'What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?': Jimmy Carter, America's 'Malaise,' and the Speech that Should Have Changed the Country (Hardcover)

~ (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

The 1979 national malaise speech that defined Jimmy Carter's presidency—though he never used the word malaise—gets its due in this contrarian homage. Ohio University historian Mattson (When America Was Great) considers the speech—which expressed Carter's own crisis of confidence, bemoaned Americans' loss of faith in government and deplored the country's selfishness and consumerism—to be a thoughtful response to the problems of the day that initially won public acclaim, before political opponents caricatured it as a gloomy scolding. Following the speech from its bizarre provenance in an apocalyptic memo by pollster Pat Cadell through its honing during a messianic domestic summit, the author sets his colorful study against a recap of the gasoline shortages, inflation and Me Decade angst that provoked it. He interprets it as a tantalizing road not taken: with its prescient focus on energy, limits and sacrifice, its humility and honesty, it was, the author says, the antithesis of the Reagan era's sunny optimism. Mattson makes Carter's maligned speech a touchstone for a rich retrospective and backhanded appreciation of the soul-searching '70s. (July)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From The Washington Post

From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com Ronald Reagan wished us a good morning in America, while Papa Bush foresaw a new world order. Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman, whereas George W. told his enemies to bring 'em on. Further back, we had nothing to fear but asking not for a Great Society. Trust me -- I am not a crook, and I cannot tell a lie. History seems to remember occupants of the White House as much for their words as for their actions. It's too soon to know which words will define President Obama. "Responsibility"? "Empathy"? "Hope" and "change" echoed through his campaign, but over time will they start feeling a little old, a little yes-we-canned? Among all the men who've held the office, however, President Jimmy Carter alone may have the distinction of being defined by a word he did not utter. In an extraordinary speech from the Oval Office on July 15, 1979, the 39th president looked straight into a television camera, deep into the nation's psyche, and proclaimed a "crisis of confidence" in America, one "that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will." Despite a brief bump in the president's approval ratings, the address became forever disparaged as the "malaise" speech, and it doomed Carter's reelection chances. That speech, history has concluded, was a huge mistake. Ohio University historian Kevin Mattson challenges that conclusion in his feisty new book, "What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?" Chronicling the mood inside the White House and across the nation in the months surrounding the speech -- months when gas lines and Three Mile Island monopolized the news while "Apocalypse Now" and "disco sucks!" dominated the zeitgeist -- Mattson offers a radically different reading. The speech, far from a political miscalculation, was a brave attempt by a thoughtful president to reimagine the nation and bind citizens and government in a common purpose, one that the author believes should still resonate today. If the speech failed, it was not because of the president's words, but because of the way his message was twisted by his opponents and because of strategic flubs Carter made shortly thereafter. It was a speech that almost never was. In the early months of '79, with a presidential election season on the horizon, Reagan was charging on the right, Ted Kennedy challenging on the left and the White House imploding among bickering advisers. Carter seemed disconnected, traveling to Austria, Japan and Korea on foreign policy jaunts while gas lines gave rise to violence in America's streets. The president's top men -- image-polisher Jerry Rafshoon, domestic policy wonk Stuart Eizenstat, press secretary Jody Powell and soon-to-be chief of staff Hamilton Jordan -- were hounding their boss to address the energy crisis in a major address to the nation. But the first draft the speechwriters delivered was so bland that Carter fell asleep reading it. "I just don't want to bullshit the American people," Carter told his team on the phone from Camp David, canceling a scheduled address. This left an opening for Pat Caddell, the president's 29-year-old pollster, who emerges as the hero -- or goat -- of Mattson's tale. Known for his apocalyptic views, Caddell had long been ruminating on a nationwide spiritual crisis that transcended gas shortages and oil cartels. Inspired by books such as Daniel Bell's "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism" and Christopher Lasch's "The Culture of Narcissism," Caddell decided that "disastermania" had taken root, with Americans losing faith in their government and their future. Caddell's genius, Mattson explains, was to appeal to both sides of the president's personality. For Carter the nuclear engineer, Caddell offered charts and data showing an increase in the number of "long-term pessimists" in America. For Carter the born-again Christian, he offered visions of decline and redemption: A self-centered, insecure nation felt defeated by the Vietnam War, embarrassed by Watergate and pained by inflation. If Carter spoke honestly to the country about its problems (and his own), he could guide it out of the morass. But the White House team couldn't agree on what to do. While Caddell plotted, Eizenstat counseled the president to deliver a tough speech taking on OPEC and calling for new energy regulations. Meanwhile, the speechwriting shop warned against another televised energy speech, after several had fallen flat over the years. The fight came to a head July 5 in an eight-hour shoutfest at Camp David. Eizenstat screamed that Caddell's ideas were nonsense while Vice President Walter Mondale "fought off a nervous breakdown," Mattson writes. Carter cut off the drama by proposing an idea he and Rosalynn had dreamed up: He would remain at his Maryland retreat for an informal summit with the American people. Over several days, governors, spiritual leaders, lawmakers, business executives, labor bosses and journalists paraded through Camp David, meeting with Carter for wide-ranging conversations on the nation's problems. It was an extraordinary week and makes for one of the most compelling portions of Mattson's story. A 32-year-old Bill Clinton stopped by, as did Tip O'Neill, Jesse Jackson and even Alaska's Ted Stevens, who encouraged Carter to drill for oil in his state's wilderness. (One participant, former defense secretary Clark Clifford, told reporters that the president was worried about "malaise," thus slipping the term into the bloodstream.) Carter also met with ordinary families, including that of William Fisher, a 29-year-old machinist outside Pittsburgh. "Fisher argued that the country was in a 'downhill spiral' and was shocked to find Carter shaking his head, saying yes," Mattson writes. Carter decided to merge these various perspectives in a single speech. He would talk about the nation's alleged spiritual challenges and would also offer solutions on energy -- forcing speechwriters Hendrik Hertzberg and Gordon Stewart to graft Eizenstat's bullet-point policies onto Caddell's civic crisis. They decided that if the country could come together on energy, it would show its mettle to solve the broader crisis of confidence. "It still seemed like two speeches," Mattson explains, "but they appeared at least tentatively hinged." On Saturday, July 15, at 10 p.m., after a day of rehearsal -- speak with your hands, Rafshoon told Carter, and don't grin all the time -- the president gave the speech. For 32 minutes, he admitted his failings. ("I need your help.") He acknowledged his critics. ("Mr. President, you are not leading this nation, you're just managing the government.") He criticized American materialism. ("Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns.") He argued that political assassinations, Vietnam and Watergate had undermined national confidence. ("These wounds are still very deep.") And he charted a new path on energy. ("This nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never.") The White House switchboard lit up. Letters poured in. The response was overwhelmingly positive, and Carter's approval ratings shot up 11 percentage points. For a fleeting moment, the speech was a hit. Well, what changed? Mattson targets the media, for one, faulting journalists for interpreting the speech solely on political grounds -- dwelling on Carter's "performance" and his effort "to show his toughness" -- and not on its content. Columnists hammered the M-word into the popular consciousness, even though Carter hadn't used it. "The president has made malaise a household word," The Washington Post reported even before Carter's address. "On the heels of the speech," Mattson complains, "the media turned itself into an echo chamber in which 'malaise' bounced around." Much of the blame, the author acknowledges, also falls on Carter. Two days after his speech, he followed Jordan's advice and dismissed five Cabinet members, including his attorney general and energy secretary, on loyalty grounds. The stunning move sent the dollar plummeting, while Carter's critics speculated about his mental health. As Mattson put it, "The president had blown it." Conservatives smelled blood. Jerry Falwell -- who had recently founded the Moral Majority -- and Reagan seized the speech to offer their own optimistic counter-narrative. "Does history still have a place for America, for her people, for her great ideals?" Reagan would ask late in the 1980 presidential campaign. "There are some who answer no, that our energy is spent, our days of greatness at an end, that a great national malaise is upon us." The Gipper went on, triumphantly: "I find no national malaise. I find nothing wrong with the American people." Mattson, whose sympathy for Carter is evident, concludes, almost bitterly, that "the script had been perfected . . . and it was working: weak president, overwhelming crisis, and American decline that demanded a stronger -- and different leader." If it was a script, Carter's final months followed it perfectly. Iranian students seized hostages at the U.S. Embassy. Arms-reduction talks with the Soviets fell apart. News accounts of Carter tangling with a "killer rabbit" while fishing in Georgia made the president seem even wimpier. Reagan rode it all to victory. Mattson makes the intriguing suggestion that the speech remains instructive today, not just politically, but substantively. If so, how do Carter's 30-year-old words illuminate Obama's current efforts and challenges? To a young new president who has promised transparency in the White House, the speech offers a vivid instance of openness and trust in the public. Carter confessed some fundamental shortcomings -- well beyond Obama's "as a former smoker I constantly struggle with it" admission -- and called out the public on its failings. And to a new president who claims to eschew ideology in favor of pragmatism, Carter's week-long summit with the American people -- and Caddell's deep reading of contemporary arguments and popular books -- suggest an eagerness to raise new ideas in the public square. Now, with the economy again in crisis and Iran again in turmoil, the parallels between the eras are hard to ignore. Obama speaks of restoring confidence in the markets and the government. As a final lesson, he might heed some polling data that Caddell shared with Democratic leaders in the weeks before Carter's speech. Caddell found that Americans had faith in Carter personally -- in his "trustworthiness" and "dedication" -- but many worried that he was "generally not in control of things." Obama certainly fulfills the first half of that assessment. In three years or so, we'll know if he avoided the second. [e-mail]
Copyright 2009, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 272 pages
• Publisher: Bloomsbury USA (June 23, 2009)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1596915218
• ISBN-13: 978-1596915213
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.8 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 13.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (9 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #203,447 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #9 in

  Books > History > United States > 20th Century > 1970s

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

18 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Gripping tale, July 7, 2009

By	Charles W. Clark (Wheaton, MD USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This is a fantastic book, reporting events of 30 years hence which resonate to the present day, e.g.: energy, Iran, Afghanistan, even gay marriage.

I was in my late twenties at the time, and present at least at one of the reported events - "the disco riot" at Comiskey Park - but the author evokes far more detail than I am able to recall myself, and it rings true.

He also does good work in publishing the transcript of the Carter speech as an appendix. This is well worth reading, whether one agrees with it or not. It shows how many of our present concerns are linked to the past, and also how many things in this country have changed.

While it is clear that the author is broadly sympathetic to the Carter administration, this book seems to me to be a balanced and insightful account of the late 1970s - and also engaging and entertaining.

23 of 29 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Malaise and The Pressure Cooker, July 5, 2009

By	The Rogue (Los Angeles, CA USA) - See all my reviews

This is a fine exemplar of political and cultural analysis. In 1979, the United States was suffering an energy crisis and about to engage in full scale political realignment. Both were probably unavoidable, but nonetheless the product of decisions and realities long in the making. Mattson's focal point of the so-called "Malaise" speech by Jimmy Carter allows him to recreate the pressures of the time in an expert and compelling tale.

And pressure is what this book is about. Pressure from inside and outside of the White House, both real and imagined. The strongest aspect of this very strong book is how Mattson writes about emerging New Right and the Kennedy championed liberal left clamped onto the Carter Administration and squeezed from both sides -- only to show how the internal decision-making within the White House finished off the Administration.

Mattson builds out from there to show how the trends of the day (Studio 54) and expressions of political reality at the street level (energy crisis riots and gas line violence) required a political response. But that response, in large part, was a speech that departed from traditional American political norms and instead mined another distinctly American vernacular.

In another excellent moment, Mattson traces the evolution of the Moral Majority, Mattson demonstrates how the "New Right," often credited with conservative political accountability, is really the partisan creature its opponents (rightly) believe it to be.

There is another tradition, less radical, partisan or strident, that the malaise speech embodies. And this is where the author is most expert by bringing together the "culture of narcissism" debate and the "new covenants," amongst other manners to describe what American life is, isn't and ought to be. And these beliefs and attitudes resist easy reduction to media talking points, policy platforms or plans of action, but is no less powerful for its resistance.

The malaise speech was that accountability moment, where the political system took responsibility for its limits and the citizenry was called out for its complicity in our problems. The proof of how difficult this approach is to employ, Carter himself blew away the momentary credibility he earned through self-inflicted political wounds.

Right now, I would tell you that this book is very good. If I had to guess, if you ask in five years, I'd say it is excellent. If you prefer your non-fiction clearly written, expertly argued and possessing that knack for keeping your attention, this book is highly recommended.

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Resurrecting Jimmy Carter...., September 2, 2009

By	David Little - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

I was in high school back in the 70's when Jimmy Carter was president, and I'd forgotten how bad things actually WERE. Mr. Matson tries to resurrect Brother Jimmy's reputation by showing how prescient the "malaise" speech was, but in my mind only reinforced the image of Jimmy Carter as perhaps the most - or nearly so - inept president in US history. While truckers were on strike and crops rotted in the fields from lack of transporation and while everybody else was busy buying gas on even and odd days, Jimmy was running around the world trying to broker peace deals; almost a modern day Nero.

That said, and ignoring the attempt at tilting history in Jimmy's favor, it is a well-written and enjoyable book. It's rather short, a one-nighter - but I found it hard to put down.