1

    Although the American economy has transformed itself over the years，certain issues have persisted since the early days of the republic. One is the continuing debate over the proper role for government in what is basically a marketplace economy. An economy based on free enterprise is generally characterized by private ownership and initiative，with a relative absence of government involvement．However，government intervention has been found necessary from time to time to ensure that economic opportunities are fair and accessible to the people，to prevent flagrant abuses，to dampen inflation and to stimulate growth.

    Ever since colonial times，the government has been involved，to some extent，in economic decision-making. The federal government，for example，has made huge investments in infrastructure，and it has provided social welfare programs that the private sector was unable or unwilling to provide. In a myriad of ways and over many decades，the government has supported and promoted the development of agriculture.

2

    The most sensible people to be met with in society are men of business and of the world，who argue from what they see and know, instead of spinning cobweb distinctions of what things ought to be. Women have often more of what is called good sense than men. They have fewer pretensions；are less implicated in theories；and judge of objects more from their immediate and involuntary impression on the mind，and，therefore，more truly and naturally. They cannot reason wrong；for they do not reason at all. They do not think or speak by rule；and they have in general more eloquence and wit as well as sense，on that account. By their wit，sense，and eloquence together，they generally contrive to govern their husbands. Their style，when they write to their friends，is better than that of most authors. Uneducated people have most exuberance of invention.

3

    Though fond of many acquaintances，I desire an intimacy only with a few. The Man in Black，who I have often mentioned，is one whose friendship I could wish to acquire，because he possesses my esteem. His manners，it is true，are tinctured with some strange inconsistencies，and he may be justly termed a humorist in a nation of humorists. Though he is generous even to profusion，he affects to be thought a prodigy of parsimony and prudence；though his conversation be replete with the most sordid and selfish maxims，his heart is dilated with the most unbounded love. I have known him profess himself a man-hater，while his cheek was glowing with compassion；and，while his looks were softened into pity，I have heard him use the language of the most unbounded ill-nature. Some affect humanity and tenderness，others boast of having such dispositions from Nature；but he is the only man I ever knew who seemed ashamed of his natural benevolence. He takes as much pains to hide his feelings，as any hypocrite would to conceal his indifference；but on every unguarded moment the mask drops off，and reveals him to the most superficial observer.

4

    I agree to some extent with my imaginary English reader. American literary historians are perhaps prone to view their own national scene too narrowly，mistaking prominence for uniqueness. They do over-phrase their own literature，or certainly its minor figures. And Americans do swing from aggressive overphrase of their literature to an equally unfortunate，imitative deference. But then，the English themselves are somewhat insular in their literary appraisals. Moreover，in fields where they are not pre-eminent-e. g. in painting and music—they too alternate between boasting of native products and copying those of the Continent. How many English paintings try to look as though they were done in Paris; how many times have we read in articles that they really represent an “English tradition” after all.

    To speak of American Literature，then，is not to assert that it is completely unlike that of Europe. Broadly speaking，America and Europe have kept step. At any given moment the traveler could find examples in both of the same architecture，the same styles in dress，the same books on the shelves. Ideas have crossed the Atlantic as freely as men and merchandise, though sometimes more slowly. When I refer to American habit，thoughts; etc. , I intend some sort，of qualification to precede the word：for frequently the difference between America and Europe（especially England） will be one of degree，sometimes only of a small degree. The amount of divergence is a subtle affair, liable to perplex the Englishman when he looks at America. He is looking at a country which in important senses grew out of his own，which in several ways still resembles his own—and which is yet a foreign country. There are odd overlappings and abrupt unfamilarities; kinship yields to a sudden alienation, as when we hail a person across a street，only to discover from his blank response that we have mistaken a stranger for a friend.

5

    Four months before election day，five men gathered in a small conference room at the Reagan-Bush headquarters and reviewed an oversize calendar that marked the remaining days of the 1984presidential campaign. It was the last Saturday in June and at ten o’clock in the morning the rest of the office was particularly deserted. Even so，the men kept the door shut and the drapes carefully drawn. The three principals and their two deputies had come from around the country for a critical meeting. Their aim was to devise a strategy that would guarantee Ronald Reagan’s resounding reelection to a second term in the White House.

    It should have been easy. These were battle-tested veterans with long ties to Reagan and even longer ones to the Republican party, men who understood presidential politics as well as any in the country. The backdrop of the campaign was hospitable，with lots of good news to work with：America was at peace， and the nation’s economy，a key factor in any election，was rebounding vigorously after recession. Furthermore，the campaign itself was lavishly financed，with plenty of money for a topflight staff， travel，and television commercials. And，most important，their candidate was Ronald Reagan，a president of tremendous personal popularity and dazzling communication skills. Reagan has succeeded more than any president since John F. Kennedy in projecting a broad vision of America—a nation of renewed military strength，individual initiative，and smaller federal government.

6

    If people mean anything at all by the expression “untimely death”，they must believe that some deaths run on a better schedule than others. Death in old age is rarely called untimely—a long life is thought to be a full one. But with the passing of a young person, one assumes that the best years lay ahead and the measure of that life was still to be taken.

    History denies this，of course. Among prominent summer deaths，one recalls those of Marilyn Monroe and James Dean，whose lives seemed equally brief and complete. Writers cannot bear the fact that poet John Keats died at 26，and only half playfully judge their own lives as failures when they pass that year. The idea that the life cut short is unfilled is illogical because lives are measured by the impressions they leave on the world and by their intensity and virtue.

7

    In his classic novel，The Pioneers，James Fennimore Cooper has his hero，a land developer，take his cousin on a tour of the city he is building. He describes the broad streets，rows of houses，a teeming metropolis. But his cousin looks around bewildered. All she sees is a forest. “Where are the beauties and improvements which you were to show me?” she asks. He’s astonished she can’t see them. “Where！Why everywhere,” he replies. For though they are not really built on earth，he has built them in his mind，and they are as concrete to him as if they were already constructed and finished.

    Cooper was illustrating a distinctly American trait，future-mindedness: the ability to see the present from the vantage point of the future; the freedom to feel unencumbered by the past and more emotionally attached to things to come. As Albert Einstein once said, “Life for the American is always becoming，never being.”

8 Life Can Only Get Harder for Under-30s

    The age of gilded youth' is over. Today's under-thirties are the first generation for a century who can expect a lower living standard than their parents.

    Research into the lifestyle and prospects of people born since 1970 shows that they are likely to face a lifetime of longer working hours, lower job security' and higher taxes than the previous generation.

    When they leave work late' in the evening they will be more likely to return to a small rented flat than to a house of their own. When, eventually, they retire it will be on pensions far lower in real terms than those of their immediate forebears.

    The findings are revealed in a study of the way the ageing of Britain's population is affecting different generations.

    Anthea Tinker, professor of social gerontology at King's College London, who carried out much of the work, said the growth of the proportion of people over 50 had reversed the traditional flow of wealth from older to younger generations.

    The surging number of older people, many living alone, has also increased demand for property and pushed up house prices. While previous generations found it easy to raise a mortgage, today's under-thirty have to live with their parents or rent. If they can afford to buy a house it is more likely to be a flat than a house.