Ok, fair point, but did he win his governorship for his policies or it was it because of his status and popularity as an actor?
He wasn’t that popular as an actor, usually playing a supporting actor or a “co-lead” in some cases. And in the middle of building screen creds, WW2 happened, and he enlisted. Pretty much the end of his movie career.
Reagan’s policy creds kicked off after WW2, when he was the president of the Screen Actors Guild for eight or nine years, I can’t remember which. These were the McCarthy years, so Reagan was alternatively providing info as to who might be a communist sympathizer and defending Hollywood people who were wrongly accused. During that period of time, he become just as well known as the SAG President as he was an as actor, probably more, and provided Congressional testimony during that period.
After WW2, he moved into television, mostly as a moderator of TV programs rather than an actor. So, although he was well-known to people, he was never a “Hollywood Star” with any type of star power. He was strictly supporting cast.
So, although it’s true that Hollywood made him a familiar figure, it was his SAG activities that made him a credible one. So, although it’s impossible to separate that “familiarity” that Hollywood gave him with electoral success, he certainly didn’t have the star power of a Trump or Oprah had based on their media ventures. It would be more like [enter the name of a relatively well known supporting actor or actress with known political leanings] running for office. Maybe Ashley Judd, but without the crazy.
My impression is that popular celebrities gain some sort of weird “bonus points” that allow voters to offset their lack of experience or misguided policies.
See above. Their faces are known. A lot more people know Ashley Judd’s face than know the faces of 90% of the US Senators, and certainly more than people running for those offices.
I would argue that supply side economics is one of these misguided and bad policies.
Reagan never did supply side economics, per se, so I don't know what that has to do with anything. He lowered marginal rates, but got rid of all the tax shelters the rich used to lower their incomes. Everybody paid about the same after Reagan then before, unless you were poor — the poor got the biggest % tax break.
It may be good for companies, but it’s bad for people. I don’t care about companies. I care about people.
Well, the companies pay all the bills, either in their own taxes, or by the taxes their employees pay from the income they receive. So you kind of have to care (or not care) about both, if you want the economy to work.