>I've always agreed with this on the whole -- but I think it would be
>worthwhile doing a historical study of a third alternative.
>
>Relatively _short_ periods of _either_ low unemployment or high
>unemployment have no effect either way.
>
>Medium periods of high unemployment are _very_ bad for the left.
>
>Medium periods of low unemployment make no political difference.
>
>Long periods of _either_ enhance the left. The two major 20th century
>periods of left success were the '30s and the '60s, the former lengthy
>period of bad economy, the latter lengthy period of good economy.
That sounds right to me. I'm curious where'd you'd classify the late 90s - I think (though Chuck0 hates me for it) that low unemployment contributed to "Seattle."
Doug