It's very likely this comment thread space is going to get very ugly. Having declared my bias: (I didn't like him, or his views), the interesting question to me would be was he a product of, or one of the producers of our times?
Mostly I do now believe History needs 50+ years to get distance from the personal. I like Martin Gilbert and Anthony Beevor immensely. I've had both Russian, and American historian-aligned-people take them down gloriously. I don't think either Gilbert or Beevor are seen in good standing, all the time by people in Moscow and Harvard.
> The man was a fucking demagogue. He made his fortune peddling cryptofascist propaganda while calling himself a “conservative”. He helped set the stage for the resurgence of right-wing authoritarianism, white supremacy, and neo-Nazism in the United States. He was the OG alt-reich troll, and his grave should have a pay toilet in place of a headstone.
[1]: https://demifiend.org/articles/good-riddance-rush-limbaugh.h...
And he had enablers. To me, its like the post-death glorification of Reagan because <cold-war> =It's bullshit.
So "in our times" yea, he was a primary shaper. In broad sense? he was a follower. He had a script. Other people helped write the script.