A strong argument could be made for FDR’s government at least making steps toward leftist goals, and Jimmy Carter was a lot more progressive than a typical liberal.
He pardoned the conscientious objectors and draft dodgers, gave the Panama Canal back to Panama, founded the Super Fund to prosecute polluters and clean up spills, lifted the military ban on LGBTQ people serving, etc. Sure, he made some mistakes, particularly as it applies to deregulating numerous industries, but in general, he was reasonably close to progressive in numerous ways.
I guess it depends on how important you view the economic sphere. To me, ending the post-New Deal era economic consensus and ushering in a new era where the power of organized labor was completely crushed with bipartisan support is the defining aspect of his presidency. He marks the beginning of the “culture war” era, when the people would no longer have any real say over how the economy was run so all that’s left is fighting over social issues. It seems to me that it’s more like he did a few good things here and there but for the most part he was awful, the death knell for any hope of progressive economic policy for generations.
I think you’re mistaking “conservatives and centrists” for “American government”
When has the American government consisted of anyone but conservatives or centrists?
A strong argument could be made for FDR’s government at least making steps toward leftist goals, and Jimmy Carter was a lot more progressive than a typical liberal.
Carter was more progressive than a typical liberal? He’s the one who abandoned unions and the working class in favor of neoliberalism.
He pardoned the conscientious objectors and draft dodgers, gave the Panama Canal back to Panama, founded the Super Fund to prosecute polluters and clean up spills, lifted the military ban on LGBTQ people serving, etc. Sure, he made some mistakes, particularly as it applies to deregulating numerous industries, but in general, he was reasonably close to progressive in numerous ways.
I guess it depends on how important you view the economic sphere. To me, ending the post-New Deal era economic consensus and ushering in a new era where the power of organized labor was completely crushed with bipartisan support is the defining aspect of his presidency. He marks the beginning of the “culture war” era, when the people would no longer have any real say over how the economy was run so all that’s left is fighting over social issues. It seems to me that it’s more like he did a few good things here and there but for the most part he was awful, the death knell for any hope of progressive economic policy for generations.