Thanks for the context. I think the second one explains what you're trying to say better.

I think one can agree with the spirit of Carter's message while remaining skeptical of how practically it's stood the test of time. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, doesn't the last line of your second article seems to agree with GP's point? Can you describe what you're trying to say in more detail?

Those words would be that Carter was a leader who was looking for the American people. Regan reversed Carter's actions, got us more dependent on foreign oil, deepened our relationship with the Saudis. Rolled back efficiency standards and as a show of arrogant bravado, removed the solar panels that Carter had installed on the Whitehouse. Not sure what Bush the GP was referring to, but what kind of revisionism claims that either Bush moved us towards energy independence.

It is important to recognize how we got into this mess and who the literal and figurative actors are.