
Is it morning in America again, again?
Reaganesque? Gipper's legacy looms over Democrats, Republicans
It's been two decades since Ronald Reagan left office, but he still looms large in the American political imagination. During Tuesday's Democratic debate, one conservative observer chortled: "Democrats are talking about Reagan more than Republicans do."
And to be sure, the GOP campaign season has -- in part -- been a contest to see who can measure up to Reagan's legacy and keep together his old coalition of economic and social conservatives.
Why does Ronald Reagan still dominate our politics?















Thoughts
Re: Hard to stomach, Krugman/Reagan
Submitted on January 22nd, 2008 by Jim LakelyIndeed, bcsfamily, you are right to call BS on Krugman -- and upbraid Joel for endorsing his hogwash. There isn't a thriving Krugman Truth Squad for nothing. And as Greg Mankiw points out, Krugman has a terrible record when it comes to economic predictions.
To take on but two of Krugman's anti-Reagan howlers:
Krugman praises Clintonomics, and slams Reaganomics, stating:
Well, not exactly. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. And not only did the rich get richer, the poor got richer, too.
Krugman says:
That Bush I recession, one of the shortest and most mild on record, despite Clintonian campaign howls about the worst economy in the last 50 years, was over before Clinton took the oath of office. Clinton benefited from the lag in economic data compliation that put the truth out too late to help Bush I.
That's enough for now. Got work to do.
Hard to stomach
Submitted on January 22nd, 2008 by bcsfamilyThere's no hiding the fact that I lean to the right and therefore am no fan of NYTimes editorials, but even a fringe liberal would have to concede that this piece is pure tripe. Even if you didn't like Reagan, you'd have to consider this column to be garbage based on this breathtaking whopper: "Some good things did eventually happen to the U.S. economy — but not on Reagan’s watch."
This is what's wrong with political discourse in this country (and presumably why RedBlueAmerica was launched). Bill Clinton was not my favorite president, but I acknowledge that good things happened on his watch. Krugman can't do likewise, even when facts are indisputable.
For someone with (supposed) credibility to write that nothing good happened to the American economy from 1981 to 1989 is intellectual dishonesty. Consumer confidence skyrocketed, inflation rates plummeted, unemployment fell, interest rates declined and GNP expanded -- and all those metrics improved so dramatically by 1984 that Reagan won 49 states in his re-election.
Joel, you embarrassed yourself by endorsing this hogwash.