I think you are exactly right about the parallels between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan, but for slightly different reasons. These two extraordinary men share major similarities that come down to leadership and enormous potential for greatness. Natural leaders, particularly those in the fields of politics and the military, are easily recognizable and possess so much charisma that you want to follow their vision wherever it may lead. And a leader never has a problem communicating his vision to others. That is after all a key aspect of what makes him or her a leader.

America has not produced many great Presidents, not more than six or seven of the 43 men who have occupied the White House. Great Presidents are a rare commodity because of why they seek the Presidency. All of our Presidents have been patriots and men of integrity, but some men become President primarily to exercise power, like Nixon and Clinton, and others become President primarily in order to complete their resume and do a few good things (noblesse oblige) along the way, like George H.W. Bush and son. All great Presidents from Jackson to Reagan sought the office in order to do some great task that would define their greatness. Andrew Jackson sought to break the National Bank, expand American boundaries to Texas and beyond and move the center of American political gravity from the mid-Atlantic states and New England to the West and South. Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union and contain the spread of slavery. Teddy Roosevelt looked to make America a world power and create fundamental progressive reforms that would take the country into the 20th Century. FDR faced the task of economic recovery from the Great Depression and saving American capitalism. Ronald Reagan tackled the daunting task of reasserting American power after Vietnam, stopping the very real threat of Soviet expansion and reversing it and unleashing American capitalism from onerous taxation and regulation. All of these Presidents succeeded or are perceived to have succeeded in what they intended to do. It remains to be seen if Obama will join them, but Obama has become President to accomplish an undeniably great task, no matter how much I may disagree with it, and that is to change the economic and social direction of the country in the 21st Century and move America from a center-Right country to a center-Left country for generations to come.

Both Reagan and Obama tend to be divisive figures because they are leaders with ideological visions. If you believe strongly in something, it will make people feel passionately one way or the other about you. That is the reason, although you will not admit it, Mr. Wirtes, that you so hate Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. And that is the reason Reagan was hated and despised with the worst sort of contempt by the hard Left during the 1980s and why so many on the Right see Obama as some sort of treasonous Communist ideologue, which he is not.

In fact, Barack Obama is the anti-thesis of Reagan, the anti-Reagan so to speak. Reagan believed in reducing the size of government and that government was the problem; Obama wants to expand government at all levels and believes that more government is the answer to most problems. Reagan believed in asserting American power on the world stage as a positive force and confronting adversarial regimes; Obama would like to limit and restrain American power as the last superpower and reach an understanding with adversarial regimes. Reagan was committed to rebuilding America's Defenses with a 600 ship Navy and a strong nuclear and conventional deterrant; Obama is committed to sharp reductions in America's Defenses with a Navy of perhaps 200-250 ships, shutting down the production of 5th generation combat aircraft and eliminating America's nuclear deterrant. Reagan worked to slash marginal tax rates and make the tax system flatter and indexed to inflation; Obama will increase marginal tax rates and a host of other taxes on productivity and investment. Reagan believed in the power of the individual to pursue his own happiness; Obama believes that happiness is a collective enterprise. Reagan was an American nationalist and social traditionalist; Obama is an internationalist and social progressive. These are a two very distinct visions in conflict with each other, the core of the argument between the Liquidator and Wirtes, and my guess is that we will see some kind of synthesis of these visions in the next 40 or 50 years. It will be facinating to watch and I envy those that are young enough to see it completely unfold.

I will be away from my computer for the next several weeks and will have little or no opportunity to reply to the outrageously progressive and always sharp comments of my colleague, Mr Wirtes, of whom I hope to have dinner with at sometime during my sojourn in his homeland. However, be not concerned, like MacArthur leaving Corregidor back in 1942, I shall return with outrageously conservative commentary on the state of the nation and the popular culture.

By the way, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Alan Keyes are the Black Ronald Reagans and it is a pity that none of them will ever be President.