Newsgroups: sci.space.history
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A Memorial for Alan Shepard
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 03:51:34 GMT
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980727132258.539511503F-100000@NKU.EDU>,
David Kime <kimed@NKU.EDU> wrote:
>...I wondered recently, had the military rescue of the
>hostages worked (and it's failure had NOTHING to do with Carter), history
>might remember him much better, and the '80 election would have been much
>more interesting...
This is indeed kind of off topic, but I can't resist a brief historical
comment on this... The failure had everything to do with Carter.
First, as any naval officer learns, if it happens on your watch, it is
your responsibility, no excuses allowed.
Second, not only was it generally Carter's responsibility, but a specific
lapse on his part is fairly easily identified. By failing to develop
independent sources of advice on military matters, he left himself no
choice but to accept the assurances of the senior officers involved that
everything was under control. This fit with Carter's policy of trying to
make the government run the way it was supposed to ("Cabinet government",
etc.)... except that that *doesn't* *work* and many people could have told
him so. And so he approved a half-baked rescue plan with inadequate
safety margins, because there wasn't anybody who both could and would tell
him about its flaws.
Successful presidents develop ways of finding out about these things
outside of normal channels, because normal channels so often go through
people with a vested interest in optimism. For example, FDR's two top
advisors hated each other, so if one of them had a bright idea, FDR could
depend on the other one for a candid look at what was wrong with it.
Carter had no effective equivalent, and so it is not surprising that his
presidency sometimes staggered from disaster to disaster. He simply did
not know how to run a large bureaucracy successfully, and presidents have
to know that. This was a failure of management, entirely his fault.
--
Being the last man on the Moon is a | Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net
very dubious honor. -- Gene Cernan | (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.space.history
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A Memorial for Alan Shepard
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:50:02 GMT
In article <6ppu1m$2lq$1@news-2.news.gte.net>,
Ward C. Douglas <wdouglas@gte.net> wrote:
>> ...This fit with Carter's policy of trying to
>> make the government run the way it was supposed to ("Cabinet government",
>> etc.)... except that that *doesn't* *work* and many people could have told
>> him so.
>
>Actually, I was always under the opinion that Carter ran the opposite of
>Cabinet government, namely his major mistake was trying to control all
>details...
I think that was Carter Phase II :-), after it became clear that his
original ideas were not working. Mind you, that was a long time ago and I
can't claim to have been paying careful attention.
>> Successful presidents develop ways of finding out about these things
>> outside of normal channels, because normal channels so often go through
>> people with a vested interest in optimism... He simply did
>> not know how to run a large bureaucracy successfully...
>
>Excellent point...
A sidelight on this: it's not an accident that FDR, the most successful
US president of the century, was also one of the few US presidents whose
background included work experience as a senior civil servant. Now
*there* was a man who understood how bureaucracies work and how to make
them do what he wanted.
--
Being the last man on the Moon is a | Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net
very dubious honor. -- Gene Cernan | (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)