in fact, there was little that could be construed as "communication" in the speeches of reagan (if we assume that communication involves some linguistic or other transmittal of knowledge or feeling). what reagan did succeed at was, in a bumbling sort of way, telling people that it was all right to believe in what ever they already believed in - without actually telling them substantively what it is they or he believed. in this regard, the comparisons to reagan's political heir (bush jr.) are a bit beside the point. reagan - as the great communicator - found his rightful heir in clinton. after all clinton perfected the "communication by poll results" method that was nascent under reagan. in essence, clinton converted the reagan legacy into an exact science in which he basically told people what they wanted to hear based on surveys - then still did whatever he wanted.
michael catolico