Reagan example paragraph

In light of differing interpretations, how convincing do you find the view that the Reagan presidency cannot be given credit for revitalising American politics

extract 1 says that Ronald reagan damaged american politics and successive presidents did not follow his changes/ revolution

extract 2 says that ronald reagan did revitalise the presidency and provided a culture for america to thrive

Extract 1 agrees with the question and even goes one step further to argue that Ronald Reagan actually damaged politics and “produced a woeful decline in standards within American political life” Indeed, it could be argued that the fact that Reagan’s large federal deficit made it borderline impossible for Bush to continue his low taxes policies suggests that Reagan created more of a hostile environment. In addition, extract 1 argues that Reagan exaggerated the reasoning and any positive results of his policies with,”his remarkable inability to separate fact and truth from fiction.” This view has credibility when you examine his stories of “welfare queens” who were draining the government when journalist searches could find no such women which suggests that he exaggerated the problems he was fighting against and the solutions he produced to increase the supposed positive impact of his presidency. Extract 2, however, argues that we are holding an altered view of his presidency that is much more negatively skewed than in reality. This can be seen in the quotation “More people seemed to remember his mistakes not his gains,” which suggests that with the benefit of hindsight, historians are holding Ronald Reagan to a higher standard when the large federal deficit can be attributed to necessary higher defense spending during the height of the Cold War for example than a fully peacetime president. Furthermore, I would argue that extract 1 holds an overemphasis on the personality of Ronald Reagan which was not replicated as closely by successors as his economic or social policies which people voted for so can not be judged for the focus on his legacy and revitalisation of American politics. Therefore, I would argue that Extract 2 holds a more direct focus on the effects of his legacy and thus is the most convincing interpretation on whether Ronald Reagan can be given credit for revitalising American politics and the fact that he has contributed an overwhelming positive impact on his successive presidents.

reagan structure:

intro - explain both views in a summary perhaps with a quote. Make sure to use comparative language to show their differing views. Brief comparison of method of the historians with scope, focus and which makes a better judgement

Make final judgement on which is more convincing using words of the question: convincing, significant, accurate etc.

p1 - extract 1’s opinion on one issue/ sub issue with a quote. Corroborate with a quote. Repeat a couple of times with more quotes.

Make direct comparison with extract 2 using quote + evidence again

Depending on which extract you are agreeing with, state why they are more accurate, perhaps with a reference to method if necessary

Make final summary sentence on which interpretation is better

p2. extract 2’s opinion on another couple of issues using quotes and evidence.

Make direct comparison with extract 1 with quote/supporting evidence

Come to conclusion about which one is more convincing perhaps based on evidence/ method again

Final summary sentence on which interpretation is better

conclusion - summary of both extracts detailing why chosen extract is better using previous reasoning

(no new evidence)

Final summary sentence using the wording of the question

General points_ if the question is not easily split up into 2 sub issues such as with financial/social make sure there is an equal split of extract 1 and 2 across both paragraphs

Use precise issue/debate in question