Ok. But Reagan was there when the original revival of government trust happened after Vietnam / Watergate. Presumably that was mostly because of Volcker and the Fed. Is the argument that this was overwhelming to start and Dems were still in charge of Congress and so Reagan had less effect.
And maybe that he was talking about that less in term 1 than in term 2? And he had more effect later in his term? Or because something in society was starting to change then? Or that GOP was more in ascendancy? (It wasn’t really until later - but maybe the southern switch was happening).
I’d sort of buy the argument that I’m saying here. Although I’d like to what more. But also I think it needs this greatest context. So I’d be interested to hear it.
Oh. In his 2nd term he routinely said "I have a mandate". Thats why he nominated Bork, he thought he was untouchable then. Like most 2nd terms he became obsessed with legacy. He was going to end communism if it took every penny his grandkids ever had.
But then you have Bush who really wasn’t trying to tear down the government.
He got distracted by Gulf War I so I dont know what he'd have done if Saddam didn't decide the Kuwaiti Gulf ports were worth taking. Reagan desperately wanted to end the Department of Education. No recall on where Bush was on that before Saddam misbehaved.
Where Bush was with Bill Kristol focused on it, who absolutely wanted to end it. But Bush’s pro-government bonafides went way way beyond the military. He just wasn’t a Reagan-type guy. At all.
I just look at it as a guy who was there versus people who weren't and what they know of it now. Rs still have to bow to Reagan, while Ds think Tip O'Neill was a bus driver in the 5th HP novel. One side identifies their voters' enemy and the other maintains the beaurucracy. Wonder which is cooler.
I was mostly there too. Maybe it was the general rise in the right wing money to fund anti-science, Gingrich, pro-oil etc etc stuff that was slowly feeding into the system. But the drop is pretty rapid.