From this Sunday's front page NYTimes Book Review review of book on Pres Obama

[Paul Mackin]

On 9/29/2012 7:16 AM, Michael Bailey wrote:
> Mark Kohut  wrote:
>> "America is different, or used to be.
> different than it is now? or different than some other country...

Different back then from how it is now.  The book's author thinks the 
change is very big and not good.

>
>> It was founded on the older idea that
>> human beings have a fixed set of natural rights
>>   and that the fixed role of
>> government is simply to secure those rights, otherwise leaving people to
>> take care of themselves.
> but wait, for any non-trivial set of rights, the task of securing them
> is anything but simple; and the notion of a central authority securing
> rights guarantees that people by and large will *not* be left to take
> care of themselves...
> -- not that there's anything wrong with that...i happen to think it's
> a pretty good tradeoff ...

The question the reviewer raises  is whether the change is "radical" or 
"moderate."

Was Reagan a failure for not permanently turning back a march toward 
socialism?

Or was he a success for opening up the political climate to moderates 
like Clinton and Obama?

The reviewer is of the latter view. He calls himself a moderate 
liberal.  He believes George McGovern was bad news.

Interesting review regardless of one's views on the subject.

P


>
>