Talk:Jim Powell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
I have two concerns about this bio:
1: it was obviously written by a fan and I think the favorable POV, while not heavy-handed, is clearly present. For example, the subject’s clear political bias on the right is never spelled out. The article also does not mention critics of his work.
2: is this author important enough to warrant a bio? If so, fine, but then I think the issues I mention under #1 need to be addressed.
Hanover81 00:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] This article still reads like a puff peice" (& I did try)
Much of what is found on internet résumés is close to factual, but noticeably spun; this article was based almost solely on the résumé material from the Cato Institute. This résumé is clearly promotional.
To make this worse, very little material other than book promotion material exists on the web; none factual as regards Powell views or, interestingly, even critical of his work.
I’ve done what I can with it and this still reads like a puff piece. But it is closer to Wiki-standards. I turn this over to you fellow editors for further improvements. Williamborg (Bill) 02:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- thank you. I added a bit more. Powell is not a professional historian and has no training in that area, but his books are popular among his fellow libertarians so I tried to edit it a bit so that new readers would know that he writes from a particular perspective. As for critical perspectives, other than comments made to me from my fellow historians, I have not located any reviews of his books by academic journals. I will continue looking, however. Hanover81 02:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV tag removed
Based on most recent edits, I've removed the NPOV tag. Edit on! Williamborg (Bill) 03:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] removed slam on historians
I removed the following sentence. "Unlike political historians and biographers, who focus on personalities, speeches, election campaigns and other aspects of a political story, Powell draws on research by economists, environmentalists, business historians, military historians and so on, with evidence about consequences" I'm sorry, but only someone not trained as a historian would think this was unusual. It's bragging that he follows a standard practice, although I note it does not mention that he uses original sources.
I also re-added the sentence about his publisher. Since Powell claims to be a historian I think it's importantant that his works are not published by academic presses but by a political publishing house with a particular ideological direction. If mentioning Ann Coulter is a problem, then perhaps replace her with another author publsihed by the same press.
re-added sentence about his publisher AGAIN. Since Powell wants to be considered a serious historian I think it's important that some sentence is necessary about his publisher being not an academic press, but a political press with a specific political leaning. I did delete the mention of Ann Coulter. Please stop just re-deleting this information. Readers deserve to know if an author publishers his works using a particular press if that press has a specific agenda. Hanover81 01:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
and once again the original author seems to want to hide the fact that Powell has a publisher with a bias. Hanover81
- * *
Comments from Jim Powell:
It's perhaps not out of place for me to comment on questions arising about an article on my work.
First, the question of being a "professional" historian. The term "professional" as applied to doctors, lawyers, baseball players and anybody else, customarily means somebody who is good enough to be paid for their work, which tends to mean somebody who does the work full-time. Well, I work full time writing books, have done so for many years, and most of my books have been about history. I expect I spend more time writing than the great majority of academics who have to spend a significant amount of their time preparing for classes and teaching.
My books have been issued by major trade publishers, imprints of Simon & Schuster and Random House. My books on subjects other than history have been published by trade publishers, too, including Putnam, Macmillan and Dodd Mead.
Although many trade books are assigned readings for students, trade publishers primarily depend on voluntary purchases by individual readers, as opposed to textbooks and many academic books which students generally must read. I think it's fair to say that the quality of writing tends to be better for trade books, because if readers don't want to buy the books, they won't sell.
As for making an issue of my publisher, I've had 3 books issued by Crown Forum, an imprint set up by Random House for books aimed at the conservative market. I am not, however, a conservative. I'm a libertarian. My first book for Crown Forum offered an empirical critique of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies, and conservatives generally welcomed the book. However, my next book for Crown Forum, WILSON'S WAR, implied a critique of President Bush's Iraq War, and conservatives, particularly the neocons, had no interest in it. Similarly, my book BULLY BOY offered an empirical critique of the major policies of Theodore Roosevelt who is a conservative hero. If you doubt that, look for instance at contributions by Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich in the June 29, 2006 special issue of TIME MAGAZINE. Among other things, I critiqued Theodore Roosevelt's policy of starting wars, which again conservative defenders of the Iraq War didn't like. So pigeon-holing me as a conservative is quite inaccurate. In addition, although I enjoyed working with the capable editors at Crown Forum, they're not publishing my next book, THE POWER PARADOX, so it's fair to say it's no longer my current publisher.
In any case, linking me with Crown Forum's top-selling author Ann Coulter is an attempted smear by association. I admire her phenomenal marketing ability, and I dislike many of the same people she dislikes, but anybody familiar with her approach and mine would acknowledge that they're utterly different. Milton Friedman has been my inspiration for decades, because he's nice to everybody, he focuses on issues rather than personalities, he believes most people agree on ultimate objectives (freedom, peace, prosperity) and differ in their understanding of the most effective ways of getting there, and Friedman's highly successful method, which has persuaded millions of people, is to present an empirical argument based the observed effects of policies.
I should add that an author has no say in whose else a publisher might consider signing. No publisher ever consulted me about other authors. An author's job is to produce books, not run a publishing business.
You might be amused to know thatI ended up with Crown Forum because of a contract I had signed with Prima, a San Francisco publisher, which was acquired by Forum which in turn was acquired by Crown, already part of Random House in New York. Hence, the Crown Forum name. Before my first book for the imprint, FDR'S FOLLY, was published, the editors in San Francisco were let go, and I subsequently worked with editors in New York. I liked everybody I worked with, but I had no say in picking them.
I am not suggesting any criticism of Crown Forum. I am delighted that they published my books. I enjoyed working with them and respect their professionalism. I would ask what you think you are proving by emphasizing my link with a particular publisher.
Why doesn't Wikipedia mention the interests and biases of other publishers. Since most trade publishers mainly issue books expressing a liberal point of view, they might be reasonably labelled as liberal publishers. In any case, these big liberal publishers occasionally publish conservative or libertarian authors, so what does the prevailing point of view of such publishers say about the authors?
It's absurd to suggest that only academics qualify as "professional" historians. Many non-academic, independent historians have written important works of history and/or biography. Among them, Thomas Fleming, Paul Johnson, David McCullough, Robert Caro, Ron Chernow, David Halberstam and Barbara Tuchman. And what do you call somebody who used to teach but became better known as an independent historian, like Doris Kearns Goodwin?
"No training as an historian"? Well, I did major in history at the University of Chicago, which is not nothing. I attended classes by distinguished scholars like Daniel Boorstin, Donald F. Lach and Earl Hamilton. I did do graduate studies with William McNeill. I did work as a researcher for future Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase, about the history of water companies in early 19th century Britain. As a student editor, I did help publish articles by Nobel Laureates Milton Friedman, George Stigler and F.A. Hayek. My published books on history have been praised by Nobel Laureates and distinguished professors at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, Boston University, George Mason University and American University, among others.
The suggestion that worthwhile books on history don't come from trade publishers is absurd. Many, many academic historians have had books published by trade publishers.
For example, former Harvard historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s trilogy on Franklin D. Roosevelt was published by Houghton Mifflin. The best-known books written by Daniel Boorstin, former professor of history at my alma mater, the University of Chicago, former Librarian of Congress, and former director of the National Museum of History and Technology at the Smithsonian, were issued by Random House. Harvard economic historian David Landes' best-known book was published by William Morrow. Cambridge University mathematician Stephen Hawking's big bestseller A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME was published by Bantam. Niall Ferguson is published by Penguin Press. And so on.
If more academic historians were aware of the differences between academic publishers and trade publishers, I expect the great majority would rather be published by a trade publisher, because they and not their university would routinely retain the copyright, trade publishers tend to do much more promotion than academic publishers, and my impression is that trade publishers offer higher royalty rates than the academic publishers I'm familiar with. In the few comparisons I've been able to make, trade publisher royalty rates were twice as high as the royalty rates offered by academic presses. I've heard many academics grumble at how little academic presses do for their books in terms of promotion. And it's shocking that even Nobel Prize winners often have not had the copyright on their works issued by academic presses.
Probably the main reason more academics aren't published by trade publishers is the lack of demand for their books. A big percentage of academic books are difficult reads on highly specialized subjects, selling well under 5,000 copies, even 1,000 or less. The poorest sellers seem to be edited books with contributions from many academics, books that appear aimed to burnish academic resumes than anything else.
I wonder about the need to point out my alleged bias, since pointing out bias doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia policy. The entry for Arthur Schlesinger, for instance, doesn't point out that he's a "liberal" historian. Nor are readers advised about the views of Barbara Tuchman or many others whose entries I checked. Why does a policy apply to me and not others?
It's quite evident by my association with the Cato Institute and the titles of my books that I am a libertarian. No secret about that.
A question was raised about the statement that I take an empirical approach to history, as contrasted with many historians and biographers who tend to focus on personalities, speeches and other elements of a political narrative. Well, it's true. For example, my book FDR'S FOLLY reported a substantial empirical literature -- hundreds of specialized books and academic journal articles -- about the consequences of New Deal policies. The literature went back as far as 40 years, but most of it has been published since the 1970s, and with a single exception this literature, in economics, has been ignored by political historians and biographers, even those writing about the Great Depression which was the most important economic event in American history. Only one major political historian -- Stanford University's David M. Kennedy, in his book FREEDOM FROM FEAR -- acknowledged any of this material. He covered a few highlights. Conrad Black's FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT, CHAMPION OF FREEDOM, which was published the same year (2003) as FDR'S FOLLY, didn't mention any of the sources that were the basis for my book. And Black, who was a powerful newspaper publisher, could afford to hire the best researchers anywhere.
Similarly, with Theodore Roosevelt. There's an empirical literature on the consequences of his policies, not nearly as extensive as the empirical literature on FDR, but significant nonetheless. It has been ignored by political historians chronicling the era, as well as authors writing on Theodore Roosevelt's presidency, such as Edmund Morris, Kathleen Dalton, H.W. Brands and Nathan Miller. If you go through any of the books, you won't find more than a few lines on, say, the Pure Foods & Drugs Act (1906) or the Meat Inspection Act (1906), and you certainly won't find any references to empirical studies about the consequences of those laws. Nor will you find references to any of the empirical studies about the consequences of Theodore Roosevelt's trust-busting or conservation policies, studies that are the basis of my book BULLY BOY.
I could cite many more examples. The biographies of Lyndon Johnson chronicle the Vietnam War but ignore the empirical literature about the consequences of his domestic policies. Same thing is true with Richard Nixon's biographers. They focus on foreign policy and Watergate, saying little if anything about the consequences of all the regulations that are one of his biggest legacies.
As for the Wikipedia article about me being a puff piece, I don't see either favorable or unfavorable comments about me. If it were really a puff piece, surely it would include some favorable comments. I'm inserting here a lot of favorable comments to show what is NOT mentioned in the Wikipedia article on me:
- The Triumph of Liberty, A 2000 Year History Told Through the Lives of Freedom’s Greatest Champions (Free Press, 2000). Foreword by Paul Johnson.
Wall Street Journal:
“A literary achievement”
Kirkus Reviews:
“An inspiring narrative of people struggling to free themselves from limits -- intellectual and internal as well as tangible and external...readers will no doubt find that these tales will help maintain them in their own struggles and inspire them to seek fuller lives for themselves and others.”
Publisher's Weekly:
“Powell traces the struggle for freedom from oppression, equality before the law, peace, social justice, toleration of thought, speech and individuality. Along with familiar figures such as Erasmus, Jefferson, Franklin, Locke, Tocqueville, Thoreau and Mencken, he presents liberty-lovers who deserve to be better-known, including John Lilburne, and English pamphleteer who attacked taxes, censorship and the notorious Star Chamber, Hugo Grotius, a Dutch antiwar philosopher and the father of international law, and Lysander Spooner, a maverick 19th century American opponent of military conscription and intrusive big government...a rousing testament to the belief that one person can make a difference...”
Paul Johnson, author of Modern Times, A History of the American People and other books:
“Jim Powell is doing more than anyone else I know of to tell the thrilling story of liberty. He is a man of great energy, determination, obstinancy, and courage, and all of these qualities have gone into his work on behalf of liberty. What I am sure of is that anyone who reads The Triumph of Liberty will profit from it, emerging with a better idea of what liberty means and how it is advanced. That is something well worth doing, and Jim Powell has done it.”
John Stossel, ABC-TV News and author of Give Me A Break and Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity:
“A terrific read about fascinating people and their ideas, one inspiration after another.”
P.J. O'Rourke, author of Parliament of Whores, Give War a Chance and other books:
“A generation of American children are being taught that Malcolm X, Ralph Nader, Gloria Steinhem and William Kunstler are heroes. Please read this book to your kids. Or go to their school and hit a teacher over the head with it.”
Gary S. Becker, Nobel Laureate, Professor of Economics and Sociology, the University of Chicago, author of The Economics of Life, The Economic Approach To Human Behavior and other books:
“The Triumph of Liberty reads extremely well and deals with such intellectually fascinating people.”
Richard Pipes, Baird Research Professor of History, Harvard University, author of Property and Freedom, The Russian Revolution and other books:
“Jim Powell illustrates the power of the idea of freedom. The Triumph of Liberty makes the historical struggle for liberty come alive.”
David Landes, Professor of History Emeritus, Harvard University, and author of The Wealth And Poverty Of Nations, The Unbound Prometheus and other books:
“What a pleasure to talk about the triumph of liberty – no story more important – and from the winning side. In a world of endless bad news, how good to bring us happy tidings.”
Walter E. Williams, John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics & Chairman of the Economics Department, George Mason University, author of Doing the Right Thing, The State Against Blacks, and other books:
“Jim Powell has done yeoman’s work assembling the ideas and arguments of the world’s greatest liberty-oriented thinkers. The Triumph of Liberty is vital to the teaching and understanding of American history and fundamental to a meaning of our nation’s values and origins. The writing is superb.”
Richard Epstein, James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago, author of Principles for a Free Society, Takings and other books:
“In these jaded times, it is sometimes difficult to recall that human progress depends not only on technological wizardry, but on the courageous work of single individuals, motivated by their love of liberty and the creative forces of mind and imagination that it unleashes. Jim Powell takes us on a biographical journey with some of our greatest historical figures who, for all their differences, are united by this single passion. Here is one book that will make clear the human origins of our present freedom and prosperity.”
James Bovard, author of Lost Rights, Terrorism And Tyranny and other books
“Jim Powell has written a fast-moving, zesty history of champions of liberty from Cicero to Thoreau, from Rabelais to Rand.”
George B.N. Ayittey, Professor of Economics, American University, author of Africa Betrayed, Africa In Chaos and other books
“An inspiring chronicle that will lift the spirits of freedom lovers everywhere. As Jim Powell reminds us, liberty is not to be taken for granted. An awesome book!”
Randy E. Barnett, Austin B. Fletcher Professor, Boston University School of Law, author of The Structure of Liberty, Restoring The Lost Constitution and other books:
“A wonderful reference for any lover of liberty. Lift your spirits by reading a story each night. I am giving copies to my children.”
William H. McNeill, former Chairman of the University of Chicago History Department, former President of the American Historical Association, winner of the National Book Award and author of The Rise of the West, A World History and other books:
“Truly engrossing…I admire your elegant prose, your diligence in gathering information, and your skill in sketching so many striking, diverse and extraordinary personalities.”
- FDR’s Folly, How Roosevelt And His New Deal Prolonged The Great Depression (Crown Forum / Random House, 2003).
Thomas Sowell, Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, syndicated columnist and author of Conquests And Cultures, Migrations And Cultures, Race And Cultures and other books:
“They say ‘truth will out’ but sometimes it takes a long time. For more than half a century, it has been a ‘well-known fact’ that President Franklin D. Roosevelt got us out of the Great Depression of the 1930s. That view was never pervasive among economists, and even J.M. Keynes – a liberal icon – criticized some of FDR’s policies as hindering recovery from the depression.
“Only now has a book been written in language that non-economists can understand which argues persuasively that the policies of the Roosevelt administration actually prolonged the depression and made it worse. That book is FDR’s Folly by Jim Powell. It is very readable, factual and insightful – and is endorsed by two Nobel Prizewinning economists…This book is an education in itself, both in history and economics. It is also a warning of what can happen when leaders are chosen for their charm, charisma and rhetoric.”
Robert L. Bartley, former Editor of the Wall Street Journal and author of Seven Fat Years:
“Now comes historian Jim Powell of the Cato Institute, with a new book arguing that Roosevelt’s policies actually prolonged the Depression. FDR’s Folly is endorsed by two Nobel Prize economists, Milton Friedman and James Buchanan, and cites a plethora of economic studies.
“Mr. Powell serves to remind us what Roosevelt did: Close the banks. Break up the big Break up the big and diversified banks in favor of one-branch banks where the problem was. Expropriate private holdings of gold. Mark up the gold price in dollars in an attempt to raise agricultural prices. (Undersecretary of the Treasury Dean Acheson resigned in protest against this devaluation of the dollar, a point for reflection by the Bush entourage currently touring Asia to peddle a cheap dollar.)
“The New Deal tried to organize industries into cartels to keep prices up. But it also sponsored a torrent of antitrust suits against industry colluding to keep prices up. It started new welfare plans, notably Social Security, financed by a tax on employment kicking in before benefit payments did. Above all, Roosevelt raised taxes on ‘the rich.’ An ‘undistributed profits tax’ even blocked corporations from accumulating internal capital.
“From the standpoint of the 21st century, it beggars the imagination that anyone could see this witches' brew as a recovery plan. But the mythology of the New Deal lingers today, and we badly need a new debate on this part of our history. I hope that Mr. Powell's book succeeds in sparking one.”
Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and author/co-author of A Monetary History Of The United States, Free To Choose and other books:
“Admirers of FDR credit his New Deal with restoring the American economy after the disastrous contraction of 1929-33. Truth to tell – as Powell demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt – the New Deal hampered recovery from the contraction, prolonged and added to unemployment, and set the stage for ever more intrusive and costly government. Powell’s analysis is thoroughly documented, relying on an impressive variety of popular and academic literature both contemporary and historical.”
James M. Buchanan, Nobel Laureate, Advisory General Director of the Buchanan Center for Political Economy at George Mason University, and author of The Power To Tax, The Reason Of Rules and other books:
“The material laid out in this book desperately needs to be available to a much wider audience than the ranks of professional economists and economic historians, if policy confusion similar to the New Deal is to be avoided in the future.”
P.J. O’Rourke, author of Parliament of Whores, Eat the Rich and other books:
“There is a critical and often forgotten difference between disaster and tragedy. Disasters happen to us all, no matter what we do. Tragedies are brought upon ourselves by hubris. The depression of the 1930s’ would have been a brief disaster if it hadn’t been for the national tragedy of the New Deal. Jim Powell has proven this.”
Thomas Fleming, author of The New Dealers’ War, Liberty! and other books:
“I found Jim Powell’s book fascinating. I think he has written an important story, one that definitely needs telling.”
David Landes, Professor of History Emeritus, Harvard University, and author of The Wealth And Poverty Of Nations, The Unbound Prometheus and other books:
“Jim Powell is one tough-minded historian, willing to let the chips fall where they may. That’s a rare quality these days, hence more valuable than ever. He lets the history do the talking.”
Jonathan Alter, Senior Editor of Newsweek and author of The Defining Moment, FDR’s Hundred Days And The Triumph of Hope:
“Jim Powell makes a good case that the Roosevelt Administration never figured out how to stimulate business with a strategy of incentives for growth.”
Daniel Yergin, winner of the Pulitzer Prize, author of The Prize, The Commanding Heights and other books:
“Jim Powell's recent FDR's Folly has reignited the debate over the New Deal by arguing that it aggravated the Depression rather than helping to end it.”
- Wilson’s War, How Woodrow Wilson’s Great Blunder Led To Hitler, Lenin, Stalin And World War II (Crown Forum / Random House, 2005).
Washington Times:
“Based almost entirely on his rhetoric, President Woodrow Wilson has become a liberal icon. Both he and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were dedicated to remaking the world. Only Roosevelt succeeded in doing so, but, as Jim Powell explains in “Wilson's War,” Wilson probably was the more consequential president. For without Wilson's misguided decision to take the United States into World War I -- despite the lack of any serious American interest in that tragic conflict -- there probably would have been no Bolshevik revolution, and there certainly would have been no Nazi triumph or World War II. Even the Middle East would have looked dramatically different. As Mr. Powell points out, ‘bitter adversaries were forced into a new nation -- Iraq -- thanks to the Versailles Treaty made possible by Wilson.’
“We must study the past to learn for the future. Mr. Powell argues that ‘one of the most important principles of American foreign policy should be to conserve resources for defending the country.’ America should be ‘open to the world,’ as he puts it, allowing a free flow of people, goods and capital. But we should ‘stay out of other people's wars,’ whether in Europe or Asia or the Mideast. As Mr. Powell shows so well in Wilson's War, the only certain impact of needless warmaking is enormous tragedy. Only the forms of that tragedy will remain uncertain.”
Paul Craig Roberts, syndicated columnist and author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions, Supply-Side Revolution and other books:
“Declaring Wilson to be "the worst president in American history," Powell makes a strong case that the rise of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were unintended consequences of Wilson’s arrogance.
“Powell argues that the war, which began in 1914, was stalemated by 1917 and would have ended in a compromise peace. Wilson’s entry into the war won the war for Britain and France and allowed the disastrously vindictive Versailles Treaty to be imposed on Germany. The British economist, John Maynard Keynes, knew the treaty was unrealistic. Powell shows how this insane treaty brought Hitler to power and how Wilson’s bribe to the Russian government to continue in the war produced the Bolshevik Revolution, Stalin, and the Cold War. One hundred million deaths resulted from Wilson’s decision to turn the stalemated European conflict into World War I.”
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln, How Capitalism Saved America and other books:
"Wilson's War by Jim Powell makes a compelling case that Woodrow Wilson was America's worst president and an unmitigated disaster for the world. In a learned exposition of the Law of Unintended Consequences as it applies to foreign policy, Powell shows how U.S. intervention into World War I strengthened the hand of Soviet communism and led directly to the rise of Hitler and World War II. Wilson's War exposes how America's court historians have misled the public for generations. The parallels to today's “war for democracy” in the Middle East are ominous -- and frightening.”
Richard Pipes, Baird Professor of History, Emeritus, Harvard University, and author of Property and Freedom, The Russian Revolution and other books: “Jim Powell's Wilson's War is a highly controversial interpretation of twentieth century political history, which asserts that its worst evils -- Communism and Nazism – were unintended consequences of President Wilson's decision to enter World War I on the Allied side.”
P. J. O’Rourke, author of Parliament of Whores, Eat the Rich and other books: “Jim Powell makes a persuasive case against Woodrow Wilson. But I disagree with Jim. During the latter part of his second term Wilson was nearly comatose, thereby making him the perfect progressive interventionist politician, in my opinion.”
- Bully Boy, The Truth About Theodore Roosevelt’s Legacy (Crown Forum / Random House, 2006).
Thomas Sowell, Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, syndicated columnist and author of Conquests And Cultures, Migrations And Cultures, Race And Cultures and other books:
“Jim Powell's book, Bully Boy, goes in detail into the specifics of President Theodore Roosevelt's many crusades and their often disastrous consequences.”
Lawrence Kudlow, author, syndicated columnist and commentator/host on CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company:
“In Bully Boy, Jim Powell does a thorough job exposing the harm done by Theodore Roosevelt so-called “progressive” policies. Powell tells an important story.”
Richard A. Epstein, James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago Law School, Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, and author of Principles for a Free Society, Takings and other books:
“Most of us know Theodore Roosevelt for his larger than life persona. But Jim Powell's incisive biography looks as much at the policies as it does at the man. He finds the Progressive interventions of TR’s regime were counterproductive to both liberty and prosperity. His gripping exposé of TR's regulation of the meat packing industry, for example, shows in chilling detail just how easy it is to drape protectionist legislation in the guise of public health. Bully for Bully Boy!”
Thomas DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln, How Capitalism Saved America and other books:
"If Jim Powell, author of Bully Boy, had his way Teddy Roosevelt's image would be sandblasted from Mount Rushmore. Contrary to what America's court historians have said about him, "TR" was an unstable and reckless interventionist in both domestic and foreign policy. Nearly every policy he enacted backfired, from his brainless "trust busting" to his nutty crusade for "pure food," his fetish for dam building, and his agitation for imperialistic wars in ten different countries. Thanks to Jim Powell, Americans can now learn about The Real Theodore Roosevelt and begin questioning why such a man is so revered by historians and the political class."
Booklist, August 2006:
“Readable, forceful, and opinionated, Powell’s third presidential jeremiad (after Wilson’s War, 2005, and FDR’s Folly, 2003) should ignite debate between supporters and opponents of big government.”
- * *
-
- Funny how surveys of real historians from both left and right never agree with your assessments. No doubt that's due to THEIR bias and not yours. Hanover81
The truth hurts, doesn't it Hanover81? Maybe you should go and suck Teddy's cock.
[edit] Publisher descriptions
From the long comment above: Why doesn't Wikipedia mention the interests and biases of other publishers. Since most trade publishers mainly issue books expressing a liberal point of view, they might be reasonably labelled as liberal publishers. In any case, these big liberal publishers occasionally publish conservative or libertarian authors, so what does the prevailing point of view of such publishers say about the authors? I could quibble with some of that (I thought most US trade publishers put out books that are likely to make money), but on reflection I agree with the general point you're making. Whatever we'd say about FSG, Norton, etc., we'd both agree that most of Noam Chomsky's non-linguistics books are published by companies that deal with books that are left of center; a quick look at articles on this doesn't show any comment on (or indeed mention of) the publishers. -- Hoary 08:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] what's with the list of articles?
This is a pretty ridiculously complete list. This is not Jim Powell's resumé. Imagine if we did this for Paul Erdös who wrote over 1500 mathematical articles in his lifetime! Pascal.Tesson 21:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. -- Hoary 11:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
