As I said, history disagrees. Your opinion is a somewhat partisan perspective that is attributing to Reagan broader societal issues for which Democrats also share blame for engaging in tribalistic identity politics.
Reagan presided over 8 years of relative peace, restored the professionalism and morale of our military, successfully maneuvered the Cold War escalation as a deterrent and then deescalation as the Soviet Union crumbled, built a broad political coalition, and enacted much needed reductions in federal bloat.
It's not really partisan at all. You think Iran-Contra (and the explosion of the drug trade) was a shining beacon in Reagan's tenure? Star Wars and and otherwise excessive military build-up? Demonizing people on welfare using arguably racist stereotypes? Largely ignoring the AIDS crisis? Attacking women's reproductive rights and generally trying to force religion on others? Making the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else with "trickle-down economics?" Basically, unless you're a hardcore devotee of Reagan's ideology, his presidency had plenty of problems that were exacerbated in future Republican presidencies.
This isn't to say Reagan did nothing right, parts of the economy did well under him, but a lot of what you just said
is partisan spin. You focus on restoring "professionalism and morale" when many can point to excessive military build-up that took away from domestic funding and exploded deficits. You say he got rid of "federal bloat," but he also fostered the culture of irresponsible deregulation and government cutbacks that persists in the GOP to this day. You claim Reagan successfully deterred and wound down the USSR when the country was already crumbling by the time Reagan took office; he may have accelerated things, but it was more like a nudge to a country that was already on the edge of a cliff.
Also, on the "tribalistic identity politics" claim:
BULLSHIT. The Democrats weren't the ones pushing the stereotype of the lazy black person; they weren't the ones trying to weave Christian ideology into the Constitution; they weren't the ones who wanted to ease up on the Civil Rights Act or veto the Civil Rights Restoration Act. There's a difference between standing up for groups that have been marginalized versus marginalizing them like Reagan did, and your typical "both sides" equivocation doesn't work here (not that it ever does, really).