The decision by President Carter to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics is controversial and complex, with arguments on both sides.
On the positive side:
• It showed moral support for the U.S. boycott of the Olympics in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Some saw it as a principled stand against Soviet aggression.
• It may have irritated the Soviet Union and weakened their prestige on the world stage by having a conspicuous absence of U.S. athletes at the games.
• It boosted patriotism and national pride in the U.S. for standing up to the Soviets.
However, there are also criticisms and downsides to consider:
• It likely did little to actually influence the Soviet presence or policies in Afghanistan. The boycott did not force the Soviets to withdraw.
• It denied U.S. athletes the chance to compete on the world stage and possibly win medals. This disappointed many American athletes and sports fans.
• It damaged relations with U.S. allies who did not support the boycott, creating diplomatic tensions.
• It gave the impression that the U.S. was capitulating to Soviet demands by compromising Olympic participation over foreign policy concerns.
• There is little evidence the boycott put meaningful economic or political pressure on the Soviet system. The Soviets seemed largely dismissive of it.
So in summary, while the boycott boosted morale at home, it likely had little practical impact on Soviet actions or policies. It made a statement but did not substantially change realities on the ground. The decision remains polarizing, with reasonable positions on both sides regarding its effectiveness and consequences. Ultimately, its positive or negative impact depends a lot on one's perspective.