Once again, whenever someone who is by nature a scholar refers to a source, or even "recommends" a source, it is always for the purposes of thought and provocation. I tell EVERYONE to read Saul Alinsky. Do I endorse Alinsky? You know the answer to that.
I think "Microcosm" by George Gilder is great, and recommend it, but there are things in there I disagree with. Very few people are right all the time. I think this is the case with Newt's infatuation with Toffler. It's the same way almost any conservative recommends "Atlas Shrugged," but almost none accept Rand's objectivism.
As a scholar, I think Newt frequently picks and chooses the evidence that makes his points and that shapes his thinking.
Newt is something of an intellectual butterfly, but one who while quite broad is not terribly deep in consistency. Guess we'll see.
Thanks.
Toffler is far out there IMHO. I could excuse a mention...but apparently he not only made it recommended reading for the GOP House members, he then did a foward on Toffler’s next book decrying the fact that people were not reacting well to the first one.
That leans more towards accepting/endorsing the philosophy IMHO then just a scholarly, read this to understand it.
His own book on a “Contract with the Earth,” raises similar concerns about the whole environmental thing.
I’ll dig in deeper...see what I can find.
Good luck on your presentation!