Crunchy Con

Jimmy Carter was right

Monday April 6, 2009

Categories: Conservatism

At The American Conservative, Sean Scallon makes the same startling discovery I made when researching "Crunchy Cons" (and wrote about in the book): that Jimmy Carter's infamous 'malaise' speech was not only gutsy, it was right on the money from a conservative point of view. Excerpt:

Carter felt the country was on an unsustainable course, and only through lower expectations, conservation, and sacrifice could the U.S. survive as a free nation--or at least "free" as Carter defined the term in his speech:
We are at a turning point of our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. ... All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to the true freedom for our nation and ourselves.

Could Russell Kirk or Richard Weaver have said it any better if they were debating Ayn Rand? Carter defined freedom as self-sufficiency rather than the right to take resources from other nations for our own well-being. He even gave a nod to the populist "drill here, drill now" contingent who felt the country had enough resources already to be energy independent: "We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline we will build it. ...We have more oil in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias. We have more coal than any nation on earth."

This was not the speech of some America-hating leftist. Carter did not try to tear down the country, he simply wanted it to come together and direct itself toward a goal other than unlimited growth or unending progress. As Andrew Bacevich points out in The New American Militarism, the president recognized the high cost of empire:

In July of 1979, Carter already anticipated that a continuing and unchecked thirst for imported oil was sure to distort U.S. strategic priorities with unforeseen but adverse consequences. He feared the impact of that distortion on American democracy still reeling from the effects of the 1960s. So he summoned his fellow citizens to change course, to choose self-sufficiency and self-reliance and therefore true independence but at a cost of collective sacrifice and lowered expectations.

Self-sufficiency, discipline, sacrifice, conservation, independence, the striving for meaning and purpose beyond material wealth. All of these characteristics were once associated with conservatism, and they were all part of a speech given by a man who was naval officer, farmer and large landowner, small businessman, Sunday school teacher, and Southerner. Does this not sound the background of a conservative?

In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.

Here's the full text of the Carter speech. Below, the videotaped version:

Advertisement
Comments
Your Name
April 7, 2009 10:45 AM

"Uh? How are they any worse than our designs on, say, Latin America?"

Funny those designs on Latin America. They always seem to result in the US getting out and democratic governments evolving to the point where left-wing governments can come in and take root (again, in some cases).

Meanwhile it was only the breakup of the Soviet state that allowed many of the nations that exist in Eastern Europe and Cnetral Asia to find independence. Surely, Hector, you can see the difference between the US expressing concern about the dangers to democratic liberty in Latin America, and Russia throwing its weight around to reassert influence in its old stomping grounds.

Also notably, this isn't really an answer to the point. It's the old trick of saying "Hey, everybody does it! So, it must be OK." Even if I accepted that claim though, that would hardly answer the objection I raised to begin with.

"It seems to me that if you're a believer in a traditional, Christian, agrarian, anti-liberal society ..."

There's a great many assumptions in that passage - for example, the assumption that all the nations included in Russia's desired sphere of influence are uniformly desirous of a "traditional, agrarian, anti-liberal society" (I left out "Christian" simply because that's an obvious error, given the number of obstensibly Muslim nations in that category) not to mention the assumption that Russian influence is benign (ask the Chechens or Georgians about that one). Putin's crack down on abortion may or may not be the product of moral reasoning, but the fact remains that Putin can "crack down" whereas Bush cannot, precisely because he more or less rules an authoritarian state.

I'm quite skeptical, agrarian/anti-liberal or not, that his neighbors are all that entranced with being left to his tender mercies. Indeed, if diplomacy actually means anything, several of them (Ukraine, Georgia, Poland) would seem to have given a clear "No" in that regard.

ME
April 7, 2009 10:47 AM

FWIW - The captcha system leaves much to be desired. It explains the preponderance of "Your Name" posts, since it reverts to that on expiration.

Joe
April 7, 2009 10:52 AM

Carter proposed to 'make sacrifices' through massive new federal regulatory intervention in daily life, from mandatory thermostat settings in houses, to putting seatbelts on motorcycles, and capitulating to Islamist revolutinaries and communists anywhere he could find them. The only thing he was doing was figuring out a way to raise the misery index with new factors that hadn't been included in it before.

This wasn't sacrifice. It was putting a civilizational pistol in our collective mouth and playing Russian Roulette.

The idea that he wanted to send us in a traditionalist direction was true, but only if your definition of traditionalism is living as a peasant in a Maoist revolutionary state.

DavidTC
April 7, 2009 11:06 AM

Your Name
Funny those designs on Latin America. They always seem to result in the US getting out and democratic governments evolving to the point where left-wing governments can come in and take root (again, in some cases).

Those left wing governments aren't 'coming in' and haven't been for some time. (Where, pray tell, are they coming from? The USSR is gone.) Those left wing revolutions are entirely homegrown and it's exactly the sort of revolution you'd expect after they're exposed to the 'US colony' form of capitalism for decades, where the entire economic output of a nation is directed to plutocrats in the US and a few locals.

Of course, revolutions often end with the wrong people in charge, but that's irrelevant to the fact that the reason behind left wing revolutions isn't some magical influence of the USSR being felt decades later, or other neighboring left wing nations (although they are quick to step in and take advantage) but real anger at the fact that their country has been, for decades, operated solely for the benefit of a small group of people.

OldRedJoe
April 7, 2009 11:16 AM

Please. Carter was a weak dork.

Rod- you forgot: gas lines, inflation, 17% mortgages, unemployment and Iran holding our embassy staff hostages for a year. That some how doesn't ring true with Russell Kirk's worldview.

Read All Comments

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.