>> Am I equating Trump’s politics to Ronald Reagans? Certainly not, but I am comparing the process of their rise in the political world <<
There’s a big difference in the “processes” of the two. Nay, it’s a COLOSSAL difference.
Trump is more-or-less 100% pitchman-cum-carnival barker. But while his IQ is obviously sky-high, and while he has a rapier-sharp ability to parry and attack when facing rhetorical adversaries, he shows no depth of economic and political analysis, nor does he display any long-term consistency of political, social and economic philosophy.
Reagan, by contrast, spent years reading deeply in economics and politics. Then he artfully distilled the wisdom of these classic works into his writings and speeches — especially his radio commentaries from 1975 to 1979. Moreover, he apparently did the task without the aid of an editor or ghost-writer.
This impressive literary output by Reagan shows a man of serious intellect, with a logical and consistent philosophy of politics, economics and society. I think that to equate his “process” with any “process” of Trump is to verge into a calumnious fantasy.
Both candidates (Reagan and Trump) appeal to a significant portion of the population that feels they have been either silenced or ignored by the DC establishment.
Both candidates have a stage awareness due to their acting backgrounds.
Both candidates have a gift of presentation appeal. They are comfortable talking to a crowd and can woo the crowd.
Both have "command presence". They take charge of their surroundings.
In many ways Reagan's and Trump's appeal isn't political. They fill a void we have experienced in the feeling of lack of leadership in the role of the president. Bush took the hits without responding to his critics. Obummer either can't or won't make a decision.
“he shows no depth of economic and political analysis, nor does he display any long-term consistency of political, social and economic philosophy.”
Trump has a degree in economics, as do his kids.