There is some truth to all that, but to say Reagan was a liberal is taking the point too far. He would be seen(without the name involved, only going by record) as a wishy washy comnservative or RINO by the far end of your party. Reagan was willing to compromise, something the Bachmann wing is much les willing to do.
Only if one also, while removing the name, attempted to present his record without any other context. I would imagine similar issues would come if we went and presented people with Kennedy's record, or people in the 1800's record.
Time period and context play into things. Reagan came into power during a time where full Democratic control of the Congress was the norm, a split congress the rarer exception, and a fully republican controlled congress a thing of myth and legend akin to unicorns and under 6' WWF Champions. We were coming out of a huge troubled economic time period and was in the midst of a troubling national defense period iwth regards to the Russians. To speculate that someone like Bachmann would be equally unwilling to compromise then as she is now, or to suggest Reagan would be as likely to compromise now as he was then, is baseless. Is it likely to go extremely the other way? No, to a point people are made up a certain way and always will be. However, 1994 with the Republicans taking the house...a number of years with a fully Republican controlled congress...these things have shifted the way both sides, to a point, view government and compromise. The Democratic Party grasp on Congress, and the house specifically, has been shattered and the notion that either side can gain control is not firmly implanted in minds. Meaning the notion of "we gotta compromise if we ever want to do anything" loses some of its steam and power because there's now a legitimate reason to think they may have a chance to get their side in power and not have to compromise as much. Such an expectation wasn't normal under Reagan.
1953 was the last time pre-reagan that Democrats didn't control at least one of the houses (Republicans actually had both). Indeed...from 1930 to 1980, a fifty year stretch leading up to Reagan, Republicans had control of a house of congress only 3 times (all three times, they held both). 1931, 1947, and 1953. From 1981 on, things have shifted. It began during Reagan's time, when Republicans at least kept one portion of Congress (The Senate) for 6 years in the 80's. It shifted again in 1995 when Republicans gained controll of both houses for the first time since 1953. Since then, 14 of of the 16 years Republicans have had control of at least one house, having full control one more time during that period.
50 years leading into Reagan, Republicans had control of at least one house 3 times
30 years since Reagan, Republicans have had control of at least one house 11 times
Reagan existed in a different era, where politics had a little bit of a different mentality. Attempting to place his record in the modern day and acting like they could in any way be an equivilent is misleading at best, ridiculous at worst. Yes, Reagan may...at best...look moderate today if we took his policies, out of context, and placed them in the modern day. Though to even say that, and even then it'd be debatable, we'd also need to just take GENERIC statements of his policies. IE, someone stating to reduce the Top Tax Bracket by 60% today would HARDLY be someone likely called a "moderate" and would likely be called a "radical right winger" by many. That's part of the issue with ignoring the context of WHEN Reagan was President.
