Posted on 10/04/2009 7:59:24 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
I didn't get that at all. He mentions that he's written a political history of Reagan, but doesn't come close to comparing it to Free to Choose, Closing of the American Mind, and the others. For that matter, he doesn't compare his work to the "less intellectual" authors he identifies, either.
Long article. Worth the read.
Acorn non-ping
Apparently, in his book, Hayward calls Reagan’s ideas “loopy” and that his presidency succeeded by “luck” so yes, I guess Hayward doesn’t compare himself to the conservative populist authors or more serious authors like Friedman.
In order to win elections AND carry a legislative agenda, conservatives/libertarians have to distill the ideas of their intellectuals so they are easily accessible to the rest of America. (Stossel comes to mind.)
Why did I not know (and thousands or millions like me) that the idiots in congress restricted insurance companies from competing across state lines (forget about tort reform)? The simple answer is because I didn’t need to know as long as my insurance was workin’ for me. The political answer is because the Republicans are legislatively brain dead for not beating that drum and continuing to beat it once the Democrat Press Corps (eventually) goes after it. (No apologies. No backing down. Ever again.)
I don’t know why we don’t have a more coherent and consistent message. It is not for lack of intellectual ideas, that’s for sure.
Teaching Reading in OhioFunny, looks like some "intellectual" (a doctor, no less) wrote a review and assigned it to the wrong book.So, do they teach reading comprehension still in Ohio? I ask because someone named "Doctor Tyrone" in Cleveland posts the following review of my book on Amazon:
Hayward claims to be an objective historian. It is pretty clear he is just another Reagan hater. Hayward calls Reagan's ideas loopy. He thinks Reagan's presidency succeeded by luck. The fall of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with Reagan. Reagan was a simpleton and could not distinguish fantasy from reality. On and on it goes. By contrast, Hayward elevates Carter in his book. If Hayward were an historian, he might try to tell the story of Reagan without constantly using demeaning adjectives, slanted perspectives and mischaracterizations of Reagan's supporters. If you hate Reagan and want to feel vindicated, this book is for you. If you liked Reagan at all or just want an unbiased history of the Reagan Presidency, look elsewhere. Save your money and your time and avoid this book.I'm wondering if he has me confused with this book instead? You'd think the difference in the author's name might be a tipoff, no?
Oh, the comments after his blog entry are hilarious.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, honest . . . but that is the question the author is trying to answer (and I'm not saying that he succeeds).
Conservative politicians are too lazy. RINOS are the problem!!
Personally, I haven't read Hayward's book, have you?
I agree
Take it up with Jack Hunter, you brainless dimwit. I didn’t write his essay.
The founding fathers trusted the people - and so do I. That said, our elites are better than their elites...
I agree 100%.
It is not as if the Right doesn’t have anything other than soundbites. Its just that we are fighting the Libs on that level because the libs have been so successful at that level.
I agree. We have to fight them on their level, unfortunately.
You have been remarkably unlike your handle. I’m enjoying the discussion. Here’s what’s bothering him:
“The leading conservative figures of our time are now drawn from mass media, from talk radio and cable news. We’ve traded in Buckley for Beck, Kristol for Coulter, and conservatism has been reduced to sound bites.”
He seems genuinely concerned. Or he wants to see a return to the days when no one watched, no one listened and no one read conservatives.
I used to watch all the Sunday morning shows and lots of stuff from the Democrat Press Corps throughout the week. I was struck at how coherent and consistent AND concise the Democrats were compared with the Republicans. Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry. They all toed the line. The Republicans were all over the place. Either they had a strategy or they didn’t. They came off as “didn’t”.
Intellectual debate serves a purpose, but if you’re going to win elections and keep the legislature, you have to be able to tell regular folks why you’re better than brand D. You do that with sound bites.
What you seem to shine at best is namecalling. Why don’t you invite Jack Hunter onto your little radio program, then you can call him a blame-America nut to his face.
Lets bust out some chains then.
God I hate a street fight but thats what we have here.
Lets bust out some chains then.
God I hate a street fight but thats what we have here.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
—(Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776)
“Have absolutely no idea if true of Pelham, but at least for many, nutters on both left and right, neocon=Jew”
Which makes Irving Kristol what, exactly? He must have been a true nutter considering the way he tossed around the term “neoconservative”. Imagine titling your book “Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea”. Or
“Reflections of a Neoconservative: Looking Back, Looking Ahead”. And God knows know what to make of his Weekly Standard essay “The Neoconservative Persuasion”. Imagine acknowledging your reputation as the Godfather of Neoconservatism, instead of lashing out at the nutters who apply that label to you.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.