[George Bush] was a reactionary by temperament and conviction whose methods were borrowed from the most radical progressives. He besmirched the conservatism that he had forsaken and led it from the corridors of power into the political wilderness.
Because progressive commentators depict Bush as an arch-conservative instead of the curious amalgam of reactionary and radical revolutionary that he actually was, they remain blind to Obama's conservatism.
Let the Republicans deal with their terminology. The new politics isn't to be liberal or conservative. It's ideally to be intelligent and competent... and post-ideological.
Too bad that a lot of the Democratic leaders out there don't quite understand this, as yet.
Thesis -> Antithesis -> Synthesis (new thesis) -> new Antithesis -> etc.
Applying this to modern economics we have:
Classical -> Keynesian -> Reaganomics -> Obamanomics
Where Reaganomics is a form of Post Keynesian Neo-Classical Economics and Obamanomics is here assumed to be some sort Post Reagan Neo-Keynesian Economics.
(”Look, this is just a way of looking at how economics develops over time. It’s just another model in the Vast Matrix of Models we use to try to understand the world” explained the White Rabbit.)
« Older The President's hero... | Now even your plants can twitt... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt