But arguably it made him less inclined to expect gratitude or credit high-flown sentiments. If you've got a lot invested in those emotions this may seem callous. It isn't: you go on saving lives or hiring people to work as lifeguards, but you stay skeptical about ideas of universal benevolence and good feeling.
Reagan may well have been Emersonian and individualistic, but as regards public institutions and the hopes people invest in government and politics, Reagan was probably less romantic and more realistic than people like Diggins who have communitarian roots or aspirations.
Did Reaganism pave the way for big-government conservatism? I don't think so. You can't go on winning elections simply by always saying "no." That strikes swing voters as being too negative. So you have to have a "positive component" to your message. For Reagan it was winning the Cold War and getting the economy back on track. For later Republicans and conservatives it has to be something else.
Even when politicians do emphasize the "no," their message gets heard as "no, for now" or "no, until we get through this." And when we do weather the crisis, enough voters want to hear "yes" to make a difference.
Did this article have to be excerpted because George Will belongs to the Washington Post Writer's Group because I cannot find the Chicago Sun Times on the list for excerpt and it didn't do it automatically.
Just curious? Because I will check in the future to see if an author is a member of their Writer's Group.
Thanks,
PKM
I agree with your analysis!