1. George W Bush
2. Ronald Reagan
3. George HW Bush
4. Gerald Ford
5. Barack Obama
6. Richard Nixon
7. Bill Clinton/Jimmy Carter
8 . Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton
9. Lyndon B Johnson
It wasn't entirely sure about seven and eight.
How was Bill Clinton more Liberal then Obama,Carter, Nixon
Bill Clinton- Cut the growth of government more then any president then IKE
Signed NAFTA
Welfare Reform of 1996
Deregulation
DOMA
If it werent for Social Issues he would basically be a Republican
Clinton was indeed way too conservative. But Carter's domestic policy was also on the right-deregulating transport, austerity, budget-cutting. Also, Clinton at least passed a few more progressive measures (CHIP, Americorps, environmental legislation) whereas Carter did almost nothing but fold to the right. On the hand, Carter's foreign policy was relatively progressive, as he did not launch any pointless military "interventions" whereas Clinton pointlessly bombed Mid East countries through 1998. So, it's a draw.
But whereas Carter and Clinton had certain diplomatic successes in promoting peace, Obama has almost totally accepted the Bush Doctrine. Also, his civil liberties is atrocious, and except for the token stimulus, his fiscal program has mostly been austerity. He wouldn't even repeal the Bush tax cuts with a deeply Democratic Congress.
I wouldnt say too Conservative as I agree with more of those policies and I consider myself a moderate. But Obama signed Obama Care, Refuses to invade ISIS territory(I dont mean nation build I mean go in defeat ISIS and leave), Supports Amnesty, Wants to raise taxes etc. For civil liberties Conservatives and Liberals should equally support them so I would say its more of a Liberatirian thing now.
Obamacare was a bailout to insurance and a betrayal to the progressive goal of public health care-even the lousy 1993 Clinton plan let state's set up single-payer systems with their Medicare. And he's launching drones killing thousands of people with mercy over ISIS even though it's clear another Iraqi conflict would be extremely foolish. The lack of ground troops is, in my opinion, a cheap way to have war without sparking a antiwar movement. I see no sign Obama wants to raise taxes; I mean, he extended the 2001 Bush tax cuts when even some of the Blue Dog's thought it was time for an increase. Every president since Reagan has supported amnesty.
For the ISIS situation cant you go in destroy them like we did to the Taliban in 2001 then leave immediately instead of occupying the place for 10 years.
And then who occupies that power vacuum? The world is not that simple.
Fighting 1 month wars every three-four years is better then an constant air campaign over 8-10 years
Ending thirteen years of constant war is even better.
