Lincolnism vs. Reaganism: Sobering truths or comforting flattery?

George Will in this column presents a great discussion distinguishing Lincolnism from Reaganism and helping explain (and blame Reaganism -- remember REAGANOMICS -- for) the advent of big government conservatism. Here are excerpts: "An unmentionable irony is that big-government conservatism is an inevitable result of Reaganism," writes Will, quoting author John Patrick Diggins' new book, Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History. "Conservatives should face the fact that Reaganism['s] unique, and perhaps oxymoronic, doctrine -- conservatism without anxieties [--] cannot [and I add: SHOULD NOT] define conservatism", advises Will. Diggins, a historian at the City University of New York, points out that Reagan's religion, Unitarianism, is the culprit. Reagan's religion "enables us to forget religion" because it banishes the idea of "a God of judgment and punishment." This logic allows us no reason to discipline our desires, but invites us to instead blame government for any shortcomings. Contrast that with Lincoln's religion and "... belief (see his Second Inaugural) that the failings of the people on both sides of the Civil War were the reasons why 'the war came'" and you get the picture. On the question of which of the two men has the correct theory of government, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, it is apparent that Reagan's "theory of government has little reference to the principles of the American founding", according to Diggins. The Founders, especially the wise James Madison, saw government's primary function as "resist[ing], modulat[ing] and even frustrat[ing] the public's unruly passions, which arise from desires". The Founders, the true Conservatives, constructed a government of admirable checks and balances "to check [and balance] the demands of the people." Madison's Constitution, which Lincoln was martyred fighting to uphold, is an attempt to solve the big problem of unruly human nature. "Reagan let human nature off the hook", observes Diggins, as Will rightly concludes that "Reaganism tells people comforting and flattering things that they want to hear [while] the Madisonian [and Lincolnian] persuasion tells them sobering truths that they need to know."
To me, this dichotomy explains why some may prefer Reagan to Lincoln: One tells them "comforting words" that they want to hear, such as that they are not responsible for their desires and actions, which are inherently good; the other tells them "sobering truths" about man's evil nature and sets up government -- with checks and balances -- to curtail, and even frustrate, their unruly passions and desires. No comforting flattery for this guy. ABRAHAM LINCOLN's sobering truths are what I need to know.