Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site sdcc3.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdcc3!ec120bgt
From: ec120bgt@sdcc3.UUCP (ANDREW VARE)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: "ELECTABILITY" CRITERIA: today's guest MIKE SYKORA!
Message-ID: <2895@sdcc3.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 23:25:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcc3.2895
Posted: Fri May 31 23:25:34 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Jun-85 00:26:38 EDT
References: <2875@sdcc3.UUCP> <1340123@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 37

In article <1340123@acf4.UUCP>, mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:
> >/* ec120bgt@sdcc3.UUCP (ANDREW VARE) /  9:32 pm  May 25, 1985 */
> 
> >    1) It was divined, because there was no way in hell he could
> >    have been elected on political merits alone . . .
> 
> No way he could have been elected on political merit?  What other kind of
> merit could one be ELECTED on?

Reagan was elected to his first term on an economic platform that
lacked what most call "merit". His supply-sidisms basically held
that, if we reduce taxes, real tax revenues will INCREASE. This is
only true at a Laffer value "t" such that t>t*, or a marginal tax
rate of around 60%. AND WE BELIEVED THE GUY. Real revenues did NOT
increase, basically because only a small portion of that extra
income which the policy gave back to the public was used for
investment or savings. It went to consumption. And since this is
taxed at a rate much less than our income, and regressively so, the
poor took it in the pocketbook much harder than the rich, or
institutions. So "merit" did it lack!

Mike, also note I mentioned the word "alone". This qualifies the
statement by basically realizing that a platform is central to a
politician's electability, but other factors, like money and
endorsements and age and race and sex and religion yacht club memberships and
his golf game and his media image and his previous track record 
(who, me? facetious? sarcastic?). The bulk of American voters vote
not on the long run effects of policy (read: good policy) but on the
short run gains coming to THEM PERSONALLY. Like the business world
where corporations are run according to short run profits, in order
to keep stock prices up and discourage take-overs, American politics
are about as farsighted as a ostrich with its head stuck in the
ground. Politicians see large, black voids when you say "five years
from now..." or "the long run benefits are substantially greater
than these costs we incur for three years or so...".

ANDREW T. VARE