Replies

I don't think the particularly ugly cheap shot at Reagan as a "divorcé who neglected his children" will convince any one. Surely you don't believe decent people will be able to read that with out gagging. From what I've heard the legislation Beinart attacks was intended to do away with frivolous lawsuits, not responsible oversight.

Three generations of American have grown up with Harding and Coolidge being blamed for the Great Depression, while Democrats generally avoid facing the consequences of their economic policies. After all the talk about the 80s as the "Decade of Greed," shouldn't Clinton bear the consequences of what happened under his watch? The WSJ and other defenders of Boesky have made an argument that Junk bonds, leveraged buyouts and the other things complained of in the 80s were good for the economy. I don't know if that's a valid argument, but it is striking that such arguments aren't made now. To be sure, what happened at Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen and elsewhere was more shielded from public view, but it seems to have been without an upside.

Moreover Beinart's argument cuts both ways. If there was corporate corruption before Clinton, it also existed whatever Gingrich might do. The person at the top should take his lumps now, as in the past. A President committed to dealing with such an issue wouldn't let peripheral legislation of the sort mentioned by Beinart determine the country's course. Rooting out corporate corruption could have been the "legacy" Bubba was so desperately searching for. I would be more open to Beinart's argument if Clinton had gone to the country on this, and still been defeated by Congress. As it is, it looks like he was only too happy to play along or let sleeping dogs lie.

You apparently do not remember all the chatter of the Clinton years about how the business cycle was a "thing of the past." The reproach so often made against Coolidge, that he should have dampened market enthusiasm and kept closer watch on bubbles and pyramid schemes, applies as much to Bubba as to Cal.

If you had read the rest you might be able to address the parts about Millken and Boesky and Reagan.

Milliken, Boesky, and the Keating Five were remarkable for their rareness.

While, on the other hand, Enron, Global Crossing, Merck, Arthur Andersen, Tyco, Worldcom, Waste Management Corp, Elan, Sunbeam, Cedent, MicroStrategy, Pricewaterhouse-Coopers, Oxford Health Plans KPMG, Centennial Technologies, Coopers & Lybrand, Rite Aid Corp. KPMG, Lincoln Savings Bank, and Ernst & Young -- they are remarkable for their ubiquitousness and prevalance.

The CEO's did, in fact, take their cue from Bill Clinton. This author is gravely mistaken. A fish rots from the head down.

And if we get another permissive and immoral president like Clinton, we will experience another wave of fraud.