Was Dwight Eisenhower a conservative?

[Meursault]

No. Not only was he not only not a 'C'onservative, as he was opposed to Taftism, but he wasn't even a functional conservative - he did nothing to slow down the rate of domestic reform from the late 1940s.

I quite intensely dislike Ike, but for reasons relating to transportation policy.

[H. Ross Peron]

No. Not only was he not only not a 'C'onservative, as he was opposed to Taftism, but he wasn't even a functional conservative - he did nothing to slow down the rate of domestic reform from the late 1940s.

He did-I don't believe Eisenhower pushed for say universal health insurance unlike his Democratic predecessors and successors.

[SPC]

I quite intensely dislike Ike, but for reasons relating to transportation policy.

Shouldn't a self-described fascist such as yourself appreciate the inspiration for the Interstate Highway System?

[Meursault]

I don't know. What does Ron Paul have to say about it? I refuse to hold an opinion on it until he does.

[BaconBacon96]

I think Eisenhower considered himself a moderate, actually.

[Antonio the Sixth]

He was probably one of the most truly conservative Presidents the US ever had, in the proper meaning of the word. Modern "conservatives" are actually reactionaries.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Eisenhower can be compared to British "One Nation Tories". He accepted and in some cases even expanded the New Deal, just as they accepted a post-war consensus.

In context of his day he was a moderate conservative (a conservative, as opposed to reactionaries such as Robert Taft or later Barry Goldwater).

[TDAS04]

Ike was moderate, maybe with a conservative tilt.  He was mostly to the right of Truman, but there was at least one interesting exception, which was Eisenhower's personal opposition the atomic bombings of Japan.

[SPC]

Ike was moderate, maybe with a conservative tilt.  He was mostly to the right of Truman, but there was at least one interesting exception, which was Eisenhower's personal opposition the atomic bombings of Japan.

Wouldn't opposition to the use of a new technology to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians rather than continue to fight using traditional combat be a conservative position?

[TDAS04]

Ike was moderate, maybe with a conservative tilt.  He was mostly to the right of Truman, but there was at least one interesting exception, which was Eisenhower's personal opposition the atomic bombings of Japan.

Wouldn't opposition to the use of a new technology to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians rather than continue to fight using traditional combat be a conservative position?

It depends on how you define "conservative".  Modern, Reagan-like conservatism on foreign policy tends to favor any means necessary to accomplish American power, with less emphasis on humanitarian concerns.

[AggregateDemand]

Nothing conservative about Ike. Creator of the interstate system, which was a loose interpretation of post roads and common defense clauses. Fearful of the military industrial complex he presided over during the war.

He was the first demand-side Keynesian in the White House, and like many presidents after him, he listened to the people who said productivity (supply) doesn't matter as long as spending grows. It took nearly 30 years for Congress to realize that paying perpetually higher prices for the same bundle of goods was leading us down the road to perdition. We still haven't fixed the policy problems from the post-war era.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Nothing conservative about Ike. Creator of the interstate system, which was a loose interpretation of post roads and common defense clauses. Fearful of the military industrial complex he presided over during the war.

He was the first demand-side Keynesian in the White House, and like many presidents after him, he listened to the people who said productivity (supply) doesn't matter as long as spending grows. It took nearly 30 years for Congress to realize that paying perpetually higher prices for the same bundle of goods was leading us down the road to perdition. We still haven't fixed the policy problems from the post-war era.

In what way was Ike such a Keynesian?  He probably vetoed more spending than any other president.

[AggregateDemand]

In what way was Ike such a Keynesian?  He probably vetoed more spending than any other president.

He vetoed spending initiatives following the biggest spending glut in US history (at the time).

Ike was the guns to butter president. He converted parts of the military into peace-time agencies, like Interstate Highway System and NASA. He also coined the term military-industrial complex during a speech lamenting his inability to reduce military spending to Post-WWII-levels after the Korean War. Eisenhower also expanded New Deal programs and Social Security.

He was a moderate compared to the likes of LBJ, but by today's standards, he would be regarded as someone of the Keynesian persuasion. Goldwater certainly didn't think highly of his domestic agenda.

[Beet]

You can always rely on threads formulated as "Was X historical figure X label?" for a lot of pointless time killing.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

He was probably one of the most truly conservative Presidents the US ever had, in the proper meaning of the word. Modern "conservatives" are actually reactionaries.

[AggregateDemand]

Lmao what? He was the first demand-side Keynesian? FDR was the definition of a Keynesian. Eisenhower would have never approved of what's going on today.

Lol at reactionaries.

Trying to be something and actually being something are two different things. FDR tried demand-side Keynesian policy, but since he was an old man attempting to implement a nascent branch of economic theory, it didn't work particularly well. WWII created the economic bureaucracy and the demand-stimulus (war debt) that ultimately converted the US to a peace-time Keynesian economy.

FDR was more of an anti-supply-side president, particularly his agricultural policies.

[Mechaman]

So let me get this straight:

The President who vetoed more spending bills of any president since Cleveland, stood as a vanguard against attempts by Democrats to increase the scope of New Deal programs, and had more years with budget surpluses than any president since Coolidge. . . . . . was a liberal Keynesian hack just because muh roads?

A necessary document my friends:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/12/17/how-eisenhower-and-congressional-democrats-balanced-a-budget/

Ike was more of a ficon than ANY of the Presidents that succeeded him and probably more than every president since at least Hoover.  This idea that he was a liberal or even a moderate just because he signed the Interstate into existence (and even then there is a very strong argument to be made that even that was motivated by conservative elements, given that big business would benefit massively from the internal improvements) and didn't call for an immediate end for the New Deal is a serious misreading of American History.

[Maxwell]

Eisenhower hated the conservative movement, so I don't think he was.

[AggregateDemand]

So let me get this straight:

The President who vetoed more spending bills of any president since Cleveland, stood as a vanguard against attempts by Democrats to increase the scope of New Deal programs, and had more years with budget surpluses than any president since Coolidge. . . . . . was a liberal Keynesian hack just because muh roads?

A necessary document my friends:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/12/17/how-eisenhower-and-congressional-democrats-balanced-a-budget/

Ike was more of a ficon than ANY of the Presidents that succeeded him and probably more than every president since at least Hoover.  This idea that he was a liberal or even a moderate just because he signed the Interstate into existence (and even then there is a very strong argument to be made that even that was motivated by conservative elements, given that big business would benefit massively from the internal improvements) and didn't call for an immediate end for the New Deal is a serious misreading of American History.

In a world without context, you would be king. In a world with context, the US was emerging from the biggest federal spending initiative in the history of our nation (%GDP). Keynesian economics is not perpetual spending. We already created the demand-side deficit spending necessary to bring the economy out of the Great Depression.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Eisenhower hated the conservative movement, so I don't think he was.

That's because the "conservative movement" wasn't conservative.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You'd have to be quite the ridiculous pseudo-intellectual to claim otherwise. The man was practically an earthly avatar of Postwar Western Conservatism.

[SWE]

Anyone with any knowledge of history would say yes

[All Along The Watchtower]

Of course he was a conservative. Just because he supported a moderate amount of government intervention in the economy post-Depression and post-WWII (like all sane people, barring the Birchers and the...well like I said, all sane people) didn't mean he wasn't a conservative.

Much of the federal budget was spent on national defense, directly or indirectly, and an enormous segment of the economy was put on a peacetime defense footing that still continues (to a significant extent) to this day. Eisenhower pretty much rejected the portions of the New Deal that had little to no business support, and under his Administration (as well as Truman's before him), direct federal spending on public works, etc. declined in favor of private, corporate contracts.

In the uneasy post-war organization of the economy between Business, Labor, and Government, Eisenhower (like most Republicans, and many Democrats as well) did as much as he could to increase Business' role at the expense of the latter two. And he did what he could with a more liberal Democratic Congress. Yes, he did all this pragmatically and non-dogmatically, but just because you're not an ideologue ala Goldwater or Reagan doesn't mean you're not a conservative.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

In the sense that he was no radical or revolutionary, yes.

[politicus]

You'd have to be quite the ridiculous pseudo-intellectual to claim otherwise. The man was practically an earthly avatar of Postwar Western Conservatism.

The fact that we can have discussions about whether Eisenhower or de Gaulle were conservatives shows how much the political landscape has swayed to the right.

The great conservative leaders of the post war era like Adenauer, di Gaspari, de Gaulle and Eisenhower all had a pragmatic view of the state and its influence on society and they all wanted to move society forward through gradual reforms while protecting the power structure and their national traditions, which is the hallmark of true conservatism.

Modern day radical reactionaries who wants to turn the clock back and dismantle core elements of the state are not really conservatives. Basically a right wing extremist can be a fascist, a libertarian or simply a reactionary, but hardly a conservative. Being pragmatic, having a gradualist approach and a sceptical view of radical change are essential elements of conservatism. A radical conservative is basically an oxymoron.

(of course all conservative parties attract reactionaries, whats different today is that they are able to dominate some of them)