[rrpjr]

This thread nicely captures the point. Reagan was "an empty suit," a Chauncy Gardner, a man who couldn't think in complete sentences, a quipping actor: the ridicule and contumely was the only response at the time both to the man's cheerful, iron determination both to challenge liberalism and define the evil of communism. What incensed so many about Reagan then, and apparently now, is that he didn't care what the smart set thought of him -- at the same time he didn't hold it against them. This combination of indifference and magnanimty drove them nuts.

In fact, if anyone bothered to look (as Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy have, and admitted) Reagan was a gifted and thoughtful writer (unlike Clinton, he wrote most of his speeches as governor), and a kind of plebian intellectual very much in a honored American tradition.

Two episodes illustrative of his character were the moment he seized the floor at the SAG melee at Olivia de Havilland's house in Hollywood and took on John Howard Lawson and the communists in an extemporaneous 20 minute invocation to fairness and free speech. Reagan had no intention of shutting down debate; it was they who wanted to shut him down. His spirit won the day, won over many in the crowd, and was the beginning of the end for the movement.

The second was at the Iceland summit. Reagan was offered every blandishment under the sun to disarm. Both the Soviets and the American and international media ran with the story of Reagan's consent, even showering him fools' flattery. Reagan saw through the seduction and rejected the plan. A weaker man, a Clinton, would certainly have found comfort and cover in the adoration of the world press. Reagan stood alone and made the call. This, too, was the beginning of the end for the Soviets. And, again, if anyone cares to read, the old Soviets themselves have confirmed this.

I would call Reagan the anti-Clinton -- unbending to opinion in the face of principle, large-hearted, personally humble, and basically uninterested in power except as a means to a good end. But I don't think any definition by negativity is appropriate for the man.