creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Linda Chavez
Linda Chavez
10 Feb 2012
Referendum on the Incumbent

Conventional wisdom suggests that the current refusal of the GOP base to accept Mitt Romney as the de facto … Read More.

3 Feb 2012
Feminists Are Anti-Choice

Horror of horrors! Lego has introduced a new line of gender-specific toys aimed at girls. I might not even … Read More.

27 Jan 2012
For Gingrich, Amnesty no Impediment to Nomination

One thing was missed in Newt Gingrich's victory in the South Carolina primary: Conservatives embraced a pro-… Read More.

Dummies

Share Comment

Karl Rove's recent revelation of President George W. Bush's passion for books wasn't a surprise to me. In a Wall Street Journal column last week, Rove explained that for the last three years, he and the president have had a friendly rivalry to see who could finish more books during the year. Rove won each year — but the president was no piker. In the three years of the competition, the president read 186 books to Rove's 250.

Much of the intelligentsia no doubt will be shocked to learn George W. Bush is an avid reader of serious books, but it simply confirms something I already suspected. During the first real discussion I ever had with then-Gov. Bush in 1998, he brought up a book written by a former colleague of mine at the Manhattan Institute.

Myron Magnet's "The Dream and the Nightmare: The Sixties' Legacy to the Underclass" isn't the sort of book you come across if your taste goes to light reading. A scathing dissection of good intentions gone awry, Magnet's book lays bare the folly of liberal interventions on behalf of the poor and the devastating role of the counterculture in creating the underclass. But it's no red-meat screed of the sort that has propelled many well-known pundits to the top of the best-seller list either. Magnet is not a polemicist, but a serious scholar and elegant writer. Bush's reference to the book spoke worlds to me.

Liberals have always believed they have a monopoly on intelligence. Of all the Republican presidents in my lifetime, I can only recall one who was given high marks for raw intellect: Richard M. Nixon. But he was considered by many liberals as a Machiavellian exception that proved the rule that conservatives are dopes. In liberals' telling, Eisenhower and Ford were middle-brow Midwesterners who preferred the golf links to books; Reagan was a B-film actor capable of giving a good speech that someone else wrote; and the two Bushes were Yale graduates by way of money and pedigree, not merit.

Of course we now know — thanks to the publication of "Reagan, In His Own Hand," a reproduction of Reagan's early handwritten speeches — that Ronald Reagan was often his own best wordsmith and that his ideas were original, not borrowed.

And perhaps liberals will now grudgingly acknowledge that Dwight D. Eisenhower must have had something on the ball, if not for his role in defeating the uber-smart Germans during World War II, at least for contributing to the gene pool of granddaughter Susan Eisenhower, who proved how smart she was by endorsing the brainy Barack Obama.

Contrary to the stereotype that all conservatives are narrow-minded dummies, I've found that conservatives are far more likely to be familiar with liberal intellectual thought than liberals are with the views of conservative intellectuals.

Bush's reading list was instructive not just because it was so long but because it included authors whose political orientation was different from the president's own. Included on the list provided by Rove were works by authors David Halberstam, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and James M. McPherson, all liberals, as well as the novel "The Stranger" by Albert Camus, generally regarded as an existentialist, though he eschewed the label.

It would be a little like learning that Bill Clinton's reading list in office included works by James Q. Wilson, Stephan Thernstrom, and Harvey Klehr, as well as Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead." But what we know of his reading habits reveal Clinton to be predictable. A list of his 21 favorite books, compiled for his presidential library, included authors Maya Angelou, Ralph Ellison, Taylor Branch, Reinhold Niebuhr, and, naturally, Hillary Clinton — all well to the left on the political spectrum.

Bush's book list isn't likely to convince his critics that the president's intellect is equal to their exalted own. And I can even imagine some complaining that the number of books the president read proves he was ignoring his job. But perhaps Rove's article will at least dispel a favorite caricature: Bush the Dummy.

Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal." To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Ma'am; Let me suggest that the time for presidents to read books is not while in office, but before they get there...And being a slow reader, I realize that anyone can turn pages... Finishing books is easy... Getting good books to finish you is more difficult... Sooner or later, attention flags, and the book should be put down, and saved for another day... But, no one should leave their books behind... If books are good, they become us, as we incorporate them into our being, and into our lives... What you say, for example, reveals your prejudice... I have seen Doris Goodwin on the toob for years...I thought she was an historian, and while we know many people write history with a prejudice, they in fact, write fiction... Which is what I trust comes out of the right way too often: history with a slant...Why bother??? History has its own drama and characters and plot without adding spin...What we are reaching is a time, as described before Ben Johnson, when plot was intrigue, and intrigue, plot... We need better than that; as we need better from our presidents reading books when they should be writing good history... What kind of history will Mr. Bush write??? First of all, so many of the facts in regard to his presidency will never be known, so that we will never know... Those who know will never tell,  and so many of the facts can be hidden under presidential privilege, that we can only guess... Let me tell you what I believe history will say of Mr. Bush... I believe history will show we had to get over Mr. Bush; like a flu, or some worse disease... I believe that history will say that the triumph of ideology, spin, and money in politics was our greatest defeat, exposing our greatest weakness: that we have no democracy, and so, cannot achieve justice in our lives, or in our politics.... The damage we have done to our friends is little enough compared to the damage we have done to ourselves for no gain... We might have protected ourselves with democracy....We might have prevented the damage with democracy... Without democracy we are victims, slaves, sufferers, mute tools to forces greater than ourselves... That is our history....Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Jan 2, 2009 8:10 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Linda Chavez
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 10 Feb 2012
Patrick Buchanan
Pat BuchananUpdated 10 Feb 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 10 Feb 2012

22 Jan 2010 Fine Tuning the Message

15 Feb 2008 Clemens Hearing a Waste of Time

27 Feb 2009 Obama's Hubris Is Showing