Honesty, integrity, virtue and high character are all admirable. Men of Carter’s quality are rare. You oppose his politics – so you assume he’s dirt by definition. This isn’t logical.
Let me repeat: Policies bad; person good. How hard is this to understand? Do you find his character/integrity lower than Bill Clinton? How about Stalin and Hitler?
So if a Nazi is honest and has integrity towards naziism, he’s still a good person? Same for an honest communist?
I find all of the people you mentioned–Clinton, Stalin, Hitler, to be men of poor character. Carter happened to live in country where he couldn’t get away with the things Hitler and Stalin got away with. All of them believed in the use of force against the citizens of their country. So do all current Republicans and Democrats, and I don’t like any of them, either. Personally, or politically.
Someone who believes in initiating the use of force, who does not respect individual rights, is an evil person. That’s Jimmy Carter.
And I believe the other poster dealt with Carter’s selective honesty, which you failed to address.
Everybody seems to be missing the point. It is precisely Carter’s noble dedication to false principles that made him such a poor and indecisive leader. This misused virtue of his made government seem ungovernable, made life seem hopeless, and led to general American anomie and malaise. Carter was a tragic Andrei Taganov type figure.
Daniel Patrick Monihan and Hillary Clinton may both be traditional Democrats – but Monihan is FAR the better human being. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter may both be moderate Democrats – but Carter is FAR the better person. Both Monihan and Carter could be converted to capitalism and Objectivism if we tried. Not so the lowly Clintons.
Does anyone seriously argue tha Elie Wiesel is a bad person just because his politics and philosophy are wrong? He has great BEAUTY as a man and human being. I feel sorry for any Objectivist who is so dedicated to her belief system that she can’t see that.
Everybody seems to be missing the point. It is precisely Carter’s noble dedication to false principles that made him such a poor and indecisive leader. This misused virtue of his made government seem ungovernable, made life seem hopeless, and led to general American anomie and malaise. Carter was a tragic Andrei Taganov type figure.
Ariana: You raise an interesting issue about how we should judge people. An issue far broader than Mr. Carter. Let me try to phrase the issue as a set of questions.
How would one describe the character of Andrei Taganov (of “We The Living”)? Is “virtuous” an appropriate description?
How is Andrei different from Toohey (of “Fountainhead” ) or Lillian Rearden (of “Atlas Shrugged”)? What makes Andrei a “better human being” than the other two?
To put such judgement in perspective, one needs to ask why we are judging them? Is there a purpose? If I had to vote for one of them, would I prefer the compromising Left-winger or the committed one?
Monihan and Carter could be converted to capitalism and Objectivism if we tried. Not so the lowly Clintons.
Are you saying that the difference is whether the person is making an honest attempt to do what is right, but is simply mistaken, as opposed to someone who really has no intention to do what is right?
I feel sorry for any Objectivist who is so dedicated to her belief system that she can’t see that.
Ariana-- There is no such thing as “a noble dedication to false priciples” nor is there anything moral or good about it nor does it speak good of Carter’s character. Someone that consistently pushes evil ideas is evil. Just because they are consistent in their evil beliefs it does imply any type of virtue. Instead it implies a vice if he is consistent and thinking he is doing “the right thing” i.e., that he has refused to think properly his entire life. That is one of the greatest evils a man can do. Couple that with what he enacted when in office and it shows that Carter is an extremely evil man with no virtue to speak of. You should notice by now that your “argument” can fallow with almost no changes to men such as Lenin and Stalin. And maybe even worse because he tried to enact those policies in this country.
That is precisely the point–he misused honesty. Just like a person who misuses a gun to initiate force. That is in no way admirable.
I am incapable of admiring a man who is honest, if he (mis)uses that honesty to inflict a tyranny upon me. I could no more admire Jimmy Carter’s honesty than I could admire the honesty of a murderer who tells me, just as he’s about to pull the trigger: “In all honesty, I’m about to kill you.”
How would one describe the character of Andrei Taganov (of “We The Living”)? Is “virtuous” an appropriate description?
How is Andrei different from Toohey (of “Fountainhead” ) or Lillian Rearden (of “Atlas Shrugged”)? What makes Andrei a “better human being” than the other two?
If I had to vote for one of them, would I prefer the compromising Left-winger or the committed one?
“Belief system” rankles.
Like Gail Wynand, Andrei does seem to be a virtuous character. He’s honestly mistaken in philosophy but not vicious or hateful or hypocritical. The heroes Howard and Kira thought this – and so did Ayn Rand.
Andrei is superior to Toohey and Lillian due to his self-consistency, idealism, and principle. This is always the right path (the Tao). It isn’t really possible to be consistently wrong or evil. Not long term. Eventually you realize your error because it slaps you in the face. Self-consistency and principle eventually KILL error. The real enemy is contradicting yourself, not being true/loyal to your beliefs, and not being true to yourself.
As for compromising vs. committed leftist…tough choice.
Ariana-- There is no such thing as “a noble dedication to false priciples” nor is there anything moral or good about it nor does it speak good of Carter’s character.
So how would you describe yourself prior to conversion to Objectivism? How would you describe an innocent 10-year-old child who has been brainwashed her whole life to believe in God, self-sacrifice, and a mixed economy? Is everyone who makes an error evil? You make no distinction between what Ayn called “errors of knowledge and breaches of morality.” You seem to obliterate the whole concept of character and integrity – you reduce it to just true beliefs vs. false beliefs.
Carter is an extremely evil man with no virtue to speak of. You should notice by now that your “argument” can fallow with almost no changes to men such as Lenin and Stalin.
The whole world disagrees with you about Carter – even his worst enemies. Lenin was a mindless obsessed fanatic and Stalin an unthinking crude thug. They have nothing in common with Carter, character-wise.
By the way, I notice everyone is staying away from my Elie Wiesel example. Good choice. He proves you can be a truly good man with a poorly thought-out philosophy.
Even before I “converted” to Objectivism I was essentially an Objectivist with contradictions. Where I was rational I was virtuous, where I had contradictions was where I had moral flaws which others should have rightly condemned if they noticed them.
And why should I care “what the rest of the world” thinks about Carter? Those people have poor philosophies and are wrong.
The statement “The whole world disagrees with you about Carter – even his worst enemies” means nothing in terms of truth and objective reality. A proper answer to Rational_One’s claim about Mr. Carter being evil involves pointing to the facts of reality–which I suspect don’t exist–that support your counter-position.
Now, I’ve noticed that the idea that a man can be “honest yet stupid” has been accepted as viable by some in this thread, that even though Mr. Carter’s principles were corrupt at best, he should still be given credit for acting on them, i.e. for being “honest.”
This is a mockery of honesty and of virtue as such.
“The mark of an honest man… is that he means what he says and knows what he means.” [Ayn Rand Lexicon] [emphasis mine]
“Knowing” something is not the same as “believing” something. If knowledge is arrived at by non-contradictory identification, how in God’s name can one call Mr. Carter’s views on morality “knowledge?” That one of his guiding principles is “all uses of force are evil” means his mind’s content on the matter can be called anything but knowledge, and hence his character anything but honest. If the concept of “noble” has any connection with virtue and rationality, the idea that one can have “A noble dedication to false principles” is a gross contradiction.
Furthermore, remember that all virtues are derivatives of the primary virtue-- rationality–and so any other “candidate” virtue must be consistent with it. How the hell can anyone get away with calling Mr. Carter rational?
This man was not and could not be rational, and hence he was not and could not be honest; please do not bestow him with virtues he most surely did not and could not possess. Mr. Carter, with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt, is the worst president I can think of–and that’s saying a lot (we’ve had some pretty bad ones).
It is precisely Carter’s noble dedication to false principles that made him such a poor and indecisive leader. This misused virtue of his made government seem ungovernable, made life seem hopeless, and led to general American anomie and malaise. Carter was a tragic Andrei Taganov type figure.
