You're preaching to the choir, dude.

So, here's my question about political books. How do people stand to read books that only share and provide facts about their own personal points of view? I'm talking about the Ann Coulter and Al Franken political readers of the world. For the most part, the only people reading those books are the hardcore disciples who completely agree with everything they already think. To me, that sometimes seems like nothing more than a big waste of reading time.

Take a book like William Kleinknecht's The Man Who Sold the World: Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America. Now, I am of the opinion that Ronald Reagan was a total shithead. So you'd think, wouldn't you, that this book would be right up my alley? And I guess it could be. But after reading the Introduction, I just couldn't get myself to read any further. For the most part, I was completely in agreement with everything the author said. If I had any sort of memory (I don't, sadly, except for book titles and the names of BBC actors and the literary adaptations in which they appear, you know, the really important stuff) this would be a great book from which to learn facts and interesting tidbits about the many and exact ways in which Ronald Reagan was a total shithead. Consider:

"But therein lies the great myth of Reaganism, for his betrayal of the working people of America could not have been more complete. Thanks in large part to Reagan's policies, the two periods of economic expansion that followed his election did little for Americans in the middle and lower income brackets...Expressed in constant 1998 dollars, households whose wealth placed them in the bottom 40 percent of the country had seen none of the benefits of two decades of economic growth. Between 1962 and 1983, the average household net worth of that group had grown from $800 to $4,700. But by the time Reagan was out of office in 1989, that group had a negative net worth of $4,100; that is, they were in debt for that amount...

The real winners in that economic growth were the wealthy. The top 1 percento fhouseholds saw its average net worth grown from $7.2 million to $9.1 million between 1983 and 1989, a 26.9 percent increase that far surpassed the 6 percent growth for the middle 20 percent." (pp. xiv-xv.)

Now, that's interesting stuff. But the problem* is, a. I know numbers can be largely manufactured or construed to say pretty much whatever you need them to say, so it's hard for me to get too passionate about them, and b. I'm never going to remember them anyway, so I can have them ready for when someone asks me why my gut feeling is that Ronald Reagan was a total shithead. So yeah, this would probably be an interesting book (there are also chapters on Reagan's mastery of the media, deregulation, his big-business friendly policies, his campaign against Jimmy Carter, crime and punishment, tax, and his relentless pummeling of liberals and the New Deal). I just don't have the time or the heart or the inclination to read it right now. On the other hand, I do now have a title I can remember for the next time someone tells me how great Ronald Reagan was. They won't listen to me or read it or anything, but I'll at least have tried.

*My second problem with the book is this line, from the introduction: "This book is borne of annoyance: a great bewilderment over the myth that continues to surround the presidency of Ronald Reagan." I agree with that in spirit. But shouldn't it be "This book is BORN of annoyance"? Help me out, grammar experts, because if it should be BORN I'm going to be totally annoyed with this book.

Comments

[Gayla]

Well said my friend :)
Gayla
Sin City, NV

[Mrs. Thornton]

Most presidents are shitheads, born of the American people, and borne by the American people.

[Citizen Reader]

My pleasure, Gayla.

Mrs. Thornton,
As Gayla said above, well said, my friend.

[Tripp]

These sorts of books don't really do much for me. You can get just as much out a beer-soaked conversation peppered with "yeahs!" and "And another thing...s"

I hope that Rick Perlstein, writer of thoughtful, analytical, lucidly written books on conservatives from a sympathetic but critical liberal viewpoint tackles Reagan next. That would be something.

[LynneW]

Oh my. Copy editor alert!

My Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says: "born - cause to be born; bring into the world" and "borne (ppl - see BEAR verb" which in turn says: "carry, hold, possess; transport" then "support, sustain, endure" as the second meaning and "produce, give birth to; bring forth, yield" as the third.

Good catch, CR!

[Citizen Reader]

Tripp,
I couldn't agree more. I don't mind having the "yeah!" moments when discussing stuff with my mom or other people I agree with, but reading a political book that just parrots my own beliefs back just seems....dull.

I'd love to see a thoughtful honest take on Reagan. I think this guy tried but it still smacked of too angry, and too numbers-driven.

[Citizen Reader]

Lynne, I hope you won't think I'm being too forward, but I love you. Bless you, getting out the dictionary is just what my sister did. I know it's probably wrong to be this fussy, but that was literally the FIRST LINE of the book and I couldn't get past it.

Yup, too bad all the publishers (pretty much) had to be bought up by big corporations who only think about the bottom line. Copy editors and their (not high enough) salaries aren't a high priority in that scheme.

[Sarah]

Yup. You are correct about the grammar.

It's amazing how many people have "kick me" written all over them. Perhaps they just want to please their "betters" in the hope that they will one day also be a "better". Statistically, that's not going to happen.

[Citizen Reader]

Sarah,
Yeah, I think so. "Borne of annoyance" just doesn't LOOK right, if nothing else.

Who do you think has "kick me" written on them? Not Ronald Reagan? (He had "winner" written all over him, I think.) Sorry I'm misunderstanding your comment--I'm a dolt. Please do let me know what I'm missing.