(I’ll only have one more roundup of these links after this one; don’t worry):

• Marc Connor vividly recounts the disastrous results of Reagan’s pro-dictator policies in Latin America, and adds that “he firmly established a new tone and ethos in national politics. The mask of equanimity was ripped off American politics, and the winners in our society were finally given permission to publicly gloat. All of a sudden it was socially acceptable to denounce the poor, to blame the victims, to celebrate and even promote inequality. It was hip to be mean…. Fifty years from now, Reagan will be remembered not for lobbing a few missiles at Qaddafi or for funding the contras, but rather for presiding over the most radical transfer of wealth, upward, in the 20th century.”
• Kevin Sullivan and Mary Jordan, in a Wash. Post article, dryly note that “In Central America, Reagan remains a polarizing figure.”
• Our ol’ pal Geov Parrish, as you might expect, has a personal, emotional perspective on the topic: “When Reagan was elected president, it was an inexplicable, savage turn for a country that I’d never realized was capable of such things. It’s not just that George W. Bush would have been impossible without Reagan. The presidency of Reagan himself was so bad, on so many levels, that as young adults a sizable number of us could only sputter in impotent rage…. It simply made no sense that an entire country could be run by sinister thugs, all because its spokesperson was a washed-up actor with the professional training to deliver the most ridiculous, venal lies with a calming ‘Great Communicator’ demeanor.”