Donald Trump loves comparing himself to Ronald Reagan. His no-nothing followers have bought into that comparison. That isn’t surprising. That isn’t a fair comparison, though, either. When Trump is exposed as a policy lightweight, which happens frequently, the reflexive response from Trump’s no-nothings is that Trump will hire great advisers. Thus far, there’s no proof that that’s what will happen. In fact, there’s significantly more proof that it won’t happen than proof that it will happen.

The important point worth noting is that Ronald Reagan delegated assignments in carrying out his agenda but he didn’t delegate out putting his agenda together. President Reagan didn’t delegate that responsibility because he knew exactly where he wanted to take the United States. That’s because he wasn’t the policy lightweight that liberals thought he was.

When he called the Soviet Union the “evil empire”, liberals like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry said this was reckless, that we had to make nice with the USSR. A year after President Reagan left office, the USSR disintegrated. Reagan was a great leader because he knew what he was doing.

By comparison, Trump said that he’d become fast buddies with Putin. Trump was foolish enough to state that Putin would destroy ISIS for us. A month after Trump said that, Putin announced that they’d accomplished their mission and that they were pulling their troops out of Syria. Trump looked like a child sent to do a man’s job. The gravitas gap between Trump and President Reagan was shown to be gigantic. Grand Canyon-sized gigantic.

Finally, President Reagan wasn’t the immoral man that Trump is.

2 Responses to “Trump vs. Reagan, policy edition”

  • eric z says:

    Reagan was a ham as an actor. Bonzo out acted him. Nothing else in the resume.

    Trump is a successful land developer.

    Neither has/had the gravitas to be president. Reagan proved it in his case. He was awful. The air traffic controllers got what they deserved, supporting his election and then taking it, from him.

    Shoulda, coulda. . . .

    Trump, however, can be critical of Clinton for all the money she’s taken, Goldman Sachs and all, Bill’s speech agenda while Clinton headed State, but Cruz cannot [honestly] do so since he’s taken campaign money from all the same bunches; lobbyists/lawyers; Big Energy; the war machine; Wall Street. Heidi Cruz after all brought in the family bacon being a well-placed Goldman Sachs executive. Plus she had her CFR stint. How much more GOP establishment can you get than CFR, Wall Street. Cruz poses as something he is not, and it would fail if he’s the nominee.

    Only real dunces would thing Cruz is anti-establishment.

    The establishment is where he got his bread on the table.

  • eric z says:

    There is a substantial fraction of GOP voters in Indiana who are real dunces. Happily, not a majority, but a fraction that is substantial, only.

Leave a Reply