With all the talk recently about how Republican candidates measure up to The Gipper, and a couple contrarian articles about how Reagan is remembered more fondly now than he was while he was president, I started to wonder why Reagan is the standard bearer. I know the obvious reasons. He was like-able and funny. He killed communism with his pinkie and directed Ollie North to kill Iran, or Contra, or something. But in a century of world wars and social upheaval, why is Ronnie such a standout?
Part of my conclusion, oddly, has to do with his disease. His Alzheimer’s forced him from public view. He retreated into seclusion. But as a result, the last memories we have of him are at his best. Strong, friendly, good natured. We didn’t watch him grow old(er) in the public eye. We didn’t have to watch him make idiotic statements and embrace dictators like some other former presidents running around. The other similar case is obviously Kennedy. However, while we didn’t get the chance to see Kennedy grow old, his memories are tainted by the fact that we saw him die. With Ronnie, he just rode off into the sunset to his shining city on the hill. How different would his legacy be if he had remained in the public eye long enough to make talk show blunder or two? And would he still be the conservative patron saint if he had?