Between Ronald Reagan's last year of presidential office in 1989 and his death in 2004, a strange transformation took place within the Washington Post. I only noticed when, in a fit of masochism, I began to plow through the paper's coverage of Reagan's state funeral. As expected, there were the usual encomiums from Krauthammer and Will and Novak -- no different in kind than what they'd been churning out for a quarter-century -- but where was the other side? After decades of antagonism to Republican presidents in general and Reagan in particular, Post reporters, analysts, columnists and editorialists were sprinting -- practically elbowing each other out of the way -- to apotheosize a man they had never even liked, let alone endorsed.

I finally had to call my brother in Chicago and ask: "When did Reagan stop sucking?"

Nostalgia lies so thickly over the '80s that it's hard now to recall what Ronald W. Reagan represented to your average card-carrying liberal. Hating him then was as much an article of faith as hating George W. Bush is now. Everything his supporters loved --the Plexiglas optimism, the blithe disregard for detail, the chuckle, the very cock of his head -- we loathed. To this day, many of my friends refuse to call National Airport by its new title, and to this day, I refuse to pass the Ronald Reagan Building without a private snigger that Mr. Government-Off-Our-Backs has his name forever attached to a massive concrete bureaucratic complex.

But who's sniggering now? History, it seems, is on the side of the turncoat Washington Post, and there's a distinct possibility that if we paleo-libs continue in our ancient rancors, we'll start looking like those troglodytes who still plump for Alger Hiss' innocence. We may finally have to admit that Ronald Reagan didn't ... completely ... in every respect ... suck.

And to guide us down this road of pain, we have liberal historian Sean Wilentz, whose latest volume bears the ominous title "The Age of Reagan: 1974-2008." As in what we've been living through since 1974. As in what is only now just ending. As in how did this happen?...

Keith Halderman - 5/23/2008

I am a libertarian so my problems with Reagen come from a different perspective but I still believe him to be the best president of my life time. The reason the left has so much trouble maintaining its rancor against him is that whether or not you agreed with his policies you could tell that he believed in something greater than his own personal advancement, in short he was sincere in his beliefs. He was not trying to play us all of the time.

Contrast that to someone like Hillary Clinton who so obviously covets power that she seems to be willing to subject us all to four years of McCain as president in order to further her own personal interests.

Of the three candidates left two seem very willing to switch (ie. Clinton and NAFTA, McCain and torture) any position if they think it will get them one more vote. Obama, even though I very much disagree with his presumed reliance on government to solve problems, appears to be much more consistent, more like Reagen if you will. Therefore the rancor directed at him from the right will be much less.

Lori Rogers-Stokes - 5/20/2008

How satisfying to read this article. I was starting to think I'd lost my mind, if not my memories of Reagan being a total love-hate politician. And the left hated him, and called him Ray-gun. It's hard to believe his transformation into bi-partisan hero is so complete.