Will we have a truly Liberal President in the next 20 years?

[DevotedDemocrat]

By "truly Liberal", I mean a President as left wing in his or her ideology as FDR or Lyndon Johnson--and acts like it, too; doesn't swing or cave to the right in the way Carter, Clinton and Obama did.

[H. Ross Peron]

I'm optimistic. I think there may even be a slight chance of Hillary Clinton transforming herself into one.

[LeBron]

LBJ really wasn't a "true liberal" when you consider how hawkish he was on foreign policy.

With Hillary and Schweitzer as the top Democratic potentials for 2016 though, I doubt we could get one like FDR next election. I'm feeling optimistic to that Bernie Sanders might choose to run in the Democratic primary or really high hopes for strong liberals like Sherrod Brown or Kirsten Gillibrand, but if either of those first two aforementioned candidates decides for a run, they most likely opt out. We might just have to wait another 8 years to try and get one to run and stand a good chance.

[H. Ross Peron]

LBJ really wasn't a "true liberal" when you consider how hawkish he was on foreign policy.

So were Harry Truman and Social Democrats USA also not "true liberals" because of their hawkishness.

[Zioneer]

2036 is a long time away. I think we'll have at least one strongly left-wing president. Probably not any of the current crop of Governors/Senators though. Possibly one of the younger Congresspeople.

[LeBron]

LBJ really wasn't a "true liberal" when you consider how hawkish he was on foreign policy.

So were Harry Truman and Social Democrats USA also not "true liberals" because of their hawkishness.

Still, I admire Truman for warning and ultimately firing MacArthur for failing to listen to his orders on the Chinese border. Him and partially FDR were still hawks, but nowhere near as cruel and war-hungry as LBJ was. Even Nixon of all people was much more effective than LBJ on foreign policy.

[DevotedDemocrat]

LBJ really wasn't a "true liberal" when you consider how hawkish he was on foreign policy.

So were Harry Truman and Social Democrats USA also not "true liberals" because of their hawkishness.

Still, I admire Truman for warning and ultimately firing MacArthur for failing to listen to his orders on the Chinese border. Him and partially FDR were still hawks, but nowhere near as cruel and war-hungry as LBJ was. Even Nixon of all people was much more effective than LBJ on foreign policy.

LBJ was actually far from war hungry. Go listen to his White House tapes. He asks tons of people (for example, Ike, who got us into Vietnam in the first place) if there is any real way out of Vietnam that won't leave the US embarrassed and looking weak, or that won't destroy his domestic policy. Everyone tells him no. He seems to be looking for any way out of it and doesn't want to go to Vietnam, and yet, it seems he has to.

Also, he informally began the process of Detente with the Glassboro Summit. While it didn't achieve much in terms of actual goals, it laid the groundwork for a more positive, less Cold War relationship with the USSR.

[Mordecai]

Maybe.

If they're young enough that they don't remember Ronald Reagan but old enough to be a young adult during the Bush administration, the housing bubble collapse, the financial collapse and the recession of the late 2000s, there's a chance that you could get a solid liberal in 2032.

[TNF]

Not unless a revived American left opens up breathing space for liberalism.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The current president is a liberal, though he is not "left-wing" at all. "Liberal" is a horribly misused term in American politics.

[All Along The Watchtower]

stop concern trolling

kthx

[TNF]

The current president is a liberal, though he is not "left-wing" at all. "Liberal" is a horribly misused term in American politics.

This too.

[IceSpear]

The current president is a liberal, though he is not "left-wing" at all. "Liberal" is a horribly misused term in American politics.

"Conservative" is also misused. In reality, Democrats are the conservatives (they tend to keep things the same, or only tinker around the edges). Republicans prefer right-wing social engineering and regressivism, which is far from conservative.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The current president is a liberal, though he is not "left-wing" at all. "Liberal" is a horribly misused term in American politics.

"Conservative" is also misused. In reality, Democrats are the conservatives (they tend to keep things the same, or only tinker around the edges). Republicans prefer right-wing social engineering and regressivism, which is far from conservative.

The term is reactionary, not regressive.

[ElectionsGuy]

The current president is a liberal, though he is not "left-wing" at all. "Liberal" is a horribly misused term in American politics.

"Conservative" is also misused. In reality, Democrats are the conservatives (they tend to keep things the same, or only tinker around the edges). Republicans prefer right-wing social engineering and regressivism, which is far from conservative.

The term is reactionary, not regressive.

Same thing pretty much.

[Vosem]

I highly, highly doubt you'll see anyone acting any further to the left than Obama. Where he is? Sure, but I don't think you'll see further.

[Cryptic]

I think it's very likely given the Reagan coalition is dying out.

[Zioneer]

I highly, highly doubt you'll see anyone acting any further to the left than Obama. Where he is? Sure, but I don't think you'll see further.

Obama is not left-wing, even by the standards of American politics.

[TNF]

I'm optimistic. I think there may even be a slight chance of Hillary Clinton transforming herself into one.

[Vosem]

I highly, highly doubt you'll see anyone acting any further to the left than Obama. Where he is? Sure, but I don't think you'll see further.

Obama is not left-wing, even by the standards of American politics.

I would disagree with you on the second portion, but it's sort of beside the question. If you don't consider Obama left-wing, then I think the chances of you getting someone you do consider left-wing over the next 20 years are slim to none.

[Deus Naturae]

I highly, highly doubt you'll see anyone acting any further to the left than Obama. Where he is? Sure, but I don't think you'll see further.

Obama is not left-wing, even by the standards of American politics.

By the standards of American politics, the national Democratic Party is left-wing. Obama represents the mainstream of the national Democratic Party.

[Zioneer]

I highly, highly doubt you'll see anyone acting any further to the left than Obama. Where he is? Sure, but I don't think you'll see further.

Obama is not left-wing, even by the standards of American politics.

By the standards of American politics, the national Democratic Party is left-wing. Obama represents the mainstream of the national Democratic Party.

Most of the ideas he's promoted would've been Republican ideas 10 or 20 years ago.

[RogueBeaver]

What Vosem and Deus said. Also agreed w/TNF on HRC.

[PJ]

Possibly someone who is considered liberal in today's political climate, although they may be considered a moderate 20 years from now.

[Deus Naturae]

I highly, highly doubt you'll see anyone acting any further to the left than Obama. Where he is? Sure, but I don't think you'll see further.

Obama is not left-wing, even by the standards of American politics.

By the standards of American politics, the national Democratic Party is left-wing. Obama represents the mainstream of the national Democratic Party.

Most of the ideas he's promoted would've been Republican ideas 10 or 20 years ago.

Other than background checks on gun purchases and an interventionist foreign policy, I wouldn't say so. The "HeritageCare" talking point is mostly false. While some conservatives endorsed an individual mandate to purchase catastrophic health insurance (though there were also many who opposed it), Obamacare, as I'm sure you know, involves much more than that, and includes an individual mandate to purchase comprehensive, rather than catastrophic, health insurance.