Political Forum
     

Go Back   Political Forum > Other Political Discussion > Political Blogs


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 01-21-2008, 10:10 AM
KnowBlog KnowBlog is offline
Correspondent
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 341
KnowBlog has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default Obama's Inspiration Far More Powerful Than Reagan Reference [TheDemoMemo]

Last week, Barack Obama, during an interview with a Nevada newspaper, declared that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.” Oh my. I see we have a case of Reagan amnesia, but it's usually Republicans that interpret Reagan's policies as beneficial to the country. As is true with the Bush administrations desperately trying to recreate the "Reagan magic," Obama is trying to compare his movement with Reagan's.
But make no mistake about it, Obama's movement is not based on fearmongering and the trickle-down theory of economics like Reagan's was.
There has been no other president in history, with the possible exception of George W. Bush, that has turned our economy into a mess more than Ronald Reagan. Paul Krugman at the New York Times captures this sentiment very well:
Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?
For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.
When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House.
Given that reality, what was Mr. Obama talking about? Some good things did eventually happen to the U.S. economy — but not on Reagan’s watch.
For example, I’m not sure what “dynamism” means, but if it means productivity growth, there wasn’t any resurgence in the Reagan years. Eventually productivity did take off — but even the Bush administration’s own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of that takeoff to 1995.
Similarly, if a sense of entrepreneurship means having confidence in the talents of American business leaders, that didn’t happen in the 1980s, when all the business books seemed to have samurai warriors on their covers. Like productivity, American business prestige didn’t stage a comeback until the mid-1990s, when the U.S. began to reassert its technological and economic leadership.
I understand why conservatives want to rewrite history and pretend that these good things happened while a Republican was in office — or claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn’t happen until 14 or more years had passed. (Does Richard Nixon get credit for “Morning in America”?)
But why would a self-proclaimed progressive say anything that lends credibility to this rewriting of history — particularly right now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?
Like Ronald Reagan, President Bush began his term in office with big tax cuts for the rich and promises that the benefits would trickle down to the middle class. Like Reagan, he also began his term with an economic slump, then claimed that the recovery from that slump proved the success of his policies.
And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992. Wages are lagging behind inflation. Employment growth in the Bush years has been pathetic compared with job creation in the Clinton era. Even if we don’t have a formal recession — and the odds now are that we will — the optimism of the 1990s has evaporated.
This is, in short, a time when progressives ought to be driving home the idea that the right’s ideas don’t work, and never have.

Every time I hear someone praise Ronald Reagan's "leadership" and his "conservative principles" I think only of all the people left in the dust, those who never had a chance. Obama's message is by it's very nature far more promising than Reagan's ever was. He should excise that "R" word from his vocabulary.
</img>
</img> </img> </img>


(Source Link)
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Red Cross - Donate Today    Save the Rainforest
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The "Facebook Effect Candidacy": The Power of Social Networking in Obama's Victory [TheDemoMemo] KnowBlog Political Blogs 0 01-17-2008 10:13 PM
WIKIPEDIA is now politically correct to use as a reference familyman Current Events 17 12-17-2007 08:49 AM
Tips for posting a reference link on this forum forgottenrhetoric Off-Topic Chat 5 05-20-2007 06:29 PM
A reference guide to the Downing Street Memo Nathyn Current Events 2 06-13-2005 09:55 AM
powerful message! myopicmouse Political Opinions & Beliefs 5 02-07-2005 01:51 AM

Sponsored Links

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
Template-Modifikationen durch TMS
vBCredits v1.3 ©2007 by Darkwaltz4
Advertisement System V2.1 By   Branden