The Malaise Speech: It's Time to Apologize to Jimmy Carter
A few weeks ago, in his State of the Union address, President Bush got a lot of attention for saying that "America is addicted to oil." In typical Bush fashion, he delivered this pronouncement in a way that made it sound as if he was informing Americans of something most had never thought about or considered, rather than belatedly acknowledging a fact obvious to everyone. Also in typical Bush fashion, the speech was very light on actual policy proposals. Bush did vow to reduce our imports of Middle Eastern oil by 75% (only to have his own Energy Secretary undermine that claim the very next day) and he promised to support research into alternative fuels and energy sources ("switch grass"), though I doubt we'll see any real attempt to follow through on these promises. And, of course, nowhere in the speech did Bush use the word "conservation" or mention obvious ways we can reduce our need for oil, such as improving fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. In other words, Bush was many days late and many dollars short. He paid lip-service to a longstanding and deeply troubling problem without offering any serious policies to address it or enlisting the help of the American people.
Now let's juxtapose Bush's speech with a speech delivered by one of his predecessors over a quarter century ago. On July 15, 1979, President Carter delivered what would later be referred to, mockingly, as his "malaise speech" (ironically, nowhere in the speech did he use the word "malaise"). To this day, Carter is ridiculed for this speech, which he famously delivered in a cardigan. But I wonder how many of his detractors have actually gone back and read the speech. Carter was, for the most part, an ineffective president, but he had his moments. And it's long since time he got the credit he deserved for this speech. Here's a (very) abbreviated version:
In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people. . . .
This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them. . . .
I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day. . . .
To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel --from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun. . . .
I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation I will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest directly in America's energy security. . . .
These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment. . . .
To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects. . . .
I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford. . . .
Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our nation's strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives. . . .
So, the solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country. It can rekindle our sense of unity, our confidence in the future, and give our nation and all of us individually a new sense of purpose. I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our nation's problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.
Quite a contrast, isn't it? Can you even imagine any of those words coming from Bush's mouth (or most Democrats' mouths for that matter). In retrospect, Carter's words are both refreshingly candid and tragically prescient. Had we listened to him then and followed his advice, is there any doubt that we would be infinitely better off as a country than we are today? And to think, all Carter has ever received is mockery for this speech. Shame on all of us.
Now let's juxtapose Bush's speech with a speech delivered by one of his predecessors over a quarter century ago. On July 15, 1979, President Carter delivered what would later be referred to, mockingly, as his "malaise speech" (ironically, nowhere in the speech did he use the word "malaise"). To this day, Carter is ridiculed for this speech, which he famously delivered in a cardigan. But I wonder how many of his detractors have actually gone back and read the speech. Carter was, for the most part, an ineffective president, but he had his moments. And it's long since time he got the credit he deserved for this speech. Here's a (very) abbreviated version:
In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people. . . .
This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them. . . .
I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day. . . .
To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel --from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun. . . .
I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation I will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest directly in America's energy security. . . .
These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment. . . .
To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects. . . .
I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford. . . .
Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our nation's strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives. . . .
So, the solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country. It can rekindle our sense of unity, our confidence in the future, and give our nation and all of us individually a new sense of purpose. I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our nation's problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.
Quite a contrast, isn't it? Can you even imagine any of those words coming from Bush's mouth (or most Democrats' mouths for that matter). In retrospect, Carter's words are both refreshingly candid and tragically prescient. Had we listened to him then and followed his advice, is there any doubt that we would be infinitely better off as a country than we are today? And to think, all Carter has ever received is mockery for this speech. Shame on all of us.
posted by A.L. at 12:44 AM
11 Comments:
You have gone off the deep end this time AL. First of all, the conservation message in Jimmy Carter's malaise speech was not what has caused the speech to ever after be a focus of ridicule. It was Carter's characteristicly defeatist message. He essentially lectured the American people that the country was in bad shape and that it was their fault.
Anyway, I'm curious, in what way do you mean that "we would be infinitely better off as a country" today if we had followed Carter's advice. Does that mean you subscribe to the "no blood for oil" brand of politics? Is that what you mean? Do you mean that we wouldn't now be running out of oil? Doesn't seem to be happening - there is no rationing, no long lines for gas, and we still pay far less than the they do in Europe and most of the rest of the world. Fact is, the last time we were in an energy crisis was during the Carter administration.
So, in what way would we be "inifinitely better off?" I think we are doing just fine.
First of all, the conservation message in Jimmy Carter's malaise speech was not what has caused the speech to ever after be a focus of ridicule. It was Carter's characteristicly defeatist message. He essentially lectured the American people that the country was in bad shape and that it was their fault.
Yes, that's how his political opponents characterized the speech, but that's hardly the fairest characterization of his message. It's probably more accurate to say that Carter told people things they didn't want to hear. He asked for sacrifice. His opponents then came along and told people what they wanted to hear, that there was no need to change our habits or to conserve; everything would be fine. The abuse Carter took for this speech is why no politician since then has had the courage to confront this issue honestly.
Anyway, I'm curious, in what way do you mean that "we would be infinitely better off as a country" today if we had followed Carter's advice. Does that mean you subscribe to the "no blood for oil" brand of politics? Is that what you mean?
I don't think that our current wars are driven by lust of oil, if that's what you mean.
Do you mean that we wouldn't now be running out of oil? Doesn't seem to be happening - there is no rationing, no long lines for gas, and we still pay far less than the they do in Europe and most of the rest of the world. Fact is, the last time we were in an energy crisis was during the Carter administration.
This is a pretty myopic description our current circumstances, one I doubt even most conservatives would agree with. No one thinks the oil will flow forever. And while we don't have gas lines right now, we are in a situation where we've become so dependent on foreign oil that countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia have enormous leverage over us. Iran is on the verge of going nuclear, and there's very little we can do to stop it. And one of the main reasons for that is the near certainty that any actions taken against Iran will disrupt the international oil market. If that happens, we'll pretty quickly find ourselves in another Carter-era energy crisis.
So, in what way would we be "inifinitely better off?" I think we are doing just fine.
Please. Is your imagination really so limited? If we had truly devoted our resources toward finding alternative energy sources back in 1979, we might not be dependent on oil at all at this point. Middle-Eastern dictatorships would not have us bent over a barrel. The negative consequences of pollution (i.e. global warming) might not be as much of a concern. We could have created entirely new industries and the jobs that go along with them.
And at the very least, our use of foreign oil would be greatly reduced. We'd have more fuel-efficient cars. We'd have long ago internalized good conservation habits, etc.
Everyone admits that our dependence on foriegn oil is troubling. It puts us at the mercy of some pretty horrible regimes. I just don't see how anyone can argue that we would not be better off had we enacted the policy proposals laid out in Carter's speech.
See AL, everything will work out fine after all. We are on the verge of an "energy breakthrough," hooray, check out the lead article on Drudge Report.
Anyway, the problems you complain of are more prospective rather than current.
And with late 1970s liberal economic policy, no one was going to have the incentive to invent and refine the types of alternative energies that will - rather than conservation - solve our energy problems in the future.
Moreover, you have to admit, Carter just plain sucks.
That's an opinion all Americans - liberal or conservative, well-known or anonymous, can all agree on.
Carter was in office for another year and half after delivering that speech. His party controlled both the House and the Senate (by large margins). Can you name one thing he actually did or even proposed to make his stated aims a reality? There was often a gap between the good intentions expressed and the activities of the Carter Administration. Before I give him credit for mouthing the right words (assuming I'm willing to agree that they were right), I'd like to see some evidence that he at least attempted to bring them to fruition.
I don't agree that Carter sucks. I liked his speach then. I like it now.
I think he is a genuine person. He obviously wasn't politically skilled, he lost his bid for a second term. But I think he has and had integrity that I'd love to see more of now. I for one would be extremely happy
to have him as president now.
Robert and anonymous,
The purpose of this post wasn't to suggest that Carter was an effective president. He wasn't. But he took a lot of flack for this speech in particular, and I think history has shown how off-base much of that criticism was. It's true that Carter wasn't able to enact the policies he put forth in his speech, but that wasn't why he was criticized. He was instantly and harshly criticized for the speech itself. Indeed, the harshness of that criticism insured that all of his proposals were dead in the water before they ever had a chance.
You don't have to think that Carter was a good president to give him some small amount of credit where credit is due.
I'll apolgize to Jimmy Carter just as soon as he kisses both cheeks of my ass and boards a plane to France. Permantly.
I was in college when Carter delivered that speech, and have been a Republican ever since (I voted for Carter in 1976, FWIW).
I have previously formed the impression that the Anon Lib is much younger than me, so now I'm curious - did you actually see that speech live, and do you remember the circumstances?
As not everyone recalls, Carter went off to Camp David for what was billed as a weekned economic summit, which would be followed by a major address.
Instead, the summit was extended, Carter expanded the guest list, and the Big Speech came a week late. And this was the speech. Carter actually reviews that background in the first few paragraphs of his speech, but the daily suspense as this happened is hard to capture.
After the hype, let's say it fell a bit flat.
Anyway, that is my recollection - read the speech and see.
Tom Maguire
PS - I don't realize there were people who *Didn't* know that he never said "malaise" - I thought it was always referred to as "the so-called 'national malaise' speech".
Tom,
While I've read the text of the speech a number of times, I concede that I didn't see it delivered live (I was pretty young at the time). And since you did, I'll defer to your impression of its overall context and how it came across at the time. Every time I read this speech, though, I'm struck by its candor. I've never seen a politician deliver a speech anywhere near as personal or candid in tone. Given how this speech was received, I guess that's not surprising. Given that politics is 90% theater, it doesn't surprise me that the policy proposals Carter laid out in the speech have long been forgotten. But I'm always surprised at how far-sighted they seem, especially as we face the same problems 25 years later, without having done much of anything in the meantime. I just thought the speech made for an interesting juxtaposition with Bush's recent State of the Union.
It's amusing how many conservatives frequent your site, as evidenced by the inane, hostile comments above.
I agree with you that the thrust of the speech was about sacrifice, something which has been- with exception of mostly poor, less educated troops - in short supply since the inception of the Iraq war. Sadly the next president, most likely Obama, will be forced to deliver a similar 'malaise' speech exhorting the rabble to come to their senses and lessen their carbon footprint. Hopefully they'll be inspired more this time.
The fourth wow power leveling latest game in wow power leveling Warcraft series is ‘wow power leveling’. Also known as wow power leveling, it represents a wow power leveling multiplayer online wow power leveling game, the best of wow power leveling kind. Initially, it was wow gold it be released in 2001, but wow powerleveling was delayed wow powerleveling 2004, thus wow powerleveling the 10 years ofwow powerleveling franchise of thiswow gold series. The world of warcraft power leveling was not world of warcraft power levelingfulfilling, because wow power levelproblems with wow power level server’s stability power leveling wow performance occurred, but power leveling wow game still power leveling wow a financial success powerleveling wow the most powerleveling wow game of its kind. The number cheap wow power leveling users that play Maple Story mesos, exceeds 8.5 MapleStory mesos, worldwide.As a form ms mesos,recognition for mesos,outstanding popularity, the game SilkRoad Gold, received aSRO Gold, of awards. Now the question eq2 plat, why is eq2 gold, game eq2 Platinum, popular? For anyoneEverQuest 2 Platinum, played the previous EverQuest 2 gold, and EverQuest 2 plat, already initiated lotro gold, the mysterious world lotr gold, the breathtaking Lord of the Rings online Gold, this Rolex Replica nothing but an Replica Rolex adventure that continues the story of ‘Warcraft III: Frozen Throne’, four years after conclusion, in the world of Azeroth. The game is online role-playing, the previous versions being online and offline strategy games. The major thrills and unique features are present as in every Blizzard game.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home