No.
You see Keynes postulated that in good times spending should be decreased. His biggest failure as an economist was not realizing that all politicians etc would hear from him is “spend”. They loved his ideas because they rubber stamped more spending. But they were simply bound to never apply the flip side.
Even when Nixon infamously said we’re all Keynesians how the actual expression of Keynes’ ideas had shifted away from him towards what I call Keystone Keynesianism (think Keystone Cops for the reference).
Keystone Keynesians see bad times as the demand for more spending and good times as opportunities to spend more. They cease from just pump priming to graduate to habitual economic whacking off and distort the economy and government in a way not unlike how a sex freak distorts pleasure.
The loons in D.C. aren’t really Keynesians. Keynesians would be an improvement. They’re worse than Keynesians.
Keynes’ failure to understand people in power invalidates his ideas because economics is ultimately about people, about philosophy.
As I sometimes say, whatever you say against him, Smith based his ideas on how people actually act and what makes them likely to prosper on their own, and that’s why he was largely correct (even his “free trade” was mercantilist, one that was to benefit the nation, not just free trade for free trade’s sake) where so many modern economists want to propound on rational economies, political economies, economies that make sense ... and that’s why they fail.
I know, I've repeated that many times. Even Keynes wanted a balanced budget, with outsets for bad times. We don't even have that these days.