Jimmy Carter in the american political spectrum

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Probably to the right. Not just of all those Presidents but likely Nixon as well - "We're all Keynesians now" would not play well in post-1980 America. (Remember Milton Friedman was misquoted so don't necessarily try to align him with Nixon). You also have pretty serious wage and price controls in the Nixon era.

On the other hand, as you said, Carter was the precursor to Reaganomics.

Eisenhower is a little closer, but I'd probably would him to the right of Carter.

Economics is my primary consideration in political ideology rankings. Foreign policy can be quite dependent on other leaders. Even Nixon had detente with the USSR though that's in part due to Brezhnev. I guess Carter does get a good deal of leftist cred for the Middle East though. Still, it's just difficult to measure.

Ranking on economics (left-to-right):
LBJ
FDR

Nixon
Kennedy
Carter
Eisenhower

Ford

I don't know a ton about Ford or Truman, but I'm pretty certain Ford is the most conservative. Truman may be between LBJ and FDR. I know a lot less about him.
(Let me address Kennedy being to the right of Nixon. I do not believe this is how the 1960 election went down. Nixon was likely to his right at the time, but I don't think the way he governed was even remotely to Kennedy's right considering 8 years and a mostly popular Great Society program plus inflation separated those times of Nixon's life. His morphing should be quite apparent.)

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

It also should be noted that he was pro-life. Many Republicans in the era can't say that though obviously that wasn't as left/right either.

Also, Reagan hardly a "fiscal" conservative though to be fair nor many in thus time period are. I know you mean economic, but I get picky on that, haha.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Jimmy Carter is probably the most conservative Democrat to hold the Presidency in the 20th century. Hands down.

Woodrow Wilson?

No way. He was one of the most left wing despite his party being mostly quite conservative at the time. Jimmy Carter is just the opposite.

I hate quoting Wikipedia, but I think it lists all the progressive causes in bulk better than anywhere else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cherry pick as you like because I dislike him a great deal too, but it's hard to deny he's well to the left of most Democrats. I know there's a lot of bad things not on that list, but there's some on it too in my right wing opinion. We can't just view good/bad as left/right. I doubt you'd do that, but there are Progressives who (oddly only on here) deny Wilson as one of their own because of those. Purity is a high standard, and Wilson was far from it despite many things that should be viewed as successes to the left.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Conservatism is about upholding cultural tradition and being cautious about change. Civil rights is the opposite of this idea.

I addressed these semantics recently, but I'll do it again. Don't just use conservative and right wing synonymously. Just because we are in the US with a mostly capitalist tradition, the words get intertwined. There are radical right wingers even in right-wing countries. The situation only gets worse (more confusing) due to the 2-party system and current coalition consisting of free marketers (or sometimes more appropriately corporatists - take your pick) and white Southerners (some Christians, some not) who couldn't care less about economic policy so they vote by Party. They only care about upholding traditional values as they always have. Despite having nothing in common, these two groups are called right wing because they vote for the more capitalistic economic policy no matter what their real views are.

If the case had been a traditionally left-wing nation that otherwise contained some sort of a racial hierarchy for most of its history, would conservative refer to both of these things? Yes because it would be upholding the socialist tradition and the racial hierarchy. There could be radicals on both the left and right but conservatives likely only on the left. Radicals on the right who opposed civil rights would be the example of someone who is conservative on just an issue. Conservatives on the left who want civil rights would be liberal on a single issue.

I know that still makes conservative the term for racist, but I'd rather not even ponder a revolutionary who destroys a society with a great tradition of equality. I suppose that's possible as well.

The meanings of these terms are not consistent across cultures and hardly even across time periods within a country which is why I find right-wing and left-wing so important. Can you argue for the inclusion of race on the spectrum within those constraints? Possibly, but I still think Rockefeller has the strongest argument thus far. It's a conservative tradition that we are debating in a right-wing nation, but there were activist advocates against it from both parties. Does being radical on one issue in a RW country make you LW on that particular issue if you are agreeing with the LW radicals as King wants to portray (with terminology being my own)? Frankly, I'm not 100% sure - I tend to say no but its possible. Not every issue can really line up neatly into RW/LW lines.  This is especially true when there is an underlying economic argument from your particular wing's ideology that explains why this cultural change would be best. That's not to say "Because it is would help the economy under our wing's conditions" but to say "Because the economically fair thing would be for the government to provide for this race as well" or "Because the economically fair thing would be to afford this race the same opportunity to produce and sell goods" or something more or less extreme from each side.

I know there's no definitive answer in there so this is a lot of rambling about word definitions, but I think Rock's more accurate than he has been given credit for.

And don't think I am just using conservative/radical to refer to cultural issues because there could easily be a right wing radical on an economic issue in a RW country.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Jimmy Carter is probably the most conservative Democrat to hold the Presidency in the 20th century. Hands down.

]

Woodrow Wilson?

What on Earth was conservative about him?  Spare me that he was racist, that's a pathetic tactic to label that the "conservative" stance.  Because he was for an active foreign policy?  So were liberals until one Bush 43 came along.  Foreign policy and civil rights are only put on the political spectrum by revisionists who want to claim one stance as their ideology's own.

Yeah no, if that were the case Truman and LBJ wouldn't have been in hot water with the left-wings of their parties. Eisenhower and Nixon won their elections on cross-party vows to end wars.

Humphrey would've won 1968 if Johnson had a liberal foreign policy that didn't back dictator after dicator and just stayed the hell out of Vietnam....Nixon would've had no footing at all!

Or are you suggesting George "Mr. Liberal" McGovern was a conservative?

And the left praised Carter for Camp David and Panama...all policies no hawk would dare touch.

Even going back to Wilson, he was scoured by the left and lost his blatantly leftist SoS over WWI (William Jennings Bryan) when it was during peace-time.

The hippie movement plus anti-war students certainly provided an anti-war backbone for the Democratic Party in the 60s through the Reagan years, but war has evolved so much that it's hard to transcend eras. Just a decade and a half prior to this, Robert Taft - one of the biggest conservatives in America - was also one of the biggest non-interventionists in American history - a tradition that seems to have been revived by both the always dovish Republicans and the simpletons who oppose everything Obama does so they jump on the anti-drone bandwagon (though that appears to have changed with threats from Russia and ISIS). The left and right both have plenty of doves. There is usually a general consensus between parties which is preferred at the moment. More doves in the mid 20th century. Hawks in the late part and post-9/11 and now there are lots of doves from Iraq-weariness.

Another historical example of a conservative dove that I dislike just to prove I am not buttering up my own side: Herbert Hoover - a man who I dislike intensely - quite the statist, but inarguably RW conservative on most issues did not even believe in helping the UK out on the verge of collapse during WWII.

There's no shortage of hawkish Democrats if you want to hear about them.

Ironically, many white neoconservatives were among the most ardent supporters of the civil rights movement so something is not adding up. The reason they left the Democratic Party was due to the rise of the anti-authority crowd and a desire for traditionalism. I think neither issue can really be used to determine left/right standing. I mentioned foreign policy in my first post and the semantics of race down the page. You decide.

It seems liberals get the credit as doves because when the activist crowd loves to voice their opinion loudly.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

conservatism is a meaningless term, especially the bizarre American version of the word.

My brother's roommate is from Newcastle, and he can't even comprehend how the Republican Party social issue-only voters are a thing. Don't worry, I had a London resident confirm that, since there's a lot of things they can't comprehend up there. (No offense intended anyone - I say the same thing about regions dear to me and it's not politically charged.)