RR was our greatest President in the modern era and the history books will so reflect.
I don't see any ground for that assessment.
It is easy enough to blame Reagan's failure to implement his domestic program on Congress, but all Presidents have to deal with Congress, and great ones find ways to get their programs through the mill.
The general idea of reducing the size and scope of Government was an idea whose time had come, but it was a reaction to excesses of the recent past; Reagan may have been chosen to represent the pendulum on its swing back, but he didn't start the idea. Some of his domestic notions, such as those on the environment, will be remembered as naive to the point of comedy, and some of his appointments - Mr. Watt, for example - will be remembered as among the more preposterous individuals to have held positions of power.
The notion that Reagan brought down the Soviet Empire will not, I believe, stand up to historical scrutiny. It's a nice bit of wishful thinking - it happened, therefore we caused it - but I haven't seen any evidence to support the assumption of causation, and I expect that as more history emerges from within Russia, the premise will look weaker and weaker.
Relations with the developing world were horrible, not that it matters to you, but it may matter to historians of the future.
And so on.
On what do you base the presumption of greatness?
|
