When will we have the next Liberal President with a grand platform?

[DevotedDemocrat]

When do you think we'll see another Liberal President with a grand, all encompassing, society changing platform? Obama's Presidency has been a series of sort of unconnected but needed reforms, but nothing truly major. When will we see something along the lines of a 21st Century New Deal or a more refined Great Society type of platform, aimed at bettering and transforming society?

The New Deal was derailed by World War II and the Great Society was not managed as well as it could've been and it's grander aims were lost on the killing fields of Vietnam.....

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

After the next failed GOP administration, which could happen between 2020 and 2050 or later.

[Blue3]

When do you think we'll see another Liberal President with a grand, all encompassing, society changing platform? Obama's Presidency has been a series of sort of unconnected but needed reforms, but nothing truly major. When will we see something along the lines of a 21st Century New Deal or a more refined Great Society type of platform, aimed at bettering and transforming society?

The New Deal was derailed by World War II and the Great Society was not managed as well as it could've been and it's grander aims were lost on the killing fields of Vietnam.....

Well, what would that platform be?

I basically asked what liberals would want in 2016 if the Obama administration achieved all its current goals, in this thread:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167433.0

And it seems most liberals would be happy with maintaining the status quo, if Obama were to achieve all of the objectives of his 2nd term...
(tax reform, making entitlement programs more sustainable, comrehensive immigration reform, infrastructure/energy/environment, ENDA, universal background checks for guns, ObamaCare's implementation being a great success)

I don't see what more could be done, unless the Democratic Party were to turn hard-left and become truly socialist. But if the above happens, and people are happy with the new status quo, the possibility of that happening is very small.

[bballrox4717]

America doesn't want a true economic liberal yet. Presidents that truly change the direction of the country come when disastrous events, such as the Civil War and Great Depression, happen that force the country to recognize we need reforms.

[Blue3]

America doesn't want a true economic liberal yet. Presidents that truly change the direction of the country come when disastrous events, such as the Civil War and Great Depression, happen that force the country to recognize we need reforms.

But what would a "true economic liberal" as a President fight for? What's the vision?

[Jackson]

Liberalism is dead.

[Blue3]

Liberalism is dead.

Apparently because no one can ever name what a viable, economic-liberal presidential candidate would even run on...

[osideguy92]

My gut feeling is that Elizabeth Warren will at least TRY to be that candidate in 2016 and/or 2020. My even more gut feeling is that she runs in 2016 and just barely loses out to a more establishment figure like Cuomo. By that point, the historical parallels w/ Ronald Reagan would be almost impossible to ignore. Cuomo losing out to a candidate like Jeb Bush would most likely result in a highly unpopular moderate-leaning administration, and a President whose base deeply mistrusts him (sound like Carter much?). By then, a candidate like Elizabeth Warren would be in prime position to be the liberal reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. Again, consider the parallels: Reagan was 69 in 1980, Warren will be 71 in 2020.

I've had many a fantasy about Warren making her last public appearance before her death at a Democratic Convention in the distant future (2036 or 2040, somewhere in that ballpark) to nominate someone like Tulsi Gabbard, and her making a surprise appearance. She comes out onto the stage with a cane and a handler or two, and the crowd just erupts into rapturous frenzy, chanting "WARREN!!! WARREN!!! WARREN!!!" for several minutes straight. She would then be the person with the honor of officially announcing the party's intention to nominate. My thoughts are that by this time, being in her mid-80s to early-90s, she'd be too frail to make any sort of grand speech. But hey, it's just a fantasy.

[wan]

If Clinton doesn't run in 2016, I would hope Warren does and chooses someone out west for VP.

[bballrox4717]

My gut feeling is that Elizabeth Warren will at least TRY to be that candidate in 2016 and/or 2020. My even more gut feeling is that she runs in 2016 and just barely loses out to a more establishment figure like Cuomo. By that point, the historical parallels w/ Ronald Reagan would be almost impossible to ignore. Cuomo losing out to a candidate like Jeb Bush would most likely result in a highly unpopular moderate-leaning administration, and a President whose base deeply mistrusts him (sound like Carter much?). By then, a candidate like Elizabeth Warren would be in prime position to be the liberal reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. Again, consider the parallels: Reagan was 69 in 1980, Warren will be 71 in 2020.

I don't think Warren has any interest in running, and even if she did, I don't see her being the Democratic Reagan. She doesn't have the ability to gain the public's trust the way Reagan did. If there was going to be a Democratic Reagan, I'd put my money on Cory Booker.

America doesn't want a true economic liberal yet. Presidents that truly change the direction of the country come when disastrous events, such as the Civil War and Great Depression, happen that force the country to recognize we need reforms.

But what would a "true economic liberal" as a President fight for? What's the vision?

I don't want to write an essay, but Warren and Sanders are politicians I would define as true economic liberals.

Liberalism is dead.

It was dead 8 years ago, and it's slowly coming back.