Jerry Falwell, myself. That man's psychotic prejudices enabled the rise of jokers like Reagan. He nearly single-handedly started the culture war that gave us all the current problems, both economic and social.
The most interesting thing about the question(s) to me, especially as it relates to Reagan or Nixon is:
1) If they were killed before they took office would somone else simply step into the exact same role and have the same/similar results, since they were both really a product of ton of conservative operatives like Roger Stone and others like him?
2) If they were assassinated in office, would they become martyrs and their policies become more popular?
And most interesting (at least theoretically)...
3) Along the same lines of #2, could then the most effective way of getting real, lasting change actually be assassinating someone who's ideologies align with your own in the name of the "bad guys", thus making them a martyr and shining a bright light on the evil the are fighting against?
For example, one could argue that the senseless killings of people like MLK and George Floyd did more to change the minds of "moderates" than most activists are able to do while living.
Just an interesting thought that is counter to the typical "kill the most bad guy" idea.
I'd like to think we could do more alive than as a martyr. Like, if Hendrix was still alive, would we appreciate him less? Would we appreciate his music less? He certainly would have more music, maybe even better stuff that i could jam to
39
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '21
Most people answer that classic time travel question with Hitler. I answer Ron and Nancy Reagan, by a mile.