modern econometric and statisticalngadgetry notwithstanding. That is, it cannbe used as a means to sway uncomplicatednhuman perceptions and inclinations,nand as such it is already used to thenhilt against Reagan by all the “objective”ncommentators in journals from the NewnYork Times to Rolling Stone and fromnTime to Mother Jones.nWe wish Mr. Reagan well—^after all, henremains a frail and obftiscated politicalnpromise that things could be better ifnonly he knew how to seek advice ofnpeople with a broader and subtler sensenof both history and reality than those henhas selected as his main advisers duringnhis first term in office. Since the mid-n19th century, presidents have beennelected on the anticipation of change, ofnexpectations of the electorate that thennew man will improve the shortcomings,noften feilures, of the socioeconomicnfactuality. There were a few elections innwhich larger, more elevated, but at thensame time less definable, feelings havenpredicated and determined the outcome.nAndrew Jackson and AbrahamnLincoln come to mind—other emotionsnthan concerns for the society’s materialnwell-being brought them to the WhitenHouse; they were the nation’s choices, notnthat of ad hoc coalesced constituencies.nTrue, Reagan was elected because thendesire for change fused well with hisncoherently designed proposals fornimprovement, chiefly in the country’snsocioeconomic condition, or in thenforeign policy field. But there wasnsomething more, and precisely thisnvague something more (no paradox,nactually) gave him his resoundingnvictory. This indistinct reality may bencharacterized as a popular feeling, ornpresumption, or hope, that Reagan’snelection would somehow purify thennational climate, fumigate the badncultural odors of the last 15 years,nrestore a sense of rewarding, meaningfiilnexistence, disperse the foul mists ofnfanatical irrationality presented by thenliberal idea-mongers in the establishmentnand in the press as progress, asnliberation, as the relentless righting ofnwrongs. Upon his election, we wrotenthat the heavy burden of mismanaged,nwasted life oppresses everybody in thisncountry more than Carter’s mismanagementnof the economy, that it’s terrible tonbe unemployed, but unbearable to have,nat the same time, a 13-year-old daughternpregnant and a teenaged son dying on annoverdose of cheaply available narcotics.nHerding ReadersnThe emergence of Rupert Murdochnon the scene should evoke the question:n”What does it mean?” Certainly, therencan be the obvious answer that explainsnhow the newspapers that Murdoch hasnacquired have been transformed so thatnthey have more in common with cheesecakenand gore than with pulp and inli, butnthe obvious answer is only an observationnabout the sur&ce. A more thoroughnanswer can be gleaned from Richard H.nMeekefsNewspaperman: S.I. Newhousenand the Business of News (Ticknor &nFields; New Haven, CT), which tells thenstory of another man whose goal was tonamass as many communications outletsnas possible. There are, of course, differencesnbetween Murdoch, an Australiannwho is still with us, and Newhouse, whonwas born on the Lower East Side ofn.Ini u\ ISMnnnReagan became an emblem of the beliefnthat something can be done about thesenmiseries and horrors, a belief so gravelynimpaired by his three predecessors.nBut during his term, he didn’t addressnthese matters, he didn’t deliver on thenpromise, he did not come even close tonmaterializing the unclear and so passionatelyncraved anticipations. In foreignnpolicy, he successfully verbalizedncorrect perceptions and persuasions,nbut formed out their implementation tonpeople who—especially in the MiddlenEast—made a mockery of cool, goodnsense by their subservience to Levantinenvenality that was presented as strategicnacumen. His personal preferences ofnfriends and acolytes provide little hopenthat what worries, attracts, or appalls thennation will ever penetrate the gildednbubble he dwells in.nTherefore, we’re not optimistic thisntime. nnManhattan in 1894 and who died inn1979. Still, what Newhouse created andnits consequences are telling.nNewhouse was basically a transitionalnfigure in the modern newspaper business:nhe had his rise when Hearst wasnpeaking and descending. Newhouse, anfigure of Algerian “pluck and luck,” nevernexperienced a fall—indeed, not even andecline. The Internal Revenue Servicenestimated that Newhouse’s estate wasnvalued at $1.23 billion at the time of hisndeath. While the name Newhouse maynnot be as familiar as Hearst—or Murdoch—^thenfemily’s current holdings are,nin many cases, household words: newspapersnincluding the Cleveland PlainnDealer and the New Orleans Times-nPicayune and States-Item; the omnipresentnParade Sunday supplement;nmagazines from Bride’s to Vogue. Andnmuch more, iacluding, of course, broadcastnstations and cable TV services.nMay 1984n