Doug published an article titled "Presidential Economics" in Left Business Observer 109, November 2004, pp. 3-5 and 7. Very sophisticated campaign propaganda for the Democratic Party, for in that article he started his comparison in 1945, which makes the Democratic Party average look far better than it should! :-> As everyone knows, numbers look different depending on where your starting points are. When you begin your comparison with FDR in 1945, the DP average looks better than starting it with Jimmy Carter in 1977 or with Richard Nixon in 1973, for the era of 1945-1973, the post-WW2 boom, had more Democratic Presidents than the neoliberal era of 1973-Present.
Franklin Roosevelt–Harry Truman (D, 1945–49) Harry Truman (D, 1949–53) Dwight Eisenhower (R, 1953–61) John Kennedy–Lyndon Johnson (D, 1961–65) Lyndon Johnson (D, 1965–69) Richard Nixon (R, 1969–73) Richard Nixon–Gerald Ford (R, 1973–77) Jimmy Carter (D, 1977–81) Ronald Reagan (R, 1981–89) GHWB George H.W. Bush (R, 1989–93) Bill Clinton (D, 1993–2001) GWB George W. Bush (R, 2001–)
1945-1973 16 years under the Democratic administrations 12 years under the Republican administrations
1973-Present 12 years under the Democratic administrations 21 years and counting (!) under the Republican administrations
The difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties still exist, but not as big as "Presidential Economics" suggests, for the difference in "Presidential Economics" is in large part that between different eras of accumulation, rather than that between different parties.
This point (accounting for party differences, adjusted for differences in accumulation) is easy to understand for those who come from countries -- like Japan -- that have been basically governed by the same party throughout both the post-WW2 boom and neoliberal eras, but it may not come naturally to those who are used to swings between two or more parties. :-> -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>