Hayward is no scholar. He might work at Claremont but his work is not serious. His book "Age of Reagan" was bad and his work on Carter adds nothing to the generally bad work on his presidency. If Hayward is the expert on this message board---I have displaced him. I have worked in the Library and am about to publish something on Carter--so in this land of the blind---I have some credibility. Carter's was a failed presidency and his post-White House career while not perfect hardly endangers national security to the level that Hayward claims. Let's be a little choosy about our references---Hayward is not a serious scholar. His politics drive his work and completely overwhelm his interpretations. I so wanted the age of Reagan to be good---but it was bad. His idea tha 1964-1980 is interesting and someone should write about it...I like Jimmy but my skin is thick---criticize him but at least find someone better than Hayward.
I can't really comment on the Carter book because I haven't read it but the Age of Reagan was good. I would say that Hayward is a serious scholar also. He makes his living as a scholar. I may disagree with some of his conclusions here and there but Age of Reagan is footnoted and you can check his sources for his assertions. It is about as partisan as any history book. I am asking--and I hope you know I am not trying to be snide or dismissive, I really want to know-- if you know of any factual errors in Age of Reagan. I have assigned the book in the past to students taking independent study. If you know of any errors of fact I should probably point them out or stop assigning the book.
I should probably add that I don't think Carter endagers national security to the level that the book jacket for the Carter book claims. Terrorists are responsible for terrorism, not American policy.
3 comments:
Hayward is no scholar. He might work at Claremont but his work is not serious. His book "Age of Reagan" was bad and his work on Carter adds nothing to the generally bad work on his presidency. If Hayward is the expert on this message board---I have displaced him. I have worked in the Library and am about to publish something on Carter--so in this land of the blind---I have some credibility. Carter's was a failed presidency and his post-White House career while not perfect hardly endangers national security to the level that Hayward claims. Let's be a little choosy about our references---Hayward is not a serious scholar. His politics drive his work and completely overwhelm his interpretations. I so wanted the age of Reagan to be good---but it was bad. His idea tha 1964-1980 is interesting and someone should write about it...I like Jimmy but my skin is thick---criticize him but at least find someone better than Hayward.
I can't really comment on the Carter book because I haven't read it but the Age of Reagan was good. I would say that Hayward is a serious scholar also. He makes his living as a scholar.
I may disagree with some of his conclusions here and there but Age of Reagan is footnoted and you can check his sources for his assertions. It is about as partisan as any history book. I am asking--and I hope you know I am not trying to be snide or dismissive, I really want to know-- if you know of any factual errors in Age of Reagan. I have assigned the book in the past to students taking independent study. If you know of any errors of fact I should probably point them out or stop assigning the book.
Let me know.
I should probably add that I don't think Carter endagers national security to the level that the book jacket for the Carter book claims. Terrorists are responsible for terrorism, not American policy.
Post a Comment