Historian Kent Germany writes that, "the legacies of death, renewal, and opportunity attached to the Johnson administration are ironic, confusing, and uncertain. They will likely remain that way." Johnson's persuasiveness and understanding of Congress helped him to pass remarkable flurry of legislation and gained him a reputation as a legislative master. Johnson was aided by his party's large congressional majorities and a public that was receptive to new federal programs, but he also faced a Congress dominated by the powerful conservative coalition of southern Democrats and Republicans, who had successfully blocked most liberal legislation since the start of World War II. Though Johnson established many lasting programs, other aspects of the Great Society, including the Office of Economic Opportunity, were later abolished. The perceived failures of the Vietnam War nurtured disillusionment with government, and the New Deal coalition fell apart in large part due to tensions over the Vietnam War and the 1968 election. Republicans won five of six presidential elections after Johnson left office. Ronald Reagan came into office in 1981 vowing to undo the Great Society, though he other Republicans were unable to repeal many of Johnson's programs. Fredrik Logevall argues "there still seems much to recommend the 'orthodox' view that [Johnson] was a parochial and unimaginative foreign policy thinker, a man vulnerable to cliches about international affairs and lacking interest in the world beyond America's shores." Many historians emphasize Johnson's provincialism. The “been in Texas too long” school of interpretation was coined in the Warren I. Cohen and Nancy Bernkopf Tucker anthology, "Lyndon Johnson Confronts the World" to describe the consensus of historians who see Johnson as a politician with a narrow vision. One smaller group of scholars, called the "Longhorn School", argues that--apart from Vietnam--Johnson had a fairly good record in foreign policy. Many of the "Longhorn School" are students of Robert Dallek, who has argued that "the jury is still out on Johnson as a foreign policy leader". By contrast, Nicholas Evan Sarantakes argues: