People will always associate Reagan with the Iran-Contra affair and class him as the ultimate 'hawk', but his peaceful beliefs and deep abhorrence for nuclear weapons often get dismissed. Reagan was considerably more 'dove' than 'hawk' and his legacy with nuclear achievements shouldn't get diminished by the unwillingness of conservatives to believe that Reagan was actually a peaceful president.
As we enter the general election Trump will increasingly resemble Reagan in any case, for the same negative claims made against him: that he is an extremist, that the White House is no place for a low-brow entertainer, that he is too unpopular with too many. The revival of the US probably rests on how the people react to that view, just as they did some thirty-five years ago.
It was a brilliant few days. Before I flew home I took part in a Fox News debate with the brilliant KT McFarland, former Reagan staffer and Fox News' security expert. Also on stage were two security experts and Nile Gardiner former aide to Thatcher, who gave a particularly excoriating view of the EU and Cameron's Conservatives. It was a packed room and at the end they all backed Brexit.
Whether Obama has turned out to be a weak and ineffective President is a proposition we can debate, but not on the basis of yesterday's elections. True, the President will no longer dominate the domestic political agenda. On that question, the elections leave no room for doubt. At home, Obama is indeed a lame duck.
Having lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, it is unsurprising that Republicans are desperate to bask in a few rays from Reagan's reflected glory. In 2011, he ranked third in a poll of the most popular US president of the past 50 years behind Jack Kennedy and Bill Clinton. But, as America marks the 10th anniversary of his death, just how comfortable would Reagan himself be in today's Republican party?
The point is not just that missile strikes won't prevent Assad from carrying out attacks with chemical weapons, nor will they help bring the Syrian conflict to a much-needed close, but that our political leaders in the west occupy very little moral high ground when it comes to condemning the use of such horrific weapons.
What remains for all of us to face up to is her political and economic heritage, for Thatcher might be dead, but Thatcherism is alive and well. And its reach was never more ubiquitous as is it today. In her very own words, Thatcher affirmed individual gain above collective benefit when she said: "There is no such thing as society."
In the mid-1990s, I hosted a small dinner for Lady Thatcher and a group of Republican Senators in Washington. Bill Clinton had come out in favour of NATO expansion - which led a number of conservatives to come out against. During the evening, Lady Thatcher told the august group of Republicans around the table - all men, incidentally - to knock it off.
Surely a Conservative Prime Minister has preserved Britain as a global force to be reckoned with, even after the follies of his predecessor in Afghanistan and Iraq? Not so much. Despite William Hague's belief that a strong, capable Army, Navy and Royal Air Force is necessary to protect us from traditional threats and combat the malevolence of terrorists, the Conservative Party seems to have either disregarded Reagan's theory or confused it for "strength through weakness."