Since the first presidential election of the new decade coincided with the longest recession since World War II, both parties wrestled with the problem of interpreting the 1980s. For the Democrats the issue was clear: the recession was reaped the wages of sin sowed by the “decade of greed,” greed stimulated by Reaganomic deregulation, tax cuts, and massive deficits, culminating in the unconscionable amounts of money made by arch-villain Michael Milken.

George Wallace’s famous adage that “there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties” was never more true than in election year 1988.

Ross Perot’s proposal for direct democracy through “electronic town meetings” is the most fascinating and innovative proposal for fundamental political change in many decades. It has been greeted with shock and horror by the entire intellectual-technocratic-media Establishment.

There are many curious aspects to the latest flag fracas. There is the absurdity of the proposed change in our basic constitutional framework by treating such minor specifics as a flag law. There is the proposal to outlaw “desecration” of the American flag. “Desecration” means “to divest of a sacred character or office.” Is the American flag, battle emblem of the U.S. government, supposed to be “sacred”? Are we to make a religion of statolatry? What sort of grotesque religion is that?

Not the least irritating aspect of the ascension of Bill Clinton to the presidency is that his name ends in “n.” As a result, “omics” fits neatly to the end of his name, and we are bound to be stuck with the appellation “Clintonomics” from now until the end of his term. In contrast, “Bushonomics” or “Perotnomics” wouldn’t quite make it.

After a campaign that stressed “the economy, stupid,” a middle-class tax cut, and assurances by neoconservative pundits that Bill Clinton was a “moderate” and a “New Democrat,” Clintonomics is at last being unveiled in the budget message of February 17 and in other intimations, such as “health care,” of actions to come. And the news is that Bill and Hillary Clinton are only “moderates” in the sense that Brezhnev was more “moderate” than Stalin, or Göring than Himmler. Hold on to your seats, Mr. and Mrs.

Bad and discredited ideas, it seems, never die. Neither do they fade away. Instead, they keep turning up, like bad pennies or Godzilla in the old Japanese movies.

The standard media cliche about the Clinton health plan is that God, or the Devil, depending on your point of view, “is in the details.” There is surprising agreement among both the supporters and all too many of the critics of the Clinton health “reform.” The supporters say that the general principles of the plan are wonderful, but that there are a few problems in the details: e.g., how much will it cost, how exactly will it be financed, will small business get a sufficient subsidy to offset its higher costs, and on into the night

There is no clearer demonstration of the essential identity of the two political parties than their position on the minimum wage. The Democrats proposed to raise the legal minimum wage from $3.35 an hour, to which it had been raised by the Reagan administration during its allegedly free-market salad days in 1981. The Republican counter was to allow a “sub-minimum” wage for teenagers, who, as marginal workers, are the ones who are indeed hardest hit by any legal minimum.