So, what's your point here? That principled Marxists should have known that Carter was bad because he gave aid to the resistance against the glorious Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? I can't see how this action gave the left or Marxists any information about the Democratic party that (a) they didn't have before; or (b) is so easily mappable onto such a decision. And, btw, what was good about the Soviet occupation?
The appointment of Volcker is even less obvious. Before Carter, the choice of the central banker didn't matter in nearly the same way as it did in 79--finance in ascendence, and all. Moreover, what are your criteria for a progressive central banker? Who was your candidate of choice? I mean, the central banker has always worked for finance capital--so?
I'm not sure why one would choose to counter the "good" Nader myth with the "good" Carter myth--as if, to vote for a Democrat at this moment you had to believe in Carter's being really "good" (as if Carter=good means Democrats=good.) I think the syllogism is more Democrat=probably more than marginally better than Bush and costs basically nothing to support (ie a trip to a polling place in November). You don't have to believe that Nader is good to vote for him either, but at least your belief about him is relevant to the race.
Christian