“What got Reagan elected?”
What got Reagan elected was being a movie star as well as a newly minted conservative who could communicate very well with people when on a TV screen.
He got elected because moderates felt like they ‘knew’ him from seeing him on TV and in movies. They voted for him as a result. Reagan was elected by moderates. Back then very few people were not politcal junkies. They voted the person, not the policies.
America got lucky in that Reagan was a lot of other good things besides being a celebrity.
Sorry in the post above I meant to write that “back then very few people WERE political junkies.”
Newly minted?!
Thinking back, I don’t think your revisionist assessment of why Reagan was elected is correct. People were sick and tired Jimmy Carter’s phony piousness, his bumbling socialism, the emerging looney leftists coming into the mainstream, the Iran hostage crisis, the gas lines, unemployment, the loss of the Panama Canal, and of course killer rabbits but perhaps I was too young to see it clearly and you are correct that it was only his movie star status, and not his long-standing published conservative stance in newspaper columns and radio, and two successful terms as governor of California, after all I was only 35 years old or so the time.
Reagan was also a two term Governor of California, no small advantage when running for President.
I’ve thought the same (except for him being newly minted conservative); it seems obvious to me though he enjoyed such triumphant success at the ballot box because he had that movie star status. This whole idea of a “Reagan Democrat” seems fanciful.
The majority of people who voted for him did so because they knew him from the movies. That, and they wanted a change from Carter and his gloomy nature and weak leadership and so his party in general.
He was undoubtedly re-elected though because of how he turned the country around economically. I don’t think his movie star status played much of a role then. He was more “the President” in everyone’s mind at that point.
This is all patently obvious though examining our “culture” (or really lack thereof) today. It’s not like the 80’s were much different. People generally didn’t follow politics now or then so they had no idea how conservstive he was when they voted for him. They just voted for him (for much the same reason many voted for Republicans last year) simply because they wanted a change and hated the party in power at the moment. Since he was a movie star too that helped push his initial national landslide victory. Also being from CA and their governor for two terms (obviously a success there too) garnered him their massive electoral vote cache, a victory usually relegated to the Democrat.
There will sadly not be another Reagan unless another well known national figure rises up and enters into politics. One well known for other achievements not a political career. There may be some excellent conservative candidates to run (Cruz, Walker, etc) but they won’t have the drawing power of a Reagan and indeed will be polarizing most likely (because of the media portrayal of such a candidate).
The fact is this: this country isn’t conservative at all. At best it’s moderste. The driving force behind Joe Six-pack’s vote is his own wallet. Until and unless the pluses of conservatism are laid plain, simply explained how they benefit the average person, most won’t vote for such a candidate as they will prefer the path of least resistance. Which is government dependence of some sort. Be it depending on financial aid, to federal intrusion into land disputes or federalization of the education system. It’s all easier to do (or not do) if someone else is doing the work.
So until people see the value of conservatism, understand it, we will always be voting for the one who looks the best on TV. And I don’t think we can rely on luck to give us another Reagan that way.