This is a superbly written piece with an entirely valid perspective. However, it is one that I don't share. I dislike the ruthless application of contemporary political concerns to older films when it is abundantly clear (to me at least) that the film has its heart in the right place. There are plenty of Reagan era films one can criticise for being crass - the ludicrous jingoism of the second Rambo film, for instance - but I don't think Field of Dreams is one of them.

I do sort-of see your argument about Ray's field ultimately becoming something of a capitalist venture, as opposed to what happens in It's a Wonderful Life - the divinely orchestrated intervention in George Bailey's life (dealing with his spiritual wellbeing), whilst the community rally around to help with his material needs amid the crisis he faces with the money, etc. And obviously, this film isn't in the same league as Capra's masterpiece (then again, what is?). But ultimately, the emotional power of the finale, and the reconciliation between father and son, is what really gives the film power. One leaves the film with a warm glow because of that, and frankly that rather trumps any pro-Reaganism subtext. But you're absolutely right about James Horner's lovely score.

At any rate, I don't necessarily think you're making an invalid argument here. But I think it's a rather joyless one. Great writing as always. It's good to heartily disagree at times. :)