Word: reaganism
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1990-1999
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...Reagan was shaped by Hollywood and Bush influenced by the prep-school verities of his youth, then for Clinton the seminal moments probably came at Oxford and Yale. He was there during the early, heady days of one of the most influential social movements of his lifetime -- the birth of modern feminism. Hillary is part of that legacy; few men of an older political generation would feel comfortable with wives who earned far more than they did. Sometimes lost < amid the Hillary hype is a larger truth: Clinton, like many baby boomers, feels comfortable around intelligent women. Politics has always...
...national tastemakers. They are far more likely to reflect baby-boomer trends than to shape them. Sure, there are fearless forecasts from marketing gurus. "Elvis memorabilia is going to go up to a whole new level," predicts Brad Edmondson, the editor in chief of American Demographics. "Remember Ronald Reagan and jelly beans. Jimmy Carter and peanuts." He may be right; too bad Graceland (privately owned) is not traded on the stock exchange...
...important ingredient of the Reagan-Bush reign in the 1980s was the Republicans' ability to woo younger voters. Ronald Reagan's optimistic aura appealed to twentysomethings, who previously tended to support Democrats. Bush retained that support in 1988 by a narrow margin and did even better among slightly older baby boomers. This year Clinton ran ahead of Bush in every age group, but his largest margin was among those between 18 and 24. One reason was Clinton's limber courtship of the young in show-biz terms -- playing his sax on the Arsenio Hall show, for instance, and featuring rock...
...course. But besides that? Curiously enough, no clear enemies emerge. This was a campaign surprisingly light on red meat. The Clinton-Gore team wasn't really targeting the business class (contrast its mild strictures with the anti-fat-cat vitriol of an earlier era). Nor was it targeting (as Reagan did so effectively) the "undeserving poor." It wasn't even stigmatizing conservatives as such...
...capital investment, only more profitable. A recent survey by two Princeton economists found that every additional year of education at any stage increased income an average 16%. If so, expanding the availability of education -- as through the proposed National Service Trust Fund -- is just a smart investment, while the Reagan-era cutbacks may have been penny-wise and dollar-dumb. Liberal? Conservative? Does it matter...