Posted on 03/06/2008 7:38:04 PM PST by Kimmers
Mr. Hess is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Editor's Note: Following is a column Mr. Hess wrote in June 1978, when Jimmy Carter was just midway through his term. We think it's worth reprinting. It shows how early Carter's flaws became apparent to eagle-eyed pundits like Mr. Hess.
Let us assume that Jimmy Carter is an intelligent, decent, hardworking man. Assume, moreover, that he has appointed to his cabinet and sub-cabinet many men and women who are experienced and dedicated. How, then, can a president - certainly no less mentally alert than most past presidents - with many advisers of high caliber, produce such an undistinguished presidency?
It's a puzzlement. And it cannot be accounted for by most of the explanations currently in vogue, such as: Carter's an outsider who really doesn't understand the levers of national governance; or Carter surrounds himself with a "Georgia Mafia" whose weaknesses are the same as his own; or Carter is a bad manager who hasn't been able to sort out decisions that a president must make from those that should be settled at lower levels; or Congress is so uncontrollable that it will not allow any president to exercise the reins of leadership; or the bureaucracy has grown beyond the span of presidential control; or many of the nation's problem's are highly intractable; or even all these reasons taken together - although there is truth in all.
I would like to put forward another theory: The root of the problem is that Jimmy Carter is the first Process President in American history.
"Process President" - using a definition by Aaron Wildavsky and Jack Knott - means that Carter places "greater emphasis on methods, procedures and instruments for making policy than on the content of policy itself."
Carter is an activist. He wants to do things. Yet his campaign statements should have warned us that save for the human rights thrust in foreign policy, his passion in government is for how things are done, rather than what should be done.
He believes that if the process is good the product will be good. In other words, if he sets up a procedure for making policy that is open, comprehensive (his favorite word), and involves good people, whatever comes out of this pipeline will be acceptable (within certain budgetary limits).
A concern for process is not a bad thing. Some past presidents made a fetish of chaos in policy development, often resulting in proposals that had not been fully explored.
But process is only a tool for getting from here to there - it is not a substitute for substance. And good processes can produce conflicting, competing and confusing programs.
BOGSAT
When a president lacks an overriding design for what he wants government to do, his department chiefs are forced to prepare presidential options in a vacuum. Usually this is done by BOGSAT - the acronym for a "bunch of guys sitting around a table." In other cases, where political executives have not been given some framework in which to function, they will try to impose their own hidden agendas on the president.
Each departmental proposal - whether for welfare reform or tax reform - may or may not be "right," but there is no reason to expect that automatically it will fall in place with what other departments will be proposing. Ironically, Carter's procedures assure, by definition, that he cannot deal with the nation's ills comprehensively.
Political executives and high level civil servants prefer to be loyal to a president. If direction is forthcoming, they will try - successfully or not - to honor a president's wishes. When direction is not present, they will go into business for themselves.
The Carter presidency cannot be described - as was sometimes true of past administrations - in terms of White House loyalists versus cabinet department disloyalists. Today neither White House staff nor cabinet officials have been given the predictive capacity that they must have to do their jobs properly. A subordinate - even on the cabinet level - has to be able to plan on the basis of some past pattern.
Take government reorganization policy. Some of Carter's actions support the concept of centralization (energy); some support the concept of decentralization (education). On what basis is an administration planner to design the next reorganization?
Uncertainty radiating from the top, furthermore, lowers morale throughout the permanent government, hence it adversely affects the implementation of programs. While the bureaucracy may be the butt of jokes, it is also the motor force that provides services on a day-to-day basis - and it too looks for consistent signs from a president.
American presidents have not been ideologues. And it is certainly not my notion that Carter should become one. But all modern presidents, whether "liberal" or "conservative" - no matter what their other faults - have had some programmatic view of government in which the specific parts usually could be fitted. This is not the case with Carter's domestic program, although he does seem to have a firmer view of defense policy (perhaps because of his naval background).
So the basic problem of this administration will not be corrected by rearranging boxes on organization charts or by doing a better selling job to Congress and the public.
What has produced an undistinguished presidency? Jimmy Carter's failure to set consistent policy goals - or more grandly, a philosophy for government.
Courtesey of TomPaine.com
They rate it on a scale of -1 to -10.
can you say, "quagmire?"
With respect to the office I consider it a time where the ofice capitulated following the OPEC attack in 1973, (where no plan was in place while Nixon was in office to deal with it) and Iran will probably capture a bunch of Americans until 2012.
I do not remember Carter openly promoting some of the things that Obama does and believe that an Obama presidency would be even worse than Carters.
Carter was ineffective and worthless, Obama would be down right dangerous.
Poor. Even the historians got that one right.
I started college when Carter was in office - I’ll never forget; an instructor asked us what could be so bad about having Carter as a President, and the class practically moaned in unison! It went downhill from there ...
More mush for the wimp!
The worst president ever! Jimmah was definitely form over substance with a heavy helping of arrogance and cluelessness strongly flavored with anti-semitism.
Obama is a liberal enigma wrapped up in socialist mystery. Given the opportunity, he could easily replace Jimmah as the worst president ever.
I’m praying that God does NOT punish us with him.
This is common in business. If the organization is centralized the new boss will decentralize. If the organization is decentralized the new boss will centralize.
This is call "change" or "progress" (see Obama).
Talk about being nice. Jimmy Carter would have been a better president had he spent the entire time confined to his peanut farm in Georgia.
I’ve been around since Truman. Carter has been the worst.
Well said.
“can you say, ‘quagmire?’”
Yes.
Can you say “malaise”?
The worst president in my lifetime. I was a newlywed. We tried to buy a house. Interest rates were double digits. He told people to wear sweaters and use less energy. He back stabbed the Shah of Iran. He gave our nuclear secrets to China...he unilaterally disarmed...More socialist countries became reality during his term...
The worst..of the worst...
you should put that in the keywords.
My question is which historians?
Many of them are nutty as fruitcakes!
three good things
1- paul volker- gosh without volker we would have had 20 bad years instead of 6 (ok without volker and reagan).
2- deregulation of trucking.
3- deregulation of airlines.
The harm he has done as an ex president is almost as bad as those 4 malaise fillled years.
You mean, "nuke-you-lar." He said that long before GWBush did. But it's OK 'cause he's has his leftist credentials.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.