I’d call it 70/30 that we haven’t seen the right man at the right time.

In our discussion regarding the persistence of Reaganism, Michael Brendan Dougherty asks, “Perhaps what Mark is saying is that voters are indifferent to the policy details and will take the Reaganism mix once again if a sufficiently rebarbative and successful champion picks up on them.”

Yes — that is what I think.

“The Reaganite mix” would, in my view, be once again popular with the American people if it were picked up by a sufficiently charismatic and popular politician.

I don’t think that people are “born” Reaganite, National Review conservatives, even if they’re lucky enough to be born Americans, more’s the pity. (Okay, most people aren’t born that way; but it does seem that more than a few of our NR interns are most definitely born that way.) I think the old arguments about, say, the importance of fiscal responsibility have to be fought every generation anew. I think the importance of the right to life has to be explained and argued for every generation. The same goes for the importance of free markets, etc.

I consider myself a “Reaganite” on national-security matters, which, in my view, means that Americans should, out of our own enlightened self-interest and out of a certain moral commitment to the superiority and beneficence of our revolutionary Anglo-American constitutional inheritance, take a forward posture in the world, try to lead free countries toward common purposes, and confront malignant powers such as Communist China, where prudent and necessary.

Set aside for a second that that definition of a “Reaganite” foreign policy is up for debate — my point here in defining it is that I don’t expect Americans to somehow naturally accept that position. I happen to think it’s best for America, but I think it’s necessary to convince people of that cause, using suasion and argument. We can do our part at NR — and we do — but in the end, it takes a politician and a statesman to, say, shift America from Nixon-era détente to a Reaganite “we win, they lose.”

Now, I don’t think everything is up for debate. I think most Americans (right and, yes, left) like being Americans. Most Americans think things such as the “rule of law” are good things. But with regard to most of the issues that range from grubby political machinations to grand theories of the case such as “conservatism” or “Reaganism,” there’s a lot of room for talented leaders to push people toward one view or another, especially on the specifics.

The lesson that conservatives ought to learn from the Trump experience is that many people — if not most — like and appreciate following what they see as strong leadership. And then they work backward toward adopting many or most of that well-liked leader’s positions on particular issues. I don’t think we should be surprised by this anymore.

Of course, the other thing we should be painfully aware of is that, in the three and a half decades since Ronald Reagan left the Oval Office, we haven’t seen another Reagan. Is that because the “Reaganite” policy suite is unpopular? Or is it because the GOP hasn’t seen such a talented figure come along, pushing Reaganism, who can unite the whole party and then lead the country toward it? It’s probably a bit of both. But I’d call it 70/30 that we haven’t seen the right man at the right time. In my view, I think this makes Ronald Reagan’s political achievements even more remarkable.

Perhaps we’ll know more after another couple of decades’ worth of evidence.