Well, then, I guess you're not one of the robots. You are to be commended for your ability to think freely and independently.
A lot of people credit Reagan with ending the Cold War, but it could have easily gone the other way in those early years. Gorbachev also made a huge difference, but in actuality, the Cold War was starting to wind down anyway before Reagan even came into office. Relations with both the Soviet Union and China had been improving due to Nixon. America was learning, adapting, and making progress after learning some harsh lessons in Vietnam. Carter seemed committed to peace, although he didn't pull any punches in accusing the Soviets of human rights violations and later condemnations over Afghanistan. His main downfall was Iran, which wasn't really his fault, but he was blamed for it nonetheless.
Just the same, it seemed overall progress was being made. That's why Reagan's 20-mule team, saber-rattling, "evil empire" talk seemed totally regressive, as if the guy just woke from a 30-year nap and wasn't aware of what had happened since the 1950s. Whatever America had learned about itself and whatever progress was made since then was totally forgotten and went into reverse.
In any case, I don't see how anyone can credit Reagan for events that took place outside of America which Reagan had no real control over (and most of which happened after he was already out of office).
He took America in a different direction, away from the progress and enlightenment we achieved in the previous decades. The Reagan era is characterized by excess. He gave everyone license to become as materialistic, militaristic, and narcissistic as they wanted. Even liberals latched on to that, as most people started to think of the old ideas of "peace" and "love" as pretty stupid, naive, and bad for America.
Or as George Carlin put it, "We went from 'All You Need Is Love' to "He Who Dies With The Most Toys Wins'."
I think America really had a chance to get better and greater, if we had continued in the more progressive and enlightened direction that so many people were advocating. But yes, I think that Reagan and his followers ruined that. I think they were the ones who originally planted the seeds of hate and divisiveness we're seeing so much of today.
Whatever economic improvements there might have been only really benefited the wealthy, while the middle class remained mostly stagnant, and the poor got poorer. And even then, it was all mostly based on borrowed money. There was nothing visible or substantial to it, other than accountants' trickery. Meanwhile, factories were closing left and right and jobs were being sent overseas. Not an indication of any "improvement." It's more a sign of decline.
Reagan was at the helm at the time. Yes, there were other people involved, and maybe it wasn't his direct responsibility. But I think even Greenspan had to finally admit that their policies weren't really as great as people thought they were at the time.
All in all, I see Reagan more in a symbolic sense, since he never struck me as terribly bright, and my impression was that he was likely a puppet of his advisors. I never really saw him as his own man, and most of the hype and enthusiasm of his followers has continued to baffle and mystify me to this very day.
Other Republicans have held similar views as Reagan, yet they never enjoyed that level of popularity and devotion. I even remember the Republicans who initially opposed him for the nomination in 1980, once they were out of the race, they all marched in lockstep behind him. It was similar with Trump, as a lot of Republicans opposed him initially. But now, not really.
But as far as "greatness" is concerned, I think that one has to look at great achievements and contributions to the overall society. I just don't see that Reagan did anything to break that barrier. Even if you want to give him credit over the ending of the Cold War, the fact is, it ended on a sour note which has been coming back to haunt us today. So, it may not have been very good for us in the long run.
