SIR - Your article on Ronald Reagan ("The first post-Enlightenment president?," Economist.com, June 7th) does him a couple of very serious disservices. You say that: ?The dramatic tax cuts of his first year did not bring the swift soaring of production, and therefore of revenues, that he had been let to expect: instead, it was the budget and trade deficits that soared...? In an even worse slap in the face you then give him credit for making ?safe the way for Bill Clinton?.
Stuff and nonsense. Yes, the deficit went up on Reagan's watch and that was (probably) a bad thing. Yet consider what Reagan accomplished: he presided over what was then the longest peacetime expansion in American history; he set in motion the free-trade talks that led to NAFTA; he oversaw a real reduction in the rate of annual growth in federal spending from 4% to 2.5%, while manufacturing productivity soared; and he introduced a fairer and flatter tax system. Perhaps all that doesn't qualify as a revolution; but, as someone who lived through it, I wouldn't mind repeating it.Unfortunately, the dastards edited out the best line. In my original submission, the bolded sentence read as follows:
Yet consider what Reagan accomplished, while Bill Clinton was still chasing skirts through Arkansas trailer parks.I liked my version much better.