As with most liberal blather, that takes just a little unpacking. First, Tom, you have to "step back" into the mid-Atlantic to be able to even "argue" that W was the rational consummation of Reaganism. W was, in many respects, the "Un-Reagan". Compassionate Conservatism was an oxymoron...a big government urge that seemed like the bee's knees to some at the time. It...like Tom's collective...DEMANDS that government is the solution. Reaganesque? I think not. Try to imagine Reagan saying he was going to kill capitalism to save it.
Let's talk about this "excess deregulation" BS, Tom. The banking crisis was NOT caused by a lack of regulation. You can't name a de-regulation move that contributed to it, much less CAUSED it. Conversely, I can show you the entire GOVERNMENT perversion of the housing and finance markets that DID cause the crisis. Here's another approach, Tom; ask yourself THESE questions, and see if even you can understand that NO regulatory scheme is going to prevent another banking crisis.
Reaganism hasn't "met its limit". It hasn't really gotten started, in terms of potential. That potential is the ONLY thing that has the power to do what you talk about next--
Obama-ism posits that we are now in a hypercompetitive global economy, where the country that thrives will be the one that brings together the most educated, creative and diverse work force with the best infrastructure — bandwidth, ports, airports, high-speed rail [WTF?!?!] and good governance. And we’re in a world with a warming climate that is growing from 6.8 billion people to 9.2 billion by 2050, so demand for clean energy is going to go through the roof. Therefore, E.T. — energy technology — is going to be the next great global industry. (My emphasis)OK, that paragraph was collectivist fallacy-city. Just how diverse are the Chinese, really, Tom? Think they won't be competitive? Is anyone really stupid enough to think that high-speed rail is going to determine our competitiveness in the world? If we depend on the monopoly that Obama and the collective want for education, I think its fair to say that we're doomed as far as competing with the world goes. Hey, Tom, how good have you been at picking "the next global industry"? I'm betting you don't have a freaking clue...and neither does Obama...about the "coming thing".
So, government matters. It needs to be incentivizing businesses to build their next factory in this country — at a time when every other nation is throwing incentives their way; it needs to be recruiting highly skilled immigrants; it needs to be setting the highest national education standards and funding basic research; it needs to be laying down the right energy regulations that will stimulate more clean-tech companies. (Emphasis mine)And, in that paragraph and the reference in the first to "good governance", Tom, you point out how doomed we are if people follow you and Obama into the collectivist maw. You wouldn't know "good governance" if it bit you in the nose and introduced itself in Iambic pentameter between clenched teeth.
Those "Nowocrats" you talk about, Tom? They are going to RUN from this nation in droves if we allow Obama to continue to turn it into a Banana Republic. Here's a truth, Tom; fascist economics HATES entrepreneurial people and their activity. B.H. Obama LOVES fascist economics, and he HATES market economics. He has done more, in a year, to damage this economy and its capacity for innovation, than any president in history. He did it by spitting on contract, on bankruptcy law, on the right to hold and use private property, and showing that he has contempt for both people and their institutions (see Chamber Of Commerce; see also Obamacare).
Every...EVERY...kid in business school is taught that TEAMS tend to make better decisions than hierarchical managers. A market economy is the ULTIMATE team (call it a "cloud" team). What you suggest, Tom, is the ultimate in hierarchical management...BIG GOVERNMENT bureaucrats. And they are incentivized by the WORST possible set of incentives. Crony capitalism will not reward innovators; it will...and DOES now...reward the biggest lobbying budget.
Tom goes on to explain that the "GOP/Tea Party" is against innovation, and only for lower taxes. Just opposition...no ideas. That, of course, is a bald-faced lie. What CONSERVATIVES are for is good governance. That means government...especially CENTRAL government...that abides by law. It means that it NEVER grants special businesses a "too big to fail" status, but exposes EVERY enterprise to "creative destruction", and the certainty that bad decisions will lead to bankruptcy (real bankruptcy, where the rules apply to everyone; every interest). Government where unions are held to the same laws as everyone else. Government that does NOT choose winners, because it SIMPLY cannot do that efficiently. Government that does not "level playing-fields", because you only "level" by lopping off the heads of the very people who comprise a meritocracy. Government that does not take from achievers to "redistribute" the rewards of achievement to non-achievers for the purpose of buying votes. Government that trusts people to govern themselves, to choose for themselves, and to care for their fellows. Government that knows that...except for the very most esoteric basic research...research money is best spent by the private sector. Government that understands that it cannot BEGIN to predict from whence the next great innovation will come, and will not waste a dollar of other people's money trying.
Tom, your love of monopoly and hierarchical management, and cronyism's corrupt incentives, will destroy American entrepreneurial activity, innovation, and our standard of living. The bridge you and Obama are building is one that leads to the void.