Although I don't agree with Reagan winning, one could argue that he worked to strengthen the nation's defenses, cut taxes, put Soviet communism out of its misery, and tried to bring back moral respectability to the gov't after the excesses of the 60's and 70's. Plus, these things tend to be skewed toward more recent presidents. I think there was a poll of the greatest president ever not too long ago, and Clinton and Reagan both finished in the top 3 or 4. He probably got the "recent death" sympathy vote, too. Also, I can't think of any good reason (outside of policy differences) not to vote for him. One might hear the following arguments about the other people:(1) Lincoln - Utter disregard for the Constitution, which is more important than the Union. Also, only issued the Emancipation Proclamation in the South because it was a political move and not a moral move having to do with natural rights. Inept war leader, did a terrible job at choosing generals.(2) King - It has been argued that he was a traitor, far too cozy with the communist party. I would personally argue that he was but one builder of a legacy that was already built or on its way. There very well could have been a number of people that played the role he did, unlike maybe a Marcus Garvey, CH Houston, Dubois, or Douglass.(3) Washington - He had slaves. He might have been basically controlled by Hamilton for much of his first term. He is the toughest one of these to make an argument against, IMO.I'm not a big Reagan fan, I would have probably voted for Jefferson if I knew that was going on.
it would do wonders for everyone if you realized how little you actually know, Alcibiades
your synopsis of their legacies as men says it all.