In this interview, William Buckley reminisces about his old friend, Ronald Reagan. The entire interview is well worth reading, and includes the following anecdotes:

Q: How was it when there was disagreement?
A: It was sometimes vigorous, but never sundering. For instance, he was opposed to ratifying the Panama Canal treaty, and we debated the subject for two hours on television, each of us with illustrious assistants. We punched each other pretty hard. A couple of months later I was scheduled for dinner at his home in Bel Air. He got me on the telephone: “Drive slowly up the drive, real slow.” I did — and came upon, every 20 yards, huge hand-drawn signs: “WE BUILT IT.” “WE PAID FOR IT.” “IT’S OURS!”
Q: Did he offer you a job when he became president?
A: Yes/No. I had written him during the campaign that I didn’t want a job. He answered back that he was disappointed: “I’ve had it in mind to appoint you ambassador to Afghanistan.” Big joke, the Soviet Union having just taken over there. But in correspondence thereafter he always referred to me as “Mr. Ambassador,” and the week before leaving the White House he wrote to commend me on the Soviet withdrawal — “and you did it,” he wrote, “without leaving Kabul for a minute.” Good-humored fantasies played long with Ronald Reagan.

The London Telegraph’s thorough obituary on Ronald Reagan is here.
Also, Lou Cannon, Mr. Reagan’s biographer, wrote this measured Washington Post obituary.

Jane Galt over at Asymmetrical Information has an intriguing post regarding Ronald Reagan’s economic legacy. First, Ms. Galt dispels the myth that Reagan’s policies were solely responsible for improving America’s economic malaise of the late 1970’s:

I think it was Grover Norquist, saying that Reagan was great because when he took office, unemployment was 10% and interest rates were sky-high, and when he left office everything was boom-a-riffic.
This is every bit as fine a bit of data mining as Democrats who make similar claims for Clinton — the economy sucked when he took office, and was booming when he left. When Clinton took office, the economy was already recovering from a recession; when he left, it was sliding into another one. That’s luck, not talent. (Rubinomics buffs, peace out. I’ll deal with you later.)
Similarly, high unemployment and interest rates under Reagan were not because Democrats Had Been Driving the Economy Into the Ground Until the Grownups Took Over. High inflation was the result of a dozen years of bad fiscal and monetary policy under two Republicans — Nixon and Ford — and two Democrats — Johnson and Carter — that was brought under control only when Paul Volcker, the Carter-appointed head of the Federal Reserve, jammed interest rates up to national-heart-attack levels and left them there until inflationary expectations were well and truly tamed. Reagan had nothing to do with unemployment and interest rates falling; that was the inevitable result of a drastic monetary tightening finally working its way through the economy.

Ms. Galt also debunks the supply-side economics myth that budget deficits have no effect on interest rates:

While we’re here, can we put to bed the oft-quoted supply side factoid that you can tell budget deficits have no effect on interest rates because interest rates fell under Reagan, even though the budget deficit expanded? Interest rates fell because once inflationary expectations were overcome, the natural interest rate for the US was well below the 20% it reached at the start of Reagan’s presidency. But they might have fallen even farther without the budget deficits.
Then again, they might not. As far as I can tell, there’s no evidence that budget deficits have a significant effect on interest rates. One can theorize that it should, and indeed the theories make a great deal of sense. It’s just that you can’t find any actual good data to support them in the Real World. This is one of the major sources of my skepticism about Rubinomics.

Ms. Galt goes on to opine that the single greatest economic achievement of Reagan’s presidency was tax reform, and not so much marginal rate reduction as the simplification of the tax code that was enacted in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Then, Ms. Galt views Reagan’s overall legacy:

Oh, it was not a perfect legacy. It wasn’t as sweeping as some people, like, say, me, would have liked; there were a lot of silly deductions left in, like the home mortgage interest deduction. And the Clinton administration and their accomplices in congress did their best to undo his good work, by introducing thousands of new loopholes. Though, recognizing that loopholes are damaging to the economy and the cohesion of civil society, they did at least try to mitigate the damage: they stopped calling them “loopholes” and instead referred to them as “targeted tax cuts”.
By forcing a showdown with the air traffic controllers union, Reagan helped forestall the sorts of public employee quiet riots common in Europe whenever the government suggests that maybe eight weeks vacation and retirement at 55 are quite generous enough already.
He advanced the deregulation begun under Carter, which wasn’t always good for the regulated companies, but was great for those of us who remember the rotary telephones and extortionate long distance rates of Ma Bell.
He helped bring down the Soviet Union. Oh, I agree with liberals that he didn’t do it singlehandedly, but hey, Communism and Soviet imperialism really sucked, so isn’t advancing its demise by fifteen years a pretty damn worthy accomplishment? Plus he had the guts to tell Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall, which was more than any of his predecessors had done.
And he pulled us out of the doldrums of the 1970’s. He got the country to stop taking Europe’s word for it that we were a bunch of rubes and know-nothings, fit for nothing except Continental security guard.
Plus, he made a bunch of movies. All in all, I think it likely that he’ll be remembered alongside Roosevelt as one of the two greatest president’s in the twentieth century. And they’ll be remembered that way not because of the events they presided over, but because they recognized an evil empire when they saw it, and they led the country into battle against it.
We should all be able to claim so much.

Amen!

Franklin L. Lavin is the U.S. ambassador to Singapore and previously served on President Reagan’s White House and National Security Council staff. In this Wall Street Journal ($) Manager’s Journal column, Ambassador Lavin provides an interesting insight about President Reagan’s leadership skills and tells an even better story about Reagan. First, Mr. Lavin outlines the basis of Reagan’s leadership skills:

Don’t be afraid of friction. Friction, or even unpopularity, can be the price for trying to change the status quo. If elected leaders view their job as simply finding the center of gravity on every issue, they might retain their popularity — but all they will have done is encapsulate public opinion, not lead it. On the other hand, if political leaders want to shape a new consensus, they have to risk alienating those who support the current status quo. Reagan knew that his job was not to make everybody like him, but to help move America in the right direction.
Focus on a few key goals. For Reagan, his goals were to confront Soviet expansionism, reduce the tax burden and place limits on the size of government. He proved to be highly successful on the first two goals, and only abstractly successful on the latter. The federal government expanded substantially during Reagan’s presidency, even if we allow for military growth. But let’s not confuse an inability to implement goals with the desirability of the goals. Reagan did change the debate about the nature of government and the open-ended expansion of the welfare state.
Don’t confuse expertise with leadership. As a political leader, Reagan was masterful. He combined a clear sense of purpose with natural stagecraft and the charming occasional idiosyncrasy. He also understood that as president, you didn’t need to be an expert, you could hire experts, and he did.
Be upbeat. People want to believe in their leadership, believe in their country, and believe in themselves. A president has to paint a picture of a better country and come up with the program to help get us there. There is an old saying in politics. “People don’t care what you know until they know that you care.”

And then Ambassador Lavin passes along a story that provides a glimpse of Reagan’s humanity that helped make him a great leader:

Reagan was in Alabama once and visited a special school for handicapped kids. He offered a few minutes of remarks and took questions from the kids. It was a terrific — dare I say Reaganesque — moment, because simply by spending time with these kids he was endowing their experience with a bit more worth.
Then came a moment of terror. One of the kids had a severe speech impediment. He asked his question, and no one in the room could understand it. The president asked him if he could repeat it and again no one could understand what was said. The staff froze. The teachers froze. What was to have been an upbeat day was turning into a disaster. Instead of allowing these wonderful kids to forget about their handicap, this kid was going to be reminded of it.
Reagan to the rescue:
“I’m sorry,” he said with a smile, “but you know I’ve got this hearing aid in my ear. Every once in a while the darn thing just conks out on me. And it’s just gone dead. Sorry to put you through this again, but I’m going to ask one of my staff people to go over to you so you can tell him directly what your question is. Then he can pass the question back to me.”
Rather than make the kid feel small, Reagan brought his own handicap to the forefront.