manipulative, and couldn't wrap his head around why Carter was so set on incorporating religion into his campaign. (The two eventually became close friends, but that was not until years after they faced off in the 1976 election). Carter was very benevolent and honest in his beliefs, but the argument could certainly be made that he's responsible for obligations politicians have faced since then to prove their piety in order to win elections.

Love Reagan or hate him (and there are plenty of facts that could back up either side), he certainly accomplished a lot, and that led to the vast overshadowing of Carter's legacy. Even the decision to grant amnesty to draft dodgers who fled to Canada, which Carter is usually credited with, was actually implemented by Ford, and faced a good deal of resistance at the time. So in retrospect, Carter's presidency does seem very empty and ineffective. On the other hand, he has had a prolific post-office career, and has been an active volunteer and philanthropist for his entire adult life. This has earned Carter admiration from both ends of the political spectrum, even if few people have much to say about his time in office. 

Reagan was passionately against the Soviet Union the evil empire.  That beacon kept his policies on target.  Love him or hate him he was effective and got what he wanted.  Wishy washy get little done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2018 at 11:07 AM, Angel Eyes said:

You got a point with Randyll Tarly. But Maegor didn’t have to murder half his family and turn the entire country against him.

My overall point is that harsh doesn’t work with your family. And nothing illustrates that better than Tywin having his men rape Tysha and Tyrion giving him a half-Mozambique drill years later.

You can't go overboard with harsh.  Stannis burned his own men.  Is that going to have consequences? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2019 at 10:35 PM, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

You can't go overboard with harsh.  Stannis burned his own men.  Is that going to have consequences? 

Yeah, you can't go overboard, because it'll bite you in the ass. If there's anyone I think it'll bite in the ass, I hope it's Axell Florent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...