frugal, more careful with public money, to give that kind of impression and one of the things that if you read a new presidential biography a that has a lot of depth, complained about people wearing jeans in the white house. it looked dirty and disorganized. carter would wear jeans in the white house and a bunch of people from georgia, the georgia mafia, people who didn't have national political experience. so it was a different kind of presidential style and substance, they set a high bar for what they do and bring it down anyway that doesn't sit well with everyone. one of the things carter did that was unpopular is asked they stop playing hail to the

chief when he came into the room. people like a little bit of ceremony around the presidency. anyone have questions or comments on any of this? this is something that has been lurking throughout this semester. we have been talking, a strike between being just a regular citizen, a lot of power and in some ways want them to be special, carter comes in right at that point of tension. the otr part of this that i want to talk about is how it

plays out with carter, once he is done running against washington. now he is in shington and not only is he of the potical establishment but he has to deal with the ople there that he has been running agnst. not just running agast nixon and johnson and ford but running generally against the culture, the way people do things in washington. you get to washington and realize the same people are still in congress. you have to deal with them. they are your own party. if you want to get anything done you have to deal with congress. hopefully this is a theme we have taken, talking about presidents being embedded in the other branches. one of things carter wants to do is speak to the people about what he wants to do, the changes he wants to make and to think about the president

speaking to the people on tv or through various forms of media or live events is pretty normal and it wasn't a new thing in 1976. we haven't talked about presidents, this can create a tense dynamic. here is what we are going to do and the kind of legislation i want congress to pass, congress is the first branch. congress can be we will see about that. who passes laws here? members of congress. they may not want the president telling them what to do, they don't work for the president so you see how that creates tension the president speaking directly to the people. a big theme, as i was going through them. they wanted to set a tone,

communicate with the people in an effective way to talk about their values and what the policy agenda would be. this public opinion is important to them but there's a lot of debate about okay, looking at this big energy bill that we will talk about in a moment and a big back and forth between carter's speech writers that we will get two speeches to address multiple audiences but they are like okay, if we speak to congress first, then people feel we are not being honest with them, there was one speech for the governing elites and one of the general public and that is what we said we were not going to do. if we speak to the people first and then congress, the words they use in the memo, congress will feel like we are going over there heads, literally something that comes up in

these memos, we want to show respect to congress, and the american people and those may be in the mind of the administration somewhat different kind of messaging. and we haven't gotten to the policy agenda. any questions so far? we are good? okay. so this is a list of carter's policy priorities, read like a chart at the eye doctor, starts big, get small. so many policy priorities. if we think about these in deile can also see how they might relate or not rele to the main priority of the democratic party that carter is now a leader of, we've t

energy, somethinwe often hear associated with carter, and environmental orientation, foreign policy and all this other stuff. healthcare, the ecomy which is forefront in people's minds especially in the 70 carter is a big advocate of consumer protection and deregulation of industries he thought would be better for consumers. we've got urban politics and all these things that occur, the carter wants to address. who is in this photo? anyone recognize the person with carter in the photo? that is joe biden, new senator joe biden. they had a close relationship early on. on the one hand, carter had a lot of ideas, a lot of things he wants to get done.

a lot of things do get done. when we look at what got done, quite a lot of legislation passed, there's also some achievement. not a do nothing administration. one of the puzzles of studying carter. it is also the case that when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. the final part of this is carter himself with having this knowledge with his background also his background as an engineer in the navy, someone into details, people around them at that time describe the him as an intellectual, someone who really did his homework, also someone with a tendency to want to be involved in all the details. when you are the president and this is your agenda you can be

involved in all the details. some of this has to do with the coalition, some of this has to do with the nature of prioritization and some of it has to do with carter's political and indubitable style. take us through a couple of these policy areas and this will be not a deep dive in each of these policy areas. one of them is energy. energy had been issued through the 70s with gas lines, shortages, fuel, carter had a couple priorities going forward. one was energy independence so the us wouldn't be so vulnerable to what is going on in the middle east and other oil-producing countries and that set into the idea of more environmental ideas developing alternative fuels and stuff like that. also carter had consumer orientation so costs were lower for the consumer. these things don't always mesh.

then you add in politics. we have very ambitious plans about what to do to deregulate natural gas, change the regulation system around that, develop taxes to decrease consumption. very ambitious kind of plan going to congress to get public investment in alternative fuels. there is 100 items in the first legislative request conger that is carter sent to congress. there are couple of issues. one is the we've still got a democratic party that has strengthened this outcome in places like louisiana where oil is part of the economy, asking for things that would benefit consumers at the expense of industry. you very much carter's orientation.

they are not going to go for it. that there voters that their base. those trees are important. you get little bit of this push and in the party in the 70s, a little different than how we might expected be constituted today. some of these issues are problem. you run into problem where there is a big picture environmental idea that might benefit everybody but not good for certain industries that are important to members of congress, the dynamic versus today. it was different in the 70s oh carter has this complex congressional situation. the house and senate passed different portions of the bill, don't agree on the details. natural gas regulation, i could send some articles from the 70s if you want to read those. part of it for carter is it looks like he doesn't know how to negotiate with congress or

have good legislative skills and ultimately what congress passes is a pretty big bill. it makes changes. it does deregulate the natural gas industry, creates that about of energy. by 20% restated we would consider this a major piece of legislation but it is watered down compared to what the administration wanted. it makes people less mad. of its environment a list mad. people who oppose it who are not interested in these changes are also mad and carter comes looking weekend being depicted in the media as a bad legislative leader. you have a solid policy success. the politics of it keep getting away. if that wasn't complicated enough for you, now we've got foreign policy. a very active foreign policy presidency. there's a couple ways to break this down analytically.

your reading a good job a short reading with a good overview of key stuff. some of this comes, we start again with carter as a person. carter's values as a person, human rights are important to him. he wanted to have his foreign policy be guided by a sense of the good of people in the world, that sounds great. who is going to be against human rights? asked that question in campaign, very people. asked that question in a governing context and things change. guided by politics of human rights and this approach of things like engineer, we are going to break down the problem, analyze it, look at it's different parts and sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. that goes the field of the politics of the situation.

human rights orientation, carter learns to do that with countries that are powerful, it is another thing to do that in countries where the united states has either an alliance or is involved in a complex set of rivalries and go through the list of a couple things. carter starts with negotiating the panama canal treaty to give the canal to the people of panama and this is not carter's idea. carter was the one who pushed it to be contentious. really contentious around the will this put us interests at risk in the region. why are we giving this back. even though it happens, the politics of it kind of get away and it fit to this narrative of carter making the country seem week on the national

stage. the other piece of this, but relationship with soviet union, it evolves over time. carter enters into talks to reduce nuclear weapons. carter want -- want approach to that with more human rights framework and less of a power politics framework. now -- sometimes doesn't. also makes a pressure point with this human right thing. on the one hand carter wants to push that and there are lots of human rights abuses in the former soviet union. on the other hand, that makes for a negative set of negotiations, trying to have a relationship with a country, they can refuse to meet or talk to your do what you want or negotiate with you if you call out there human rights abuses. that creates political

incentive for carter to downplay that even though it is a significant moral issue. later in carter's presidency the soviet union invaded afghanistan, that becomes another thing carter has to react to. he reacts by pulling out of the olympics and makes trade deals but also not getting involved in the ground. that's another piece of reassessing carter's legacy. how do we assess what didn't happen? how do we assess the stuff he didn't do? next up, the camp david accords. sitting down with leaders of israel and egypt and putting together a peace agreement. ..? that becomes another piece of this really it's a really big foreign policy accomplishment.

but how high is this on the priority of of the american people? what constituency in the democratic party does this speaks to and even think about? you know, there are people who care about it, of course, but it's not going to be a top line issue the way something like the economy and inflation are. so really is like very foreign policy forward. in his first year. he wants to get a lot done and some of his advisors are, you know, we need to do stuff that that our voters are going to care more about. we need to attend not just to the policy side of this, but also to the politics side of that and this discrepancy between politics and policy is just going to come up again and again as we as we talk about carter. and then got ah, well, we're still not done with foreign policy. this is like the most we've talked about foreign policy all semester is we've got the iranian revolution and we've got a radiant revolution and hostage crisis and the other thing hee has to react to is a

tense situation and detect arrest hostages for the year because about peace of campaign imagery and the success of the administration and helicopters crash and the soldiers die and the. control what happened and it becomes a challenge but the other side we have normalizing relationships with china. polico a box and it also speaks to this sort of difficult of controlling a main, main political

narrative. if you make foreign policy the centerpiece of your administration, that's a but first of all, people don't pay a lot of attention. and second of all, you're really vulnerable. two external events that you've got no control over whatsoever. we have a couple policy priorities. then we'll get into two legacy. you write a bit about for today, good government. i asked earlier what is what does good government mean? is anyone have any suggestions what is good? what is good government. this in this context. one of the things that carter kind of emphasizes is waste making government efficient being more a more careful steward public funds and so we goes after these little local projects that congress is passing as district based water projects. so then your reading kind of goes after those. so this remind you of anything you've got a president who says,

look, i'm the national leader and i'm going to push back on this on this local local stuff. andrew jackson yeah, so a little bit of andrew jackson what the vetoing of the right exactly got the vetoing of the means bill rhode sort of like some echoes of the bank we're here we see this come up and again in presidential history this idea that the president is like i've got the big picture idea. members of congress are just a little bit a little bit parochial and narrow in their vision but they also they have a tendency to come back and say maybe so. but this is what my constitu wants, want. and order to get a law passed. you need congress to vote on a president can't pass laws. and that's pretty much what happens with this water project. carter goes after it other democrats are mad and they end up cutting out about the projects. but it mostly, again, just kind of comes back on the

administration that he's he's going these things that are important members of his own party and so he's legislating badly even as trying to do good government. this so i'm talking about inflation just kind of briefly here's a cover of time carter versus inflation. he'kind of taken on new new relevance ase're dealing with inflation. again inflation then was about twice what iis now. if the end of carter's presidency and i've just got here a little bit of tt from a speech that he in the fall of 1978 about inflation. what he's going to do about we're going to hold down federal government. we're in a flash federal hiring, get rid of needless regulations, back competition. what what ideology does this. like? what party does thisound like? you sound liberal or conservative? i think 's more conservative. yeah. so this kind, you kno not

typical of what you expect to hear out of out of a democratic. and it sounds a lot like you're going to hear when we get to to carter successor ronald reagan. we're seeing very difrent kind of very different kind of democrat and very different kind of democratic administration, really moving away. some of the main points of of the democratic party and going up to that going up to that point. and that, again, makes him even more on the outs with other democrats and specifically with the liberal wing of the of the democratic party and the kind of new deal wing. so i'm happy to to get to the point where we're kind of winding down all this policy detail. you probably feel like i've just like shot with a firehose of policy detail. this is this is intentional because i wanted to sort of give the effect of what what this

administration kind of felt like, what this agenda of felt like, where you just have all of these different things, all these different details and this sort of political criticism that carter was being unfocused. i don't want us to kind of think about why would people receive it that way? is that is that a fair criticism? is that a criticism that's really to this particular kind of contact, or is that something you would say today? now, we've kind of people complain the government get anything done. you know, government is is gridlock the two parties can't get along. and here you've got an administration actually focusing on a lot of things fighting, a lot its own party fighting a lot with congress. but also the things are getting done and not everything's great. not everything's perfect but they're they're accomplishing of the things that they said they would do. i do want to move briefly, though, to what's not there.

i think this is really notable. given given the scope of the carter agenda. what's not there is kind of front and center set of civil rights proposals and this point we' bn talking a lotbo and race and civil rights and the kind of constitutional stggs around that. but it's really for a democratic. presidt,irst democratic president, since lyndon johnson, to just really not be addressing this in in party where this has been such a main point. it's been such a political struggle. and where african-americans are still such an incredibly important constitu civil rights activists are, still part of the broader party coalition. and there's things they're but carter's carter's ideas on race are about opportunities. they're about support for historically black colleges, universities. and that's exactly the kind of like nixon's they're very of

based on economic opportunity. and that's that's not nothing that's not to say those things are bad necessarily good. but but it's different than having a more comprehensive plan about federal involvement and equal opportunity about bolstering voting and these things were important to the administration. and there there's plenty of evidence that carter was carter was in these ideas. he agreed with these ideas that even as a as a person in the south, he had actually borne personal cost as a business person, not joining these kind of reactive southern white citizens councils and things. but when it came to being president just wasn't at the top of his agenda and he has sort a mixed legacy for that reason in them. and the early part of the administration, the supreme heard a big case on affirmative action and the administration was really torn internally about exactly where to go with that. but they ended up kind of coming out in general support of of the

concept of affirmative action. but again, that's kind of reactive. yeah. did any of his campaign focus civil rights like were there broken promises, i guess, or promises, but that that's a good question. yeah, it wasn't really wasn't really a campaign focus either. i mean, it was the campaign was lot more general about this kind of good government kind of idea. yeah it wasn't really front and center campaign. and you sort of see that in in the way the electorate shakes out right now. carter was quite, quite popular in the south. it was really like the safe bet. carter the safe bet in the general election in that sense of not not it that. yeah, great question. anyone else. so i want to spend the rest of our time here really bringing down the legacy here and everyone see that i have a different motif for legacy.

the thing is how we think about presidential and weakness and i ink that this is we this both in the really kind of symbolic and superficial stuff like carter wearing jeans in, the white house or appearing on tv he's tv in his cardiga telling everyone to turn the ermostat. and also in these kind of major foign policy moments of the country, maybe not always being able to assert dominance in every in every foreign policy interaction of things like the panama canal treaty or approaching things from a human rights framework than more of like a dominance politics framework. how does this shape how think about presidential strength strength. it really shapes the kinds of the kinds of symbolism and the kinds of words and that the presidents use, i think that it made presidents really hesitant

to use this kind trade off language or to talk about things not going so great. one of the most famous moments, carter, and this kind of topic happens in 1979 when he gives was what's commonly as the malaise speech. we of the malaise speech but also it was of known in the administration as the crisis of confidence speech and talks about the country is kind of experiencing this kind of low point and crisis of confidence and that, you know, we need to we need to come together and kind of figure out where we're going. there's a fairly recent about this that actually says we've totally misunderstood the speech and says fact after this speech that people were responsive to carter talking about the need, national sacrifice for people, people talking about the need for a kind of the national mood shift and for the people of the

country to do something to make better. instead of just promising that the government would deliver better. this the person coming message wrote this book says actually after that people wrote in and they said we will make sacrifices to conserve and we will do this. the people were quite responsive to the speech and that it was just everything that happened after that, things kind of fell apart. carter's cabinet resigned sins and the administration then goes into some turmoil over that. the economy continues to be bad. you start to have the hostage situation and things falling apart in iran and those are the things that really brought down administration, not a misspeaking this this malaise speech. there's kind of a debate about that legacy but it was still received at the time. it's like the american president can't go on tv and just say things are bad. the american president can't go on tv and tell the american what they're doing wrong or what's wrong with them.

and that i think, has really, really took really took hold through through the following. really. what do we think about this? this is this good or bad for presidents not to be able to address the american people that way? it's kind like there's kind of this sense of, well, carter is just being a being a downer. and we want to have a president who's going tell us that we're great, the country is great, that we're all doing. and we are going to acknowledge tradeoffs. it's one of the ways that i of read this this legacy carter's is in what is strength and weakness. and it becomes this kind of legacy of a road map for what presidents shouldn't. the last piece that is a sort emphasis on big picture versus details that is kind of weak to be overly invested in the details this different i mean

this sort of plays differently depending on who's who who's president and we kind of shift back and forth between the these different kinds of presidential images. is the president too nerdy, too invested in details, unrelatable when obama was running? people used to say he was professorial. that was a bad thing. versus, you know, not invested in the details, not invested in reading. and so this was a common this was a common critique of trump. it was a critique of george w bush and i think kind of a framework from that era as well of is it bad to have a president who's over in the details of a situation versus underinvested? and so it leaves us with kind of open question about how presidents might navigate that tradeoff, questions about this comment, throwing a bunch of questions at you, ponder you'll

have time to ponder. we'll come back to this questions over the course of the semester. is this kind of again, i think what i want you to take from this is that carter does leave the sort of roadmap or like kind of an anti roadmap for what should avoid should avoid over invested in details. they should avoid being negative. they should avoid asking people to make too many sacrifices. and i think a lot of presidents since then have kind of acted accordingly. the the kind of coda to this i wanted to add in this a little bit of a last minute added to the rabbit incident from 19. anybody know about this. all right, corey, you're smiling way t much back there and what i want to weigh in on this. he was doing and he was attacked by a rabbit. and the president believed him. so he brought up photos showing

him in a canoe near a big rabbit to prove that head, in fact, been attacked by iran. so this is the only photo that i'm aware of is a very different era there's not a lot of footage of this. yeah, there was canoeing and apparently descriptions of this are like it was a swamp rabbit and it wasn't like a cute little rabbit. it was the wild animal and jumped into the canoe and to head it with a paddle. no one really knows. but here's the picture. and this also becomes of like and develops its own. and there's all these kind of rumors about what members of the media had said in private to carter press secretary julie powell, about you know, what, what had happened, but also like how they were thinking about it and none of this is confirmed particularly well, but it's this idea the press is like this, a symbol of carter's failure in the iran hostage crisis and a failure in this with the soviet

union. and like the idea is this president can get attacked by a rabbit and he's like making himself look weak by having like beat down this this sad little creature. and this becomes, again, a sort of second level set of rumors. no one is even really sure if these behind the scenes conversations happen. but jody, the secretary press secretary writes, a book in the eighties, kind of trying to tell people what what really happened. the president confessed to having had limited with and raised rabbits and that it was truly a wild animal. but it kind of exemplifies this relationship with with carter and in the media kind of takes us back it kind of takes us back to watergate. remember, we talked last about how important press and like the press being a little bit aggressive with administrations, how important that was in the watergate story and we see carter is a different person. circumstances have changed, but elements of the environment are still there. and carter is still contending with this sort of idea of a news media that really to expose the

the weaknesses and the foibles of an administration. and so with carter, it's many different things that are quite newsworthy, but also, it's this sort of more around this rabbit incident and that kind of illustrates this weakness point. so if everything else i said was boring and, you're going to forget it. you're going to remember this rabbit. it's the second part of legacy here that want to address is carter's legacy. the democratic party. and here i mean, this is kind of weird because as ex-presidents, when they lose, when whatever term limited always have kind of an odd relationship with their sometimes they are kind of elder states persons of their parties. but also it's, you know, their time done. and sometimes it's time to let other other people lead. but carter influenced trajectory of the democratic party in addition to still being somewhat of a figure within the party.

one of the things i really want to draw your attention to is that the thing that was probably the presented the most challenges for carter was the most responsible for the problems that he had. is the legacy that really stuck is the legacy that did become kind of positive road map for later presidential candidates. and that's outside our idea that this idea that parties nominate people who are a bit fresh from the mess in washington, this is where you start to see a lot of governors being nominated and elected to president that that change kind of happens with with carter. and so this of outsider politics, this idea, the nomination system, the primary, the iowa caucus where you can drive and forth to the state and meet everybody. new hampshire another early primaries think you literally have to meet every single person in state if you want to win that primary that is a real advantage. an outsider candidate, right. you don't have a lot of recognition.

well, i'm going to go to the diner and get name recognition. and that that becomes the thing. and so carter has this lasting imprint, not really on both parties, but on particularly on his own. the second is we do see the democratic party moving to the center under under carter. this becomes a thing through certainly through the eighties, nineties and early 2000. so the democratic party starts to move away from its deal roots, starts to think about adopting some of these more republican frameworks, about size of the government. thinking back to that slide with inflation speech, regulation and speech, the idea that the government is going to play this big role in people's lives, that it's okay to talk about building out government, building up new cabinet departments, new regulations that becomes a lot less popular. and we associate all that with ronald reagan, who we'll talk about after spring break.

but carter, really one of the early people to articulate these ideas and very early on the democratic side to be articulating them as a sitting president. and so, of course, that causes us kind of a fault line between these more traditional democrat cuts and then this kind of new strain of thought within the party and. finally, we have a new role. the south, the south been lurking all throughout our semester. we've had a lot of experience with the south kind of being the kind of veto point being the constituency in congress that presidents are worrying about playing a role in nominations. but now had someone from the deep south as the president to fairly unusual thing in the 20th and and even 19th centuries since the civil war. but it's a new south carter is part of this kind of cohort of new and more moderate to liberal

southern governors. so we're actually seeing real changes in that region. well, and you do see the 1980s, this sort of idea and the democratic party similar to this move to the center of kind of trying to pivot toward the south, trying to win back the south and to make these appeals that are kind of in a moderate, modern mode as opposed the old southern democrats or. on the other hand, there's kind of old school, new deal, northern. so carter actually has a really profound effect. these shifts within within his own party and within the ideas that are floating around in the country. so this is the last one, the last piece of legacy i want to talk about in a lot of ways is sort of the deepest one. this is probably the kind of imagthat you're most familiar with with with carter. anyone know what he was doi there? this is a couple of years old building a house.

he's a house? yeah. with flood organization. anyone know habitat for humanity? yeah, for humanity. which he didn't start. i mean, he, his wife kind of but it up. and so he this is a couple of years old, if you see if you can read the caption here on the bottom says carter returns from surgery to build homes for habitat for humanity. and again, this is not that old. this is only a few old. so he's in his nineties. this is one of the post presidency legacy of jimmy carter. so we have the carter center, which he and his wife did, found that has been really devoted to election monitoring, democracy promotion throughout the world, also disease eradication. so has been really active in. this idea of eradicating diseases, the developing world and then on the other hand hand, building homes with habitat for which carter is out there physically building these houses. and that is really the

post-presidential legacy of carter. and it's often presented as a point of contrast that on the one hand, carter wasn't very good at being president is this is sort of the way this goes. but on the other hand, you know, it's just this wonderful and humanitarian human being. and one of the ideas that i think really got deeply absorbed into the political culture is that those two things are just at odds with each other that you can't be a kind of sunday school teacher kind of person and also be successful president. and that's one of the legacy ideas i think might need to be revisited. probably will be revisited as people rethink carter's legacy and rethink what happened while he was president. what do we think about why do you think we might those things as being so so different and this idea that if you are this kind of really service person, you can't be an effective president. do you think this is true.

what do you think those who think this is true, do you want to say why go for it? maybe just this is like a generalization politics tend to like be perceived like quite a ruthless field and that's not really well like before the school teacher like this service oriented guy that's not the type of image of that that kids are it seems like the type members that actually like kind swallowed up by politics. so just like the nature of the two of okay yeah. i mean you think like if you all have taken a, like an international class, you probably play like a game or done like some game theory in this idea, in politics, like you've got to be thinking about how you're going to like play a power game of politic, right? you're going to think of you're not thinking about like, oh, how can i help this other person thinking about how can i win? you have to think this is this really drives how we think about politics again, this is really powerful, kind of theoretical paradigm in international

relations, also in other in other areas the city of being ruthless doesn't really mesh with being a good person. anyone else thoughts on this question? i don't really i don't really have an answer about whether whether these things are fundamentally different whether this is just someone who is very effective in one context and very ineffective another. but i think it deserves revisiting that. one of the things that really got absorbed into the culture is the idea that these things are totally incompatible. and with a case of one and with people kind of coming off of the end of carter's presidency quite, you know, quite raw about the whole thing. there is a sort of international humiliation, given that there is this terrible inflation. all of these things are sort of bad that that might lead to make a very general conclusion that might not actually be always.

might not be the case, that it's it's not ever positive able to to bring these two things together. and it seems a little bit to me a little bit quick to give up the game, quick to give up the idea that the presidency can be kind of comparative with service or democracy see or a lot of the constitutional themes we've been talking about. the presidency just can't reconciled with those. and so i think that we will, as people revisit carter's legacy kind of revisitation of whether this presidency was was more effective than people think, whether the things about carter that kind of foreshadow his post is kind of emphasis human rights, his on vision, his emphasis, the environment that these things actually, you know, were parts of the presidency that had some success that brought something good to the

and maybe that that's it on where you look to assess the carter presidency. other thoughts about this. okay, so i know kind of closes up with carter as a transitional president both for the country and for the class. so iind of identified carter here as transitional president around as idea of the old party system's kind of going into decline. we see that with the change in nominations. we s that with kind of decline of this new deal democratic party. and carter comes in as president ain. who really makes us outsider vision very popular way to run for president in a very successful to run to run for present. we have movingway from this kind of ideas of bigger

government toward an idea that governmenthould be efficit, pared back and. this really inherince for how how strong the presidency should be. so on the one hand, the sort of craving for stronger symbols for presidents to avoid a kind rabbit moment at all costs, to be really attentive to how it looks like they're negotiating with congress. to be really attentive to how it looks like negotiating or relating to international actors. but at the same time, the watergate baggage also hasn't gone away. so they're also contending with an in which there is suspicion of the government for being corrupt and dishonest and all that kind of stuff. so it adds in this sort of goldilocks and the three bears kind of expectation for for presidents if, if nixon and the presidency after that point was kind of too strong. and then carter overcorrected was too weak in his manipulation of those symbols. and presidents now have to of

think about how they're going to present themselves as just right and that that's really constraining. so i think carter's a really important kind of turning point in how we how we think about the presidency and, how we think about the post-watergate presidency for us in this class represents our transition in between our constitutional unit where we've been building up through talking through these themes about how presidents have enacted their constitutional obligation, how they've navigated the demands of civil rights and federalism. and now we're moving into a period where we're going to focus on the public presidency. so, again, we're back in this idea of how the presidents relate to the people, how do they relate to their parties, how do those things sometimes pull them in different directions? how do they relate to social movements? so that's where we're that's where we're going to pick up next time is, really delving into that, doing it, delving into that unit and anyone have

any final or questions for we wrap things up here. okay. so for next time thursday, we are really peeling back. we've kind of talked here about how carter related to the new deal coalition and the democratic party. we've gone over that, but we'll really be back in that. we're really going to immerse ourselves in that on thursday and kind of move back. we're going to time and ask, how do we get here. so that will be that will be the lecture on fdr and the democratic party for thursday. get excited but thus far hopefully this poses some questions about the carter that we can we can chew on over rest of the semem lectures in history and the

presidency and more. side of the american history tv newsletter and be sure to watch american is receiving or anytime online at c-span.org/history. ♪♪ >> weekends on she's going to are an intellectual piece every saturday american history tv documents american stories and sundays tv brings the latest in nonfiction authors. funding for season two comes from these television companies and works. the public service.