Isn’t it the case Jim, that nearly every President is guided or led by his team. I’m not sure about Jimmy Carter’s time, but nowadays it seems the team is already picked with many neocons.
Carter was definitely "guided" by Brzeziński in his foreign policy. But the whole "neocon" apparatus had not yet solidified (Brz was extremely anti-Soviet/Russian but definitely not a neocon). And it was far from the post-Soviet "end of history" paradigm that set in with Bush I and Clinton. It was a time of transition for the country and the Dem party. Oil embargo, Iran hostage crisis, etc., combined with traditional post-war anti-communism, created unprecedented and confusing conditions. Nor had the absolute hold of billionaire money become so prominent. Generally speaking, I don't want to deny that a strong President who has the will can't act in ways that challenge the deep state, but it has become a lot harder in the last 30 years. Carter, I think, worked on the basis of conventional anti-communism, acceptance of the legitimacy of Zionism, "compassionate" but "moderate" and "fiscally conservative" economics, and--what was new and very important for him (and the country at the time)--acceptance of the Civil Rights movement (full enfranchisement of black citizens). Don't forget: He was the last "solid South" Southern Democrat; that won him the election. In the end, he stumbled through all that in a way that set the stage for Reagan.
Isn’t it the case Jim, that nearly every President is guided or led by his team. I’m not sure about Jimmy Carter’s time, but nowadays it seems the team is already picked with many neocons.
Carter was definitely "guided" by Brzeziński in his foreign policy. But the whole "neocon" apparatus had not yet solidified (Brz was extremely anti-Soviet/Russian but definitely not a neocon). And it was far from the post-Soviet "end of history" paradigm that set in with Bush I and Clinton. It was a time of transition for the country and the Dem party. Oil embargo, Iran hostage crisis, etc., combined with traditional post-war anti-communism, created unprecedented and confusing conditions. Nor had the absolute hold of billionaire money become so prominent. Generally speaking, I don't want to deny that a strong President who has the will can't act in ways that challenge the deep state, but it has become a lot harder in the last 30 years. Carter, I think, worked on the basis of conventional anti-communism, acceptance of the legitimacy of Zionism, "compassionate" but "moderate" and "fiscally conservative" economics, and--what was new and very important for him (and the country at the time)--acceptance of the Civil Rights movement (full enfranchisement of black citizens). Don't forget: He was the last "solid South" Southern Democrat; that won him the election. In the end, he stumbled through all that in a way that set the stage for Reagan.