Last liberal Democrat in the White House?

as in DK who lives it, or John kerry who has the most liberal voting record, or...what.

Let your mind run wild...

For instance, think about Clinton. Conservatives said he was too liberal, while liberals said he was too conservative. Moderates probably thought he was just right. It's all relative. :)

because he is a nightmare version of classical liberalism, pretty much like an un-dead McKinley with the foreign policy of a zombie Theodore Roosevelt and the moralism of resurrected Woodrow Wilson.

I missed the part where he changed parties... :P

which is sort of like libertarianism here with a little more government involvement in things like education.

However, in US we define liberal as any leftist, not necessarily one who is ideologically for the liberal vision of life, liberty, and property.


Though it would be fair to say that all Americans are liberals and what we call "liberals" in the US are leftist liberals while repugs are rightist liberals.

edit: though it's true GWB would thus be a lib repub...which may be true, but he's a rightist repub as well. (damn us exceptionalism)

which most Americans ignore. Sloppy, sloppy word use in the United States.

The United States is a liberal nation. It was born a liberal nation. Most of the conservatives in the United States are liberals, which is the main difference between the US political situation and the European situation. Of course, the liberals are also liberal, and distinguish themselves from the conservative liberals by calling themselves "progressive." The conservative liberals want to return to the "good old days" of unrestrained capitalism and weak government, and the progressive liberals believe that judicious planning and restraint by a strong government will eliminate the worst tendencies of capitalism. But they both believe in capitalism. Conservative liberals support democratic structures, but with a heirarchically based electorate (all male, all white, all property owners, etc.). Progrssive liberals are less heirarchical.

You really want to get under a conservative's skin? Point out that he's really a liberal.

:)

segregation.

I'm kind of surprised Carter is leading. He couldn't get along with the liberal Dems of his own party, who controlled Congress, when he was president.

posted in wrong place.

Carter is a good man, but still rather moderate
LBJ, not such a good man, but politically a great liberal

was the epitome of Liberalism.

too bad it ended up creating welfare ghettos.

Brown v. Board, for instance (pre-Great Society, of course) has actually *created* more segregation in the North, though it has been semi-successful in the South.

How did that work?

I know, LBJ taxed the rich and gave it to a bunch welfare queens who didn't work and kept popping out babies to get more welfare, right?

Please, tell us more.

LBJ's liberal-minded domestic policy was tarnished by his hopelessly backward foreign policy.

I think Johnson is one of our more tragic Presidents in that sense. For those first two or three years, he seemed to hold such potential and promise. Then the whole thing fell to pieces because he was determined not to lose a war we were clearly losing.

he could have done truly great things

If Johnson had not become embroiled in Vietnam over the protestations of many of his advisors (read Ellsberg's Secrets for an account of this), his presidency could have gone down as one of the most visionary in our history. I honestly think that because of civil rights and the Great Society initiatives, he could have been up there with the likes of Lincoln and FDR. But due to Vietnam, it has been hopelessly resigned as a failure.

Note: I'm leaving any of the "Founding Fathers" Presidents out of the discussion, because it's an unfair comparison.

...a disproportionate number of minorities serving and dying in Vietnam. Racial conflict was the norm in those days, and LBJ knew that he had to somehow gain the Black vote.

I'm always amazed that anyone looks at LBJ as if he were a liberal. He is the epitomy of today's "Blue Dog" Democrat, IMHO. His closest political ally in the Democratic Party was John Connally, who later joined the GOP along with a number of very conservative Democrats in those days. What's that tell you?

I also think that anyone who believes LBJ showed "potential and promise" needs to do some digging into LBJ's early background in Texas as well as his career in Congress. The man was deeply morally corrupt. The fact that LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover were close personal friends and shared information about their respective political enemies should tell you a lot.

In fact, the LBJ scandals dealing with Billie Sol Estes and Bobby Baker made it very clear that LBJ was not going to be on the ticket with JFK in 1964. JFK's secretary, Mrs. Lincoln, was told the night before JFK's assassination to make a note that LBJ was off the ticket in 1964.

Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Head Start
Medicare
Medicaid
Job Corps
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
Higher Education Act of 1965
et cetera

I personally feel that such legislation represents "potential and promise." Does it mean that LBJ was a die-hard liberal? Hardly. But the legislation of LBJ's first two and a half years in office (at least) is very liberal-minded indeed.

LBJ was a contradiction in terms, a crafty and cunning politician with a "win at all costs" philosophy. Privately, he even used the N-word to refer to African-Americans. And yet, during the months and years after JFK's assassination, he used all of his craft and cunning to push through Congress a legislative program designed to help African-Americans, the poor, the elderly, and other discriminated and neglected groups in American society. Essentially, he did what JFK had been either unwilling or unable to do. Even FDR, despite his reputation as a liberal President, took very little action to help African-Americans. Why? Because he was concerned about losing the Solid South... which is exactly what happened to LBJ and the Democratic Party with the passage of civil rights legislation.

I do not necessarily disagree with the sentiments you express. How such liberal legislation could come from an Administration which also gave the go-ahead on something like Project 100,000 is absolutely baffling to me. Yes, I still believe LBJ showed "promise and potential" during his first three years as President. I also believe he squandered that "promise and potential" in his quest for fresh cannon fodder for his ungodly prosecution of the war in Vietnam.

but yes even with that I voted for LBJ because of the great society. Before him it would have been FDR.

on all accounts

Carter was the beginning of our scurry to the center, and Clinton...well...y'know

...of the political spectrum. He was a coldly calculating political animal that would have sold his own grandmother if that act would have won him some sort of political advantage.

all that stuff's given

just cause he was a shrewd politician and a scheming guy doesn't mean he wasn't a liberal, however.

for her attempts at creating a bold new progressive universal health care system.

The poll didn't specify it had to be a president, just that they had to be in the white house ;)

But - if I included every Democrat who ever stepped foot in the White House, the poll would be longer than the California recall ballot. :)

Besides, I couldn't think of a better way to phrase the question.

Johnson wasnt a liberal. i just dont buy it.
democrat indeed, but liberal i think not.

the end of segregation was alrighty under way under kennedy i thought?

and the law creating Medicare, which is one of the best anti-poverty programs in this country's history. He also appointed Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court.

...creatures to ever sit in the White House. None of those acts were passed because of any feeling that what he was doing was morally correct...he did it to offset the fact that Blacks were dying in disproportionate numbers in Vietnam and racial conflict in the U. S. was present at every level. He needed the Black vote for 1968, but the war took that option out of his hands.

but it was LBJ who put together all the great society programs. they both deserve credit.

at least not people in national leadership. That's why I voted for LBJ.

the great society was a failure, the war on poverty created a worse mess, etc. This seems to be put out by the same sorts who are interested in having Reagan be a candidate for sainthood. Most of it is not true, and the rest is deliberate distortion. Johnson was a true, effective liberal. The anti-poverty programs really did work, and LBJ managed the economy pretty darn well, all things considered. He also really got the Peace Corps going, although Kennedy gets most of the credit for it (which, incidentally, was Hubert Humphrey's idea originally).

i think a lot of the stuff you're describing actually comes from liberal historians who are gnashing their teeth. it is absolutely true that most of that stuff was great, but it's also true that some aspects, such as the attempts at education reform, were pretty much abject failures. in addition, the north really is more segregated now than it was then...

in large part, though, i blame this on the failure to fully implement the great society and the subsequent dismantling of most of its programs by reagan and nixon

nevermind, misread poll title.

My vote is for Carter, incidentally.

david

In fact, he was such a conservative Dem that Kennedy ran against him in the primaries.

Apart from his dedication to human rights, he doesn't strike me as a particularly liberal President.

But - as I said in an earlier post, the poll's meant to gauge personal opinions - and not my connotation of liberalism. :)

that he was a liberal as president?

My own guess is that most of them are completely in the dark about his actual time of governance and only know what they know of his post White House activities of recent years.

...nuclear Navy. Not many liberals, if any, made it through that screening process which culminated in a personal interview with Rickover himself.

And the answer will be the same in January regardless of the outcome in November.

That was easy.

not a liberal.

and, applied to those in this poll (at least) it is way open to interpretation.

What's your definition?

my definition isn't nearly as limiting.

Not limited to the established, traditional, orthodox, views, or dogmas.

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.


I don't limit my definition to the realm of the working class.

is someone broad-minded enough to put a lifetime limit on welfare benefits and open the door to the maquiladoras and the worldwide race to the bottom? You be you, but no, that's not a liberal in my book.

...I understand you have an issue with Bill Clinton's welfare reform bill (though I don't)and Maquiladoras but one issue (economics) among many does not determine one's liberalness.

but economic policy is a sizeable issue.

but one issue among many does not determine one's liberalness.


On what other issues did Clinton's "liberalness" cancel out things like welfare "reform" and NAFTA?

...one does not have to have a perfect score on a figurative purity test (of which there is no true method of measurement) to be a liberal.

one does not have to have a perfect score on a figurative purity test (of which there is no true method of measurement) to be a liberal.

So, if our definition is to depend on a "figurative purity test" with no method of measurement, is there anyone who could not be called a liberal? George Wallace, say?

...based on just several policies.

But until someone devises a measuring stick, or purity test, that everyone agrees on, and the borders of liberal/moderate/conservative and all shades in between on the political spectrum become clearly set and, again, agreed on, and we identify the issues that are most important to liberals and rank them according to their "liberalness" and -again - all agree on it, then we must all rely on our opinion (as you do) of what is liberal.

As my post said, there is no such test. None could be accurately devised, and thus, we don't have one to rely on.

Nixon got a couple of things right, but he was no liberal.

But until someone devises a measuring stick, or purity test...then we must all rely on our opinion (as you do) of what is liberal.

I'm enjoying the repeated "purity test" thing. Ok, we'll pretend that there's absolutely no agreed-upon definition in American politics any more - hell, it's not such a stretch, we're pretty much there anyway, as debased as the language is.

Bill Clinton is a liberal. Richard Nixon was a liberal. Sonny Perdue is a liberal. Caligula was a liberal.

And I'm Big Bird.

that you'd include Caligula? LOL!

Whee! Sonny Perdue, the liberal governor of Georgia! We're ALL liberals now!

But you did - not that you were serious.

Whee? Don't you mean "tweet?"

Or do we?

:)

Clinton is a centrist.

He worked in the cause of "bipartisanship".

And don't forget, the only acceptable form of bipartisanship is where Dems give up all their requests and let the Repuke policies go through unchanged. Dems are good because they can compromise. Repukes won't ever compromise.

Clinton was an enabler in that respect.

Look up tax and economic indicators over the last 24 years. You will see that the graphs remain constant during that 1992-2000 period. There was no 8 year reversal. The rich got richer, the poor got screwed in a 'reform' of welfare that hardly stopped the rich from taking free government money (corporate welfare), the workers worked twice as much for the same effective pay. The rich kept evading taxes (during the late-90s boom, a lot of them cheated big-time, making me wonder how * can give them tax cuts when most of them didn't do the American thing and pay into them in the first place... frigging traitors they are...)

If Clinton was a liberal, the LEAST he would have done was to end corporate welfare utterly. Like lots of other things, he didn't. The rich do not need money. Corporate welfare, in 1999, guzzled nearly $100 BILLION dollars. Lord only knows how much more bushko* is giving to them these days. And this is but one issue. He's got many they instantly rule him out as a "liberal" (one who puts the society at the same or greater level as the individual. While I respect individualism, the moment we try to hide the fact we're a society and society will suffer. Too late.)

Once more, mainly economic issues, and a few issues you also feel strongly about, are being used to measure Clinton's libralness.

But what you, are anyone, has failed to do is create a definitive list of issues prioritized in the order of their importance, that one must take a certain stand on to be liberal.

Until such a purity test is created that everyone agrees on, I'm very comfortable describing Clinton as a liberal (my opinion) and anyone who differs is merely expressing their opinion.

The notes on Vietnam are well taken. The things that might have been...

For expansion of government...created EPA. Possibly Nixon...though he wasn't a dem

He had more progressive policies than any other president in the past 30 years.

Nixon..."We are all Keynsians now!".

LBJ was really an old New Dealer..thats where his political roots where. Sort of like Claude Pepper, if you remember him.

Carter and Clinton where centerist Southern governors. At heart, probably liberal. But in practice they never really went as far as LBJ tried to do, domestically, once he had political power (and the mandate of his landslide against Goldwater).

Great Society, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act. If not for Vietnam, LBJ would be remembered as a President of the rank of FDR.

And, despite what many here seem to think, neither Carter nor CLinton could be honestly classified as "liberal"...both were, at best, moderate conservatives, especially in the fiscal sense. See for instance the deregulation under Carter; Clinton's welfare reform, positions on free trade, and so on. Any time I see someone call Bill Clinton a liberal I can't help but laugh.

You've got to be kidding me.

Here are some, but not nearly all, the actions of this particular liberal (I know there are other ones just as significant as this, I sadly don't remember them - a pity, they're pretty damning too):

DOMA

NAFTA

DMCA

1994 firing of Jocelyn Elders (a true progressive and somebody who got the American public to react for crying out loud)

1996 telecom act

1995 welfare reform that didn't address corporate welfare

Didn't lift a finger as corporations did everything to avoid paying taxes during the 1996-2000 boom period (60% paid zilch, according to a US News and World Article from the may 17 issue called "An Intolerable Free Ride"...)

Didn't do anything to help give American workers the pay they deserved while working an increasingly sized workload (twice the work at no increase in pay. So much for a nation of prosperity, unless it's prosperous in creating stress).

Liberal my hairy homo ass. x( He's a repuke enabler. The pukes even thanked his selfless "bipartisanship" with Monica Lewinsky. x( They can't even tolerate their own.