> While I ponder these interesting issues, there was a book in the late
1990s (from memory) by political scientist Stephen Skowronek, called The
Politics Presidents Make......relevant to the question as to whether
(eg)Reagan/Thatcher makes 'the times' or 'the times' make Reagan.....

Not saying I agree with it all (or even recall it brilliantly!), but one
of the arguments in it went something like the following: there are
different types of President - those who ride and shape a rising tide
(F.D.Roosevelt/Reagan); those who perish with a falling tide  (Carter as
the liberal tide went out); those who forge a path against the prevailing
tide (Nixon, pre-Watergate of course, in the 'liberal' era; Clinton in the
conservative era) and those who reflect the prevailing tide (LBJ? Dubya
pre-Iraq?).......

Presumably argument can be taken beyond 'the Presidency' and beyond the
USA.....

best Calum




As to Reagan, I recall writing A NEANDETHAL'S GUIDE TO WOULD BE LIBERALS
> for my students after Reagan won in 1980, arguing that he was not the
> devil incarnate somehow imposed on America but the answer to America's
> prayers.
>
> The fact is that by the Liberals, who ruled the land, had become so
> arrogant and reckless in their spending that they lost the lower-middle
> class -- hard working stiffs, usually without a college education, mainly
> white. The Democrats never recovered these folks.
>
> So I don't subscribe to the bang-bang theory, but instead endorse the
> times-make-the-leader theory.
>
> But admittedly I am not well read in such matters.
>
> Uwe
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Adam Oliver
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 2:08 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: FW: behavioural research
>
> The following was sent across the BPP list the other day:
> http://www.economist.com/node/21541706. It's quite interesting, and sort
> of loosely relates to earlier conversations between Uwe and Calum (I
> guess all conversations can be made to relate to each other). In it
> (according to the piece), you'll see that Dichter thought that Americans
> should have had confidence in spending in the 1950s, so that the economy
> would grow and that they would pull ahead of the Russians (quite
> interesting, if it were true, because it might suggest that a communism
> that encouraged confidence might have worked). Still (and this is where
> we swing back to Uwe/Calum), it's ok to spend when there is plenty of
> money around, as there was in America in the 50s and 60s, but there
> might not have been in Russia.
>
> Anyway...
> Another point that I've been thinking about is that some say here that
> Thatcher ultimately changed two parties - the Conservatives and Labour.
> But did she really? The same could be said of Blair, but isn't it public
> opinion that changed both parties? Jim Morone has said and written
> similar things re. Reagan, in that he (Reagan, not Jim, although Jim
> might have done it too) just banged on and on about an idea until people
> started listening to him, but I'm not so sure. It might have been that
> the times changed irrespective of him, and that it just so happened that
> he slotted into the altered circumstances.
>
> Enough. I have to go. No you don't. Yes I do.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Behavioural Public Policy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Matteo Galizzi
> Sent: 03 January 2012 06:48
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: behavioural research
>
> a nice reading about a "classic" in behavourial research
>
> <http://www.economist.com/node/21541706>
>
> happy new year
>
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>