epic fail. Many bloggers have already beat me to this point, but I think the two good things I can say about Ronald Reagan are: Ron Jr. doesn't totally suck, and, the suckage of the Reagan years plus the double-plus ungood suckage of Bush I made me a committed "L-word".
I could point my skeptical Reagan-besotted reader, to a great primer on Ronald Wilson Reagan Studies 101 like that great book by Will Bunch, Tear Down this Myth, to ask them to revisit, in a historical sense, just what it was about President Reagan they admired. Why did he thrill them? What was the excitement about?
He was a tall, handsome actor. He spoke well. He lent Hollywood glamour to the White House. He was the "Great Communicatior". (Here's him getting huge applause by quoting someone who'd rather his little girls be dead than atheists--that's brilliant shit!) He was occasionally witty.
But, ultimately, the charm and wit he showed were a veneer over some really callous awfulness. Under Reagan, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, but he continued believing in the stupid "trickle-down economics" that simply did not work. He ignored the crises of homelessness and AIDS. His administration betrayed the public trust with Iran-Contra. His administration was the most corrupt, ever. But he made it all okay with a smile, a wink, and timeless quips that put the blame on godless commie pinkos, who "looked like Tarzan, walked like Jane, and smelled like Cheetah."
His image is polished because he made crapulent policies, corruption, incompetence and meanness look so darn good. Who wouldn't like a funhouse mirror that turned flaws into fabulousness? At some point, though, you have to leave the Funhouse. It isn't real. Believing in a funhouse version of anything is denying reality, and failing to see the flaws just perpetuates them.
And really-- Ronaldus Magnus? I mean, really?