Therefore...? Astonishing. Reagan had no contemporary such as Goldwater? Let’s assume you are right and have thought out your response, does it follow that Reagan would have no legacy, because he had no legacy? Now, let’s assume that you are wrong and have merely offered reactionary drivel... ding! ding! ding! We have a winner.
“Reagan had no contemporary such as Goldwater?”
Reagan went far beyond what Goldwater. Comparing to Goldwater only diminishes Reagan. The point is, Reagan WAS Reagan, a unique and capable conservative leader, so that you didnt HAVE to compare him to anyone else. Reagan earned his greatness through what he said and did, not via comparisons with the glow of prior greats.
“Let’s assume you are right and have thought out your response”
I have, for years. For years we have heard this twaddle of ‘the next Reagan’... its a pipe dream. We keep looking for the next Reagan, but miss the brilliance of conservatives among us, .. as if the newt 1994 Congress wasnt already a reaganite Congress. As if conservatives arent already using Reagan as the touchstone in debate after debate, as if folks like Mike Pence arent already exemplars of such policies. As if sites like Redstate or this one dont already keep the flame of conservative values embodied by him.
There will not be another Reagan, that wont be possible, but that’s okay, because WE the conservative base of the GOP are ALL “Reagan Republicans” THAT IS THE LEGACY OF REAGAN.
“Reagan does it follow that Reagan would have no legacy, because he had no legacy?”
Reagan’s legacy does not require another politician to come along and be the ‘next’ one of him. His legacy is already an enduring one and a strong economy for a generation is a good enough testament.
That’s the way he would want it to be, and if you read Michael Reagan on the topic you’ll get that as well.
“reactionary drivel” - that’s what liberals called Reagan’s speeches... yes, I think my perspective here is ... Reaganesque.