Your memory is flawed. Reagan was loathed and mocked by people just like you. They accused him of being rude, stupid, fake, you name it. Reagan implied Ford was brain damaged in 1976 when he said “I played football too - the difference is, I wore a helmet”. Everyone was outraged. He called reporters liars, he used an angry tone, he said protesters in Sacramento “had hair like Tarzan, walked like Jane, and smelled like Cheetah”. He called the Russians and Red Chinese “evil” and joked about bombs.
This directness was seen by many as aggressive, hostile and reckless. His behavior was initially met with anger and contempt from the left and the establishment right. After a few years when people saw he was not a war monger, he was regarded as an amiable dunce. Several more years later when the economy improved, some other critics began to soften.
History has been kind to Reagan, and he deserves that retrospective respect. He had some loyal fans like you and me that loved him from the get go, but he was not initially respected as a wise avuncular gentleman. His world view was confrontational and simplistic, his economic views were “voodoo economics”.
I am not one of the people saying Trump is the new Reagan. Obviously they are completely different people. But Reagan was not always so well regarded, except by those of us who always loved him. In fact, I am pleasantly surprised at how well history has treated Reagan. Back then, admitting you liked Reagan in most social groups was risky as it is today admitting you are a Trump supporter. People automatically think you must be stupid.
Reagan's enemies were everywhere. This was an outsider who was eyeballing that office throughout the 1970's. I started getting his materials in 1973 or 1974 ( maybe earlier, I can't remember ) while he was gearing up for 1976. He was spending a lot of time moving 'right' with the abortion issue, and battled similar accusations that they now toss at Trump over racism and civil rights because of how the college campus and other protesters played out in California. I suspect Trump is carefully studying how Reagan did it and is executing a careful plan rather than just winging it like some people think.
He was attacked by the GOPe mercilessly, exactly like Trump, the similarity is indisputable. People must not remember or we're just the last old ones left. Thing is, most of the conservatives on the scene were blue dog (D)emocrats and we had very few if any to point to wearing the (R)epublican label. I guess you could say Goldwater was still active, and Connally and Wallace who had switched over by then. But nothing like today where everyone claims to be Ronaldus Magnus reincarnated and points their boney little fingers at everybody else and accuses them of not being perfect (C)onservatives! It never happened. All these pompous jackasses today don't realize how silly they look.
In 1976 the conservative was Jimmy Carter, yes I said it, because in 1975 and 1976 that's exactly what peanut boy was, backwood hick from Plains ( that is *not* meant as an insult by me, I'll take them every day of the week over insider bureaucrats ), whose wife and himself were NOT afraid to keep their real accents unlike everybody today, with a beer guzzling brother to boot. He was kind of a dark horse but he did effectively neutralize the maniacal northern liberal (D)emocrats. History has cast him as a liberal since, due to his ineptness, but believe me the liberals of both parties post-Watergate was a certifiable nightmare for America.
The GOPe establishment was Oh My God worthy to say the least! ... House-Minority-Leader-Hack Gerald Ford ( think of Bob Michel under Reagan, uggh ) ... becomes Vice-President-Select Ford ... promoted to President-Select Ford ... He gives us Vice-President-Select Nelson Rockefeller! ... and then wins the 1976 primary and rather than Reagan he takes Bob Dole, future GOPer as running mate! You cannot make this stuff up. Obviously Carter/Mondale beat Ford/Dole in a close one, but people need to realize it was best described as Outsider-Democrat-Conservative defeating Insider-Republican-Moderate.
Reagan was p!ssed-off about 1976 as he should have been and like the p!ssed-off Andrew Jackson in 1824 ( after being denied ), spent the next 4 years running for President. Carter meanwhile almost wrecked the chances for conservatives of either party for all time by being as inept and squishy and wishy-washy as was humanly possible. But the real truth of the matter is that a decade of inflation, interest rates, unemployment, gas lines and much more had run its course. Change was demanded.
Now this is where Reagan really shined. This guy was not afraid to wear a cowboy hat, ride a horse and get in the dirt and dig. Yes his speeches could be a bit sugar coated and long and boring ( like most really ), and I thought he went to far on a few things like blaming gas lines on Carter ( I remember the first lines definitely under Nixon ), but he deserved the criticism for so many things, especially Iran and the Shah, and the Hostages. Reagan very effectively tied it all around Carter's neck without any media help that I can recall. The people wanted change, even the media couldn't regulate that election, which is again a huge similarity to today.
Reagan's win was solid, but thanks to Anderson he just eked out a majority at 50.8% of the vote. The victories were in so many states though that the electoral vote was a landslide, but remember that all of those votes get distributed regardless of the closeness of the vote. An earlier election resulted in: 435-88-8, a huge electoral landslide, right? That was 1912 and the vote was 42%-27%-23% Wilson-Teddy-Taft. You can win a huge electoral victory with very little vote like Clinton at 43% but with 370 electoral votes.
So Reagan got a great win in 1980, I'm not downplaying it but it must be noted that 1984 was the 58.8% landslide when all the (I) and many (D) crossed-over. That is important to remember today, because that is how you win and change Romney's 47% and McCain's 46% into 50+% victories in a decreasingly favorable demographic as each day elapses. Reagan got those crossovers by speaking directly to the enemy strongholds, even Detroit and Chicago and NYC. Now I doubt Trump can get anywhere near those numbers considering the electorate has completely changed, but who else do we have who possibly can?
One more thing about 1980. People have got to stop talking about that one as a Conservative proof of anything. That's nonsense ( Rush, Mark, Sean ). As I said, Carter went in as an outsider and a conservative, Reagan ran pretty much on the same. The election was steered by current events, *not* ideology. [***] Reagan did run with a clear rah-rah pro-American apple pie image, certainly some nationalism and populism as well. This is another similar data point to Trump. I just hope we have enough people left who respect that who can get to the voting booth in November.
[***] Downplaying ideology in the Presidential election does NOT mean downplaying ideology in any other election. One does not follow the other. Levin worships "Conservatism" as a religion, makes it into a hammer and sees everything else as a nail. I'm saying that this office can no longer be viewed that way. Not with the demographics, and not with the massive stakes. Everybody so concerned about alleged abandoning of principles should get their butts out and run for or get other people elected into the House and Senate, where conservative ideology can make a difference. Or maybe we should just consider stopping the awesome conservatives in the House and Senate from leaving their jobs and running President?