this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
13 points (84.2% liked)
AskHistorians
1311 readers
45 users here now
QUESTIONS
- Be civil.
- Be specific.
- Historical topic must be from at least 20 years ago.
- Post questions in the title. Elaboration is for the text box.
RESPONSES
- Be civil.
- Provide comprehensive answers.
- Sources are welcome, but not required.
askhistorians is a community for academic answers to questions about history. Polls, opinions, bigotry, grammar pedantry, and personal insults will be removed.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nixon was operating under constraints and expectations that led to some positive things in spite of himself (e.g., environmental regulations, improved relations with China). It was the Ford administration that saw the advent of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush Sr., that defined the later trajectory of the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations.
And while he was a much better human being than Clinton, I’d date the Democratic party’s neoliberal turn to Carter’s administration.
I mean, Carter came into the presidency at a time when Keynesian economics were at their weakest position, both publicly and academically, in decades. I suspect without Reagan achieving 8 years of absurd, cursed, idiotic electoral success, and then HW winning a 4 year term after him, we probably wouldn't regard the Democratic Party as having had a neoliberal turn at all. Mondale and Dukakis were hardly in the neoliberal vein, and arguably even Carter was working from the constraints of his circumstances more than ideology.