Yes, he does. He also goes on to say what led me to make the pertinent remarks about him and other lefties (who have a crush on government interventionism, command and control, and of course, planning and rationalizing anything and everything — the Fatal Conceit, as Hayek so well put it so long ago):

Years ago, Lester Thurow, “Head to Head,” the winner (whom we should emulate) would be the superior House of Europe. Nowadays, more than any “conservative” economist ever lauded the “Asian Tigers” with their authoritarian streak accompanying their growth in the previous decade, now we have today's variant, China Conglomeration Enterprises, and Reich (of “industrial policy” fame — is he at the forefront of the most ambitious and silly “green energy” and “green industry” delusions?) now sees a China model:

“And it’s not clear to me that authoritarian capitalism is not going to win, that is, it — there is so much efficiency. The Chinese say, 'We’re going to build 10 new universities. We’re going to build this. We’re going to build this.' And, boom, it happens.”

[Ahem. Did Reich like when BushnCheney wanted to speed up the approval of new electrical transmission lines, or get rid of much of the idiocy encumbering the revitalization of nuclear power, or of developing our domestic fossil-fuel energy resources?]

This was the key issue, as I have identified above, and which David zeroed on promptly. It is the key:

“It’s hard not to conclude that Reich and those of his ilk simply can’t resist the hope that more government control will prove to be the best thing for all of us.”

This always was the central issue, the key.

“I part ways when it comes to his pessimism about free-market capitalism and veneration of the Chinese. It reminds me of all those who praised Japan’s unstoppable engine of government-led capitalism. It’s hard not to conclude that Reich and those of his ilk simply can’t resist the hope that more government control will prove to be the best thing for all of us.”

Yes, absolutely.

Additional note: The book by Thurow (“Head to Head”) has reviews and comments you can read here.

http://www.amazon.com/Head-Coming-Economic-Batt…

Robert Reich is one of the more interesting (middle to far) lefties there is. He predated the late rise of far-lefty talk radio; he has been on the radio long before now, and has a distinctive style as well as voice, and is quite competent.

That said, what Reich is saying here is, or should be, no surprise whatsoever. Back in the late 1980s to early 1990s, Reich was among a number of lefties who wanted a more interventionist federal government (no surprise), was enamored of industrial policy, government job training and such. What he is saying here and now is not really much different than when Lester Thurow said ages ago that “The Winner is … The House of Europe!” in world economic competition with the USA and Japan, Incorporated. Now that Europe and Japan aren't models for us, perhaps (note — no surprise, or shouldn't be) authoritarian China is going to be the future winner (and constitute a role model that the USA, as inferior, should emulate).

In a new interview with right-wing radio host Scott Hennen, Vice President Cheney again criticizes President Obama’s national security policies, harping on his belief that Obama is “dithering” on Afghanistan and endangering U.S. troops. To make his point, Cheney talked about the “perspective” of men and women serving on the front lines:

I worry that there’s a lack of understanding there of what this means from the perspective of the troops. You know, if you’re out there on the line day in and day out and putting your life at risk on a volunteer basis for the nation, and you see the Commander in Chief unable, to or appearing to be unable, to make a decision about the way forward here — you know that raises serious doubts. Nobody wants to think of volunteering to be participate in that kind of operation. [...]

It may in part be inexperience on Obama’s part. It may be that there’s confusion on the staff. But I’m not encouraged by it.

Listen here (beginning at 2:20):

Cheney really doesn’t have any more authority on this subject than Obama does. He neither served in the military, nor has he been Commander-in-Chief. As the New York Times noted in 2004:

Eventually, like 16 million other young men of that era, Mr. Cheney sought deferments. By the time he turned 26 in January 1967 and was no longer eligible for the draft, he had asked for and received five deferments, four because he was a student and one for being a new father.

Bush administration officials also seemed to think that they were soldiers in the military, with former White House press secretary Tony Snow saying that President Bush was on the “front lines” and “in the war every day.” In April 2007, First Lady Laura Bush said that “no one suffers more than their President and I do” during wartime, and Bush would speak on behalf of U.S. servicemembers to bolster his policy ideas. “The [military] families gathered here understand that our troops want to finish the job,” Bush said in 2007 during a speech opposing Iraq redeployment.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/24/cheney-mili…