On Thursday, June 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM, Carl Remick wrote:
> Most unsettling of all is this comment from across the Atlantic:
> Noting that RR and Bush have both similarities and differences, the
> Economist states that "it is worth remembering that in the 1980s many
> liberals thought that Mr Reagan was a weird aberration—a long national
> daydream, to quote the title of a book from the period. Today many
> liberals think the same about Mr Bush, hoping he will be humiliated in
> November's election. But whatever happens at that election, these
> liberals are wrong about the longer-term drift of American politics.
> Mr Reagan's presidency signalled a profound shift in American life.
> His revolution realigned domestic politics, and laid the basis of a
> challenging relationship between America and the rest of the world."
> <http://economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2747437>
>
> In short, Ron the man may be gone, but his revolution shall endure --
> a boot stamping on a human face forever, so to speak.
i understand, however/also (this is second-hand, mind you), that the economist not long ago ran a series in which they basically said that W was making all the same economic mistakes reagan did. i presume that means mainly stupid tax cuts, lots of (especially military) spending, and protectionism, but i didn't get to read it. the economists at my school (not unlike the folks at cato) think clinton was better economically than reagan was.
j