Adventures in Graphic Design

My roommate, the highly trained aesthetician (and investigative museum reporter) Kriston Capps points out that Mitt Romney's Reagan Zone of Economic Freedom looks rather different when represented in a more intuitive manner:

The other thing to observe here is that this "zone" -- the list of countries with which the US has current or pending free trade agreements -- has nothing whatsoever to do with Ronald Reagan and doesn't constitute a zone in any meaningful sense since the agreements differ from country to country and some of them are purely bilateral. Romney may be the least pernicious Republican but he's still quite the buffoon.

Comments

At heart he is still a consultant.

Posted by d | October 24, 2007 9:33 AM

It's typical of a consultant mindset, which is related to a journalistic one, to get some interesting data that fits with a story you want to tell, blow it up, and put it on a powerpoint slide. Are these agreements more important than the WTO? Than NATO? Than our relationship with the EU? Isn't NAFTA, the Bush I, Clinton, Gore, project, much, much more important? But, see, it says Reagan, and freedom, and trade are involved. Sounds very nice. Next slide.

Posted by d | October 24, 2007 9:50 AM

Did you see the "Opening Markets Fuels Prosperity" slide? It managed to have three seperate line graphs that are measured in three different ways all in the same chart... then a focus point that highlights "Reagan Takes Office" which doesn't actually change anything.

http://www.mittromney.com/img/Photo_Gallery/Opening_Markets/Slide3_LRG.JPG is the direct link.

Posted by Alex | October 24, 2007 9:50 AM

Nothing for Ecuador? You would think that if we're going to let a foreign country base it's military on our soil we'd have a trade agreement.

Posted by MikeJ | October 24, 2007 9:52 AM

"I'm Mitt Romney, running for the Republican candidacy for President, and I just want to point out how wonderful it is that we've opened our borders with Mexico."

Posted by MikeN | October 24, 2007 10:09 AM

His map was soooooo much better than this one. His had, what call in the biz, pop! The map above, on the other hand, just has dribbles of red all over the place, like someone pulled out a sliver just before pointing to a bunch of countries (especially NA!). There just ain't no pop!

Posted by CKT | October 24, 2007 10:18 AM

The rest of the world's a bunch of stupid freedom-hating anti-red-nation hippies... (/sarcasm)

Hey, what about Iraq? Their borders seem pretty open to us...

Posted by Chris | October 24, 2007 10:39 AM

This is almost like a Saturday Night Live parody. Haven't they done something with Republicans that name everything after Reagan? If not, they should. The Reagan Dust Ruffle. The Reagan Bedroom Set.

Romney really is a buffoon. Of course, none of Europe is economically free--we all know that.

Posted by Lev | October 24, 2007 10:58 AM

Alex, that slide is really really funny.

Posted by jhupp | October 24, 2007 10:58 AM

Someone probably already pointed this out, but wasn't NAFTA quite a bit after Reagan?

Posted by Mr. Noah | October 24, 2007 11:00 AM

Mr. Noah: not only was NAFTA after Reagan, but so were ALL of the Free Trade Agreements mentioned in the slide.

Posted by d | October 24, 2007 11:19 AM

Romney may be the least pernicious Republican

In the same way that Belial may be the least pernicious demon . . .

Posted by rea | October 24, 2007 11:27 AM

We don't have a free trade agreement with Puerto Rico?

Posted by rufustfyrfly | October 24, 2007 11:49 AM

Why won't Greenland freely trade with us ??

Posted by H-Bob | October 24, 2007 1:57 PM

Now that the GOP candidates are starting to pull out the "I'm the next Reagan" playbook, it's important for Democrats to continuously and loudly point out an important bit of heresy:

Reagan was a mediocre president.

His main domestic policy "achievement" was a reckless tax plan that ushered in the modern era of massive deficit spending in times of prosperity (at least under GOP Presidents, that is.)

Foreign-policy wise, he was also something of a mixed bag - obviously he presided over the fall of the Soviet Union, which regardless of whether he deserves any credit for the collapse I would admit he handled with aplomb. He did, however, saddle us with some pretty serious long-term problems (al Qaeda, for example) and of course it was on his watch that the United States got mixed up in the crazy dead-draw conspiracy of cocaine, guns and endless proxy wars that we now refer to as "Iran/Contra."

The bottom line is that when a Republican claims to be the next Reagan, we should remember that what "Reagan" means is "better than Bush, worse than Clinton."

Better than Bush, worse than Clinton. Best case scenario, that's all the 2008 Republicans have to offer. If we can keep reminding people of that, it's hard to see how we can lose the White House.

APS

Posted by Ape Man | October 24, 2007 1:58 PM

But Reagan didn't preside over the fall of the Soviet Union. Bush the first did.

Posted by mad6798j | October 24, 2007 5:00 PM

the gray area of the map represents the zone of islamofacism.

Posted by Mark | October 24, 2007 6:24 PM

Reagan didn't preside over the fall of the Soviet Union. Bush the first did.

"Before Bush: wall. With Bush: no wall!"

-- Dana Carvey as GHW Bush

Posted by Thlayli | October 24, 2007 7:20 PM

Good point. So, never mind, Reagan really has no achievements to speak of.

APS

Posted by Ape Man | October 25, 2007 2:48 PM