Maybe not in actual policies, but didn't homosexuality gain a lot more acceptance. Bill Clinton at least opened the armed forces for homosexuals.
In many ways the 1990s are a reverse 1950s
The 1950s are viewed as pretty conservative due to the fact that it really was the decade during that era(1930s-1960s) which werent totally liberal and the 1990s was the only decade in its era which wasnt totally conservative(1980s-2000s).
Agree. The presidencies of Ike and Billy have a lot in common: They were moderate and came into office after the other party held the presidency for more than two terms. They succeeded the vice president of a liberal/conservative hero. Both lost congress entirely during the first term and won reelection against an elder statesman of the opposition party. And both almost had their own vice president elected to succeed them. And in both cases, the "losing" side claimed irregularities.
And Both were personally far more liberal/conservative than their presidencies were. Bill Clinton's first two years show this , it really was after 1994 when he took a sharp turn to the right . For example, Bill Clinton's Healthcare proposal was to the left of Obama's and proof of that is Bob Dole's alternative to Hillarycare is basically Obamacare.
Eisenhower mentored Reagan from 1965-1968 believing him to be the future of the party and privately supported him in the 66 Gubernatorial primaries(
https://www.weeklystandard.com/fred-barnes/unearthing-the-eisenhower-reagan-connection) . Also, the conservatives during Eisenhower's day were much different and resembled people like Taft while it was the Liberal Republicans who were in favor of a more interventionist foreign policy, so Eisenhower allied himself with the more liberal wing due to that.
At the end of the day though I believe Clinton should be judged as a Conservative Democrat and Eisenhower a Liberal Republican because even if they werent personally , their policies were and thats more important.
Poll
