Reaganomics represents the beginning of the Republican party's reversal of the New Deal consensus. Before the Reagan economic years, the overall belief held that government exists to increase the economic well being of all citizens, particularly the poor and the middle classes. The size and role of the federal government had steadily increased from the time Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in 1933 all the way until 1980, when Reagan vowed to shrink the government sector to be so small that he could "drown it in the bathtub."

That phrase speaks to the heart of Reaganomics. Reaganomics is built on the premise that a large government sector is not a good, but an evil, and Reagan even called it a "beast" as an allusion to the anti-Christ in the biblical book of Revelation. This ideology believes that the private sector, motivated by profit, can far better manage the economy than the public center. Therefore, as much of the economy should be privatized as possible. It puts the burden for success on the shoulders of the individual. It also squarely locates national defense as the primary responsibility of the government, which has led to a large increase in defense spending.

In reality, Reagan's economic theories skyrocketed the government debt through tax cuts that largely benefitted the wealthy. Over the last forty years it has lead to a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthy. Reagan's ideology is still very relevant today because it continues to dominate Republican Party thinking. Current President Trump, for example, continues to increase deficits through tax cuts meant to stimulate the economy but which in fact primarily benefit the already wealthy. He has also overseen large increases in defense spending and the further erosion of the social safety net that protects most Americans.

Reaganomics, now identified closely with neoliberalism, has hollowed out the middle-class. This has led to a level of political instability that worries many observers. Many understand that we need to rethink the current neoliberal social contract. For some, this means adopting a more authoritarian form of government to end paralysis in the political system. For others it means a return to a New Deal ideology that puts more opportunity into the hands of the middle class. I cannot comment on which is better, as individuals will interpret this as they wish, but a consensus seems to be growing that the current neoliberal center ushered in with Reagan cannot hold.