Charisma is far more important than most people in this thread think. Part of being a good president, especially in modern times, is the ability to present yourself. See how Kennedy won in 1960 because of his charisma on television? (and thievery, but that's beside the point)
Why I think he's unfairly judged compared to Carter is that Carter was a failure. Like John Tyler, Carter had a perfect storm working for him, as a Dark Horse candidate who somehow managed to win. Carter did not get along with the rest of the government at all, because he was a major micro-manager who never concentrated on one thing. He talked down to his own party and was/is generally unlikeable, so he lost in 1980.
If Ronald Reagan was president from 1977-1980, he would have done much better. But this isn't about that time period. What makes Reagan different from Carter is that Reagan was less of an ass and more willing to work with, for better or worse. He had the charisma that could rival the 2008 Obama, and he never talked down to the nation like Carter did. He was also very funny and willing to self-deprecate in his humor, unlike the more serious Carter.
Go ahead and listen to that Challenger speech. Reagan made the country feel comforted despite the horrific events. Carter would have made us even more depressed. Reagan's voice and smile comforted us all.
His role in ending the Cold War is just as important. His work with other world leaders made the fall of the Berlin Wall and reunion of Germany possible, even if he wasn't president at that point.
Regardless of how and what else he did, these qualities alone place him above many of the presidents he is below right now. Reagan made the United States feel as great and powerful as it really was. The Great Communicator is easily one of the top 20 presidents of all time, and far better than failures like Herbert Hoover and James Buchanan.
It's true he may not have always done the best things (ignoring AIDS; questionable involvement in Ollie North's selling weapons to enemy countries), but he's no failure.
So it seems your rationale is this (do correct me if I'm misreading): people who don't agree with Reagan from a policy standpoint should, despite all that, be voting FF because he was more charismatic and more rhetorically skilled than his predecessor, who was oh by the way also a failure.
How do you square that with your post earlier in the thread?
people should vote more based on their presidencies.
Again, many people who voted HP here have done that, to various extents. It incidentally seems to be you who is deemphasizing what Reagan actually
did, opting instead to appeal to his charisma (imagine that of an actor! But I digress).
It's actually your last sentence that bothers me the most, moreso than the Thrill Up My Leg stuff. You're indicating you're aware of some of the criticism, but you're willing to wave that away because "THE GREAT COMMUNICATOR!!"?
Poll
