Thomas Friedman in the New York Times....
"When the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, America had more power in the world"
When exactly was it that the world liked Ronald Reagan? Certainly, not while he was in office. Remember all the protests about his plan to put Pershing II's into Europe? The controversy over Star Wars? The business about him being a stupid cowboy?Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was wildly popular in Europe. But how exactly did that translate into U.S. power? He was unable to secure UN backing for Kosovo and a myriad of other military operations, having instead to go it alone or with coalitions of the willing. The good will toward Clinton didn't exactly translate into freedom from terrorism, either, as al Qaeda formed and perpetrated numerous attacks on American targets under his watch.
Case in point: the current meme that unemployment rates under Bush are "high", placed against a backdrop of Clinton prosperity and full employment. In fact, the unemployment rates in the US today are nearly identical to those under Clinton.
The same phenomenon occured under the dearly departed - and only recently beloved - Ronald Reagan. Under the heavily scorned "Reaganomics" plan, average income for the lowest one-fifth of Americans rose from $7,008 to $9431, inflation fell 48%, unemployment fell 45%, interest rates declined from 21% to under 6% . 21 million new jobs were created.
The only economic indicators that weren't affected was press coverage. Negative stories on the economic performance of the Reagan adminstration outnumbered the postive by a ration of seven to one.*
[*source- L. Brent Bozell III, Media Research Center, in Imprimis Nov. 1994]
Posted by Kate at October 28, 2004 3:15 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/899
While it's true that the media bias against Reagan and Bush is insane, I don't think there is much good to be said about the economic policies of Reagan, Clinton, or Bush Jr.
All that massive government spending and runaway deficits will have a price - the economy of the USA is a train wreck in progress. And Canada has tied itself to the tracks right in front of the oncoming wreck.
You can blame Alan Greenspan for most of the stupid policies which have brought us to this point. But Alan Greenspan is simply giving the politicians what they want - the illusion of endless prosperity in a "new economy" in which central planners flatter themselves that they know more about what's good for the market than the market itself knows. A good article is here:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FJ30Dj01.html
Clinton comes off slightly better on fiscal matters, although his "balanced budget" was bogus:
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=542&id=73
You should start to suspect something is deeply wrong with a president's economic policy, when he assures the public that they can win a major war (the Cold War or the WoT), without any economic sacrifice whatsoever. Instead of "blood toil sweat and tears", it's "SUVs DVDs pharmacare and monster houses" - all on credit of course.
Hey, Kate. Just a note to say I hope you're doing okay. Let's think coffee the next time you're in town.
Posted by: tz at October 30, 2004 12:44 PMHi, thanks tz... I may take you up on that!
Posted by: Kate at October 30, 2004 5:35 PMgrowing up my parents had me convinced Raygun was the devil... only once I got out on my own (thank you boarding school!) did I begin to grasp the majesty of the man...
now with Klinton, he got love from day1 from the historians (or should i say hysterians) - so how could he get more love? love over love? love squared?
and for the record, he'd sell his entire soul (and foreign policy) for a good poll. Reagan and Bush would not.
Posted by: baconboy at October 31, 2004 6:15 AM