Moreover, modern American conservatism was still in its formative phase during the Eisenhower administration. National Review was founded only in 1955; Milton Friedman first published Capitalism and Freedom in 1962 and A Monetary History of the United States in 1963; and Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative was published in 1960.
It is foolish to insist then that the good done by the Eisenhower administration should be ignored because it did not implement conservative political ideas and policies that were yet to be developed and advocated.
As for the Nixon administration, it suffered from having been elected on a narrow political base and needing to barter with obstructive Democrats in Congress for the support necessary to persevere with the war effort in Vietnam. As conservatives in the administration recognized at the time, Nixon’s private views were far more conservative than the policies that he adopted during “working hours.” A political realist, Nixon knew that if he was not careful, much of what he did could be undone by Congress and his freedom of action curtailed and other goals jeopardized.
To be sure, both Eisenhower and Nixon can at best be described as conservative only in a partial and highly qualified sense. Yet neither should their genuine merits and accomplishments be ignored.
Rock, you keep using that word, “Conservative.” This is not a word I would use to describe Ike in the least.
Eisenhower himself was raised by a father who was a Socialist. Not a liberal, not a moderate, not a right-winger, but a Socialist. In 1952, Taft was the reliable Conservative and Republican. Ike could’ve run as Truman’s protégé without having to alter much of his stances. Ike had to destroy a Conservative and biracial coalition that made up Taft’s supporters. The damage that did in the long run was immense, so much so that within a dozen years, there were virtually no Republican Blacks running, let alone winning, office. Taft would’ve brought these folks in a lot earlier and avoided a 90%+ Black Democrat party.
Eisenhower did not curtail spending or shrink the government. This modern American Conservatism you describe wasn’t new, it was tried and true before Hoover/FDR. He just needed to implement it, and he simply did not. I also dismiss the notion that WE won the Cold War. We beat the Soviet Union, but the Communist threat, infiltration of our nation and culture and its thorough and total undermining of us... the left won that decisively, and we live under its madness today. We’re now almost the polar reverse, with Putin ironically serving as the closest to the leader of the free world and Zero serving as a tyrant and threat to international stability.
As to addressing Nixon, and as I already stated, he was never a Conservative. He was a believer in using big government, despite rhetoric to the contrary. He didn’t dismantle Socialist programs, he doubled-down on them and pursued failed policies across the board. He was a Keynesian, which was utter disaster for our nation economically. I’d dare say Nixon, if anything, put himself to the left of both JFK and LBJ in that regard.
As for these strange claims they were “privately Conservative”, that doesn’t particularly wash. It’s as phony and worthless as politicians that claim to be “personally pro-life”, but commit to strong pro-infanticide laws. If you’re not publicly and on the record actively pursuing policies supporting Conservatism, you’re not a Conservative.
In conclusion, I say without hesitation that both Eisenhower and Nixon left us in far worse shape by the time both left office (in 1961 and 1974) than they did when they entered into office. That they passed off their offices to equally left-leaning politicians (JFK/LBJ/Ford/Carter) and left office with 2/3rds of Congress in firm control by the Democrats with a weak and ineffective Socialist/left RINO rump minority is testament to that epic-level failure.