Another bio Steven Hayward holds a joint appointment as senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, and as Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC. He writes frequently on a wide range of current topics, including environmentalism, law, economics, and public policy. Mr. Hayward has extensive experience as a journalist and writer, having published dozens of articles in scholarly and popular journals. His newspaper columns have appeared in the Los Angeles Daily News, the Orange County Reporter, the San Diego Union, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Sacramento Bee, the Washington Times, the Columbus Dispatch, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Kansas City Star, and dozens of other daily newspapers. He is a contriubting editor for Reason magazine, and a contributing author for the forthcoming Encyclopedia of the American Right. Mr. Hayward has received several honors for his writing and academic scholarship. He holds a Ph.D. in American Studies and an M.A. in Government from the Claremont Graduate School. In 1987, he was awarded a Feliz Morley Memorial Prize for distinguished commentary on business and economic affairs. He has also been a Weaver Fellow of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute of Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, and a fellow of the Earhart Foundation, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. In 1990 and 1992, Mr. Hayward was an Olive Garvey Fellow of the Mont Pelerin Society, an international organization devoted to the study of policial economy. His books, The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Liberal Order, 1964-1980 and Churchill on Leadership: Executive Success in the Face of Adversity, were published by Prima Publishing.
Factual errors are not what I'm talking about. Hayward's work is not serious scholarship--he may think he is serious but he commits the cardinal sin of political historians--his political agenda is so paramount that his work is shoddy. This is what I cannot stand about Bruce Schulman The 1970s and Peter Carrol's book It Seemed Like Nothing Happened--their (leftist) politics drive really bad interpretations. If you want to assign a good book on the 1970s Yanek Mzkowski's Gerald Ford adn the Challenges of the 1970s is very solid. I think he is a conservative but I'm not sure--which is the hallmark of a good historian. Serious scholars and academics don't grind their political axes so blatantly in their published work. Fairness is important. I dare say, that I know a little about the period Hayward writes about, in fact my dissertation is very critical of liberals in that era, but his interpretation is pretty much: conservatives good, liberals bad. In my article on Carter, the peer reviewer believed I was a conservative b/c I was critical of the president and his administration. You must be critical of those you sympathize with and even admire---Hayward is so uncritical of conservatives and unrelentingly critical of liberals that his political history is nothing more propaganda---just like Carroll and Schulman (but even more so). This is not about politics but about academic integrity.
3 comments:
Another bio
Steven Hayward holds a joint appointment as senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, and as Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC. He writes frequently on a wide range of current topics, including environmentalism, law, economics, and public policy. Mr. Hayward has extensive experience as a journalist and writer, having published dozens of articles in scholarly and popular journals. His newspaper columns have appeared in the Los Angeles Daily News, the Orange County Reporter, the San Diego Union, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Sacramento Bee, the Washington Times, the Columbus Dispatch, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Kansas City Star, and dozens of other daily newspapers. He is a contriubting editor for Reason magazine, and a contributing author for the forthcoming Encyclopedia of the American Right. Mr. Hayward has received several honors for his writing and academic scholarship. He holds a Ph.D. in American Studies and an M.A. in Government from the Claremont Graduate School. In 1987, he was awarded a Feliz Morley Memorial Prize for distinguished commentary on business and economic affairs. He has also been a Weaver Fellow of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute of Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, and a fellow of the Earhart Foundation, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. In 1990 and 1992, Mr. Hayward was an Olive Garvey Fellow of the Mont Pelerin Society, an international organization devoted to the study of policial economy. His books, The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Liberal Order, 1964-1980 and Churchill on Leadership: Executive Success in the Face of Adversity, were published by Prima Publishing.
I probably should have just linked this under the other comments. My apologies.
Factual errors are not what I'm talking about. Hayward's work is not serious scholarship--he may think he is serious but he commits the cardinal sin of political historians--his political agenda is so paramount that his work is shoddy. This is what I cannot stand about Bruce Schulman The 1970s and Peter Carrol's book It Seemed Like Nothing Happened--their (leftist) politics drive really bad interpretations. If you want to assign a good book on the 1970s Yanek Mzkowski's Gerald Ford adn the Challenges of the 1970s is very solid. I think he is a conservative but I'm not sure--which is the hallmark of a good historian. Serious scholars and academics don't grind their political axes so blatantly in their published work. Fairness is important. I dare say, that I know a little about the period Hayward writes about, in fact my dissertation is very critical of liberals in that era, but his interpretation is pretty much: conservatives good, liberals bad. In my article on Carter, the peer reviewer believed I was a conservative b/c I was critical of the president and his administration. You must be critical of those you sympathize with and even admire---Hayward is so uncritical of conservatives and unrelentingly critical of liberals that his political history is nothing more propaganda---just like Carroll and Schulman (but even more so). This is not about politics but about academic integrity.
Post a Comment