He was the first president elected almost explictedly on the basis that people liked him and distrusted his opponent. I believe much of this has to do with Nixon; after Nixon many people decided that 'character' counted more than political positions.

Actually Jimmy Carter was the first to run on 'character.' He ran less on politics then on the bizarre statement that he wanted a government as 'good as the American people'--whatever the hell that might mean. But having put 'character' first and foremost, he was then destroyed on the same basis, because he ended up being portrayed as weak and vacillitating.

Most following Democrats were also trashed on the basis of their supposed 'characters.' Dukakis in a tank helmet, John Kerry's 'swiftboating,' Al Gore's supposed lies, and Clinton's alleged affairs and scandals were all efforts to personally defame Democratic candidates as untrustworthy and unlikeable. These efforts also put 'character' before politics--a neat trick for Republicans, since most people probably agree with Democrats on the issues.

Republican candidates OTOH were built up as better human beings. Bush is supposedly somebody everyone would like to have a beer with. Much was made of his father's long resume and supposed sterling character. John McCain is said to be the son that every man would be most proud to have (personally I would prefer a son like Ringo). And Reagan of course was supposed to be everyone's favorite uncle.

In fact, as far as I can tell, the very essense of 'Reaganism' is that men of good character are needed in the presidency in order to contain and hold back the encroachment of big government. This is simply a weak version of authoritarianism, since it posits that government is not the will of the people, but a malignant bureaucracy that can only be held back by stong and perferably godly men.

Certainly this is how Bush has behaved in office; he has not respected the government or the Constitution and has tried to rule by personal fiat. He believes that his personal character and personal connection to God is better than government of the people, better than the polls and often better than reality itself. Reagan didn't quite go that far, but that is certainly the direction in which he went.

In order to present Republicans as men of character, it has been necessary to present Republican ideology as a set of simple positions. Republicans are always against taxes, spending, diplomacy, gays, welfare queens and so on. To vary from these positions is given as a sign of having a weak character. In fact, to vary from ANY position is now a sign of having a weak character. Anyone who changes their mind on any point is now called a 'flip flopper.'

Hence when Democrats try to deal with complex issues, they are then slammed as being insincere and shifty on the issues, as opposed to Republicans who supposedly never shift on the issues.

So this has been the basic game in the age of Reagan: the Republicans are supposed to have 'character,' and a firmly held ideology. Knock Republicans on 'character' (ie, attack Bush for draft dodging, or Reagan for his senility) and the Republicans still have their ideology to fall back on, the holding of which proves their character. Knock their ideology and this only proves something wrong with your character.

OTOH the Republicans only need to destroy Democratic candidates personally since many people already distrust Democratic ideology, simply because it isn't simple. Hence the effectiveness of character attacks on Democrats and the corresponding ineffectiveness of character attacks on Republicans.

Today Obama is attempting to run on his character, just as did Kerry and Gore and Dukakis. It's the "Trust me, trust my positions" approach (which was NOT the approach of Bill Clinton). And we can see that Republicans are already gearing up to attack that character. It may or may not work again--for one thing, Obama seems much better at selling himself than other Democrats have been. But how far can that go? In any case, it's hard to see how this is really a geniune change. It is still the same old game.

for someone ho talks a lot, you don't say very much. reagan was the best prez in my lifetime.

don't give me that shit about that little carter pussy and his 'character'. if his character was so friggen great, why do you suppose ted kennedy and bobby byrd treated him like shit?

you think that dipwad has character because he builds hovels for losers?

to paraphrase mencken, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of jimmy carter. even he would have been astonished at just how much carter lowered the crap threshold of the american people - which subsequently coagulated into the infamous clinton administration.

carter should give ass kissing lessons to leftists teach them how to properly slobber over the behinds of every dictator, caliphs, camel jockeys, sheiks, shahs, and sultan in the middle east.

Newspeak? Good men preventing the encroachment of authoritarian government into our lives is the OPPOSITE of authoritarianism. Our Founders did not believe that unrestricted government was a good idea--indeed they thought it such a bad idea that checks and balances permeate the Constitution.

@IrvingChang

Actually I didn't judge anyone's character--dipshit.

and give money to drug dealers.

A lesser man would probably have balked at tasks such as those.

whereby a handful of wise and good men will protect us from authoritarian government by using their elite authoritarianism, but just for a while, to, um, someday, you know.... save democracy for the, er, people.

or is that fascism?

man. In Communism, it is the other way around. You don't like financing dictators. I don't like people blowing up building with airplanes. Particularly when those buildings are in this country. And I am not sure how your rights as an American were infringed by Reagan. Enlighten me, but moral outrage doesn't count as infringed rights. Or maybe am I entitled to be morally outrages at a President who lies to a grand jury, lies to the American public?

The Constitution begins with the words, "We, the People." We don't have communism or an authoritarian government, we have a democratic republic that is ultimately based on the will of the people. So any taxes or laws or regulations or bureaucracies that we have, this is supposed to be the will of the people acting through our legislatures. Our government is supposed to be our responsibility.

But Reagan claimed the government was too big and out of control. And he pointed to vaguely defined bugaboos such as the 'liberals' or 'special interests' or 'inside the beltway bureaucrats' as being the cause of unpopular taxes or regulations imposed on we, the people. And by making this claim he effectively delegitimized democratic government. If our government is out of control, then we, the people, can't control our own government and democratic self rule must be regarded as a failure.

Many people find this appealing. They don't to be held responsible for what our government does. They don't want to admit that taxes might be high because we, the people, want a lot of services. They just want to blame the 'pointy headed bureaucrats' or the liberals, while getting to keep the services. And they certainly don't want to think about issues. They would rather have some great person--a strong man--decide the issues for them. And Reagan played to that.

Reagan defied the Congress in many instances; in particular over the contras in South America. And George Bush has carried that defiance even further, to the point of showing absolutely zero respect for the laws or the Constitution. The Constitution is just a hinderance to George Bush. something to get around. And this amounts to at least mild authoritarianism--he's the 'decider' and we're only the followers.

and selling missiles to a rogue terrorist nation who is our avowed enemy most certainly qualifies.

what another group of terrorists did to us two decades later matters to this issue only to wingnuts trying to dodge the truth about reagan.

what clinton said about a blowjob, likewise.

doesn't change reagan's treason one bit.

no matter how hard you clench your little fists and wish.

we have seen the enemy and he is... um, someone else.

reagan is the greatest prez in my lifetime and many people agree. you are the one throwing the hissy fit about him. of course if i were a bolshevik such as yourself, i'd probably feel the same.

ah feel yore pine comrade!!!

i'll bet osama doesn't get as many votes with this 'change we can believe in' bullshist as ronnie did with 'get gubmint off the backs o' the peeps' thing.

wanna bet comrade?

look at those dumb polocks! they have put up many statues of ronnie for his part in getting the gubmint off the back of the peeps over there. i guess polocks are dumb, right sarv?

His policies failed on so many levels, Fiscally he started the current devaluation of the dollar. (which is over half the run up in gas price.) Go check Zfacts. check the Euro to dollar ratios over time.

His health care policies let TB re surge, let AIDS get a foot hold. He stopped tracking deadly diseases, like the one that killed Jim Henson.

He let infrastructure deteriorate. Dikes that he had built are failing. His cabinet had more convictions. A really bad show.