This is, perhaps, the most anachronistic post on the internet – besides the guy calling Moses a Christian – however, I wanted to just float some ideas for consumption and regurgitation.
A brief survey of advisors to Reagan reveal a different Reagan than his modern supporters often tout. In 2008, several of them lined up to openly support then-Senator Obama in his first presidential campaign. Candidate Obama startled many Democrats by suggesting he admired Reagan. If one looks at the record, well… that is open for debate.
But, modern “Reaganites” paint an image of Reagan who is almost libertarian, a strict conservative Christian, and a miracle worker. Indeed, many long for the second-coming of Ronald Reagan as demonstrated in the 2012 Presidential race. But these are his supporters, almost a half-a-generation, or more, removed from the man. His ills and faults, his sins, are long forgotten.
We have two classes of “favorable rememberers” here. We have the advisors to Reagan painting a different picture (along with his wife, Nancy, and son, Ronnie Jr). We have his modern day supporters who have learned of Reagan second hand, either through shared memories or a text book. These supporters more often than not, create an image of Reagan that is simply not true, albeit based on some true. For instance, Reagan said something about government being the problem. His current supporters, rather than looking at all of the Government Reagan increased, believe this is a literal statement and they use it as a means to disrupt the service and work of the people as much as possible.
There are more examples, but I would digress quickly into an anti-Reagan attack and that would be unhelpful.
But, you get the bit. The Historical Reagan, as showed by contemporary recorded data (something we do not have about the Historical Jesus) is different and has a different record (Gov. Reagan anyone?) than what is often acknowledged by contemporary fans. Further, you will often seen modern Reaganites take wildly different “Reagan” positions than his contemporaries and advisors, all the while basing it on the Historical Reagan and invoking his name.
How does this translate to the current discussion of the Historical Jesus? First, the Historical Jesus leaves behind no videos, no youtube, no contemporaries writing modern, critical historical biographies. This makes it rather difficult to get to the “Historical Jesus.” Second, there seems to be, even in the received documents making up the New Testament as well as other non-canonical documents, differing views on who and what Jesus was (or accomplished). For instance, Paul seems to portray a difference between himself and the Apostle Peter and this difference is about the basic view of the Gospel. Paul came about 20 years later while Peter was (according to our records), Jesus’s prime minister. We see this amplified in later documents, of course.
It may, at one point, become difficult to find the real Ronald Reagan, although that would take a lot to do considering the large amount of data he himself created. But, in the meantime, we have to watch as those who favor Reagan view him completely different. One group, the primary sources, paint a picture of a man the second group (secondary sources) would not accept. We cannot discover the Historical Jesus, or at least on any sort of grand scale, not because there is a grand conspiracy to reshape his image, but because there is simply not enough data and what data has survived is shaped by the winners of orthodoxy.
- Remembering ‘Reagan Democrats’ (conservativeread.com)
- The Quote of The Day: Ronald Reagan And The Great Rediscovery! (fggam.org)
- Ronald Reagan had elite advisors (lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.com)
- The Historical Jesus (boyslumber.wordpress.com)
- Let Reagan Be Reagan (commentarymagazine.com)
- Politics – Re: Glenn Beck: “Ted Cruz May Be Our Reagan” LMAO!! (championshipsubdivision.com)