Example research essay topic: Reading The Book Ronald Reagan - 1,970 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Through all my research and studying on Hooding Carter, I came up with absolutely nothing. I looked through different web sites such as web and many other sites and search engines to find the authors credentials and none appeared. The closest find was from his book titles in which I found on amazon. com. However, it listed The Reagan Years by him, but it was no longer in print. Besides looking on the Internet, I searched encyclopedias such as The World Book Encyclopedia, Encarta Encyclopedia 98, and Grolier Encyclopedia 1990.

Also, I searched our library sources to see if anything could be found on Hodding Carter and the online search from the library, but the result was nothing on him. From the book, The Reagan Years I did find that since 1981 he has been one the Reagan administrations most articulate and thoroughgoing critics. Also, Carter ran the Delta Democrat-Times of Greenville, Mississippi as a liberal outpost during the civil rights revolution of the 1960 s. For three and one half years he served as State Department spokesman under President Carter.

He also has been an Emmy award winning television journalist since 1981 and is the President of a Washington based television production company, Main Street. The authors main purpose was to finally express his views and thoughts on the subject matter of Ronald Reagan's presidency. Hodding Carters goal was to discuss his views based on a rather extraordinary mix of facts, some his own prejudices, media messages, his past perceptions, and his common sense. From the introduction of the book the reader reads that Carter worked for The Wall Street Journal. All Carter talked about was the Thursday edition liberal ghetto where certain journalist especially the newspapers editor Robert L. Bartley, who thought as a journalist it gave him the right to provide vigorous, unfettered and unrestrained views on a wide range of subjects and one just happened to be on Ronald Reagan.

Carter commented that it seemed only logical and fair, therefore, to try to bring the same vigor to his own assessment of the Reagan years that Bartley took. Carter definitely succeeded in his purpose of writing The Reagan Years. The book was his views and opinions written for all people to read and be able to make their own decision on the subject of Ronald Reagan. In his full-length book written like journal enters, Carter goes through Reagan's entire years as President. Carter starts by discussing Reagan related to his people ending with subject matters such and race and the Iran/Iraq issue. He defiantly goes in-depth and voices his thoughts and emotions on every point and so to speak Carter got his moment in the spotlight.

Carter was able to get his thoughts across and every time a person picks up his book his opinions are being expressed. The book started out with an introduction in which Carter goes in-depth and tells about his childhood and how his father owned the newspaper in Mississippi in which Carter runs today. Also, Carter went into his childhood and how he grew up dealing with the whole black and white issue and how that and working with President Carter for over three years gave him the ability he felt, to write and give his opinions on the Reagan administration. Through many journal entries starting on November 1, 1981 at the start of Reagan's reign as President and through December 10, 1987 with his own opinions stated on this day, Carter goes into details on most of the events of Reagan's term. I will have to say it kind of felt like I was reading Animal Farm when I read that Reagan was the master and the people under him were referred to as dogs. Reagan was represented as the leader who was suppose to guide Americans people and decide what was best for us during his term.

However, the book calmed off and started being ordinary words of Carter describing and going from historical events like the deficit of the 1980 s to views from people of media and high regarded people like Alice Rivilin. However like her quote and many others throughout the book, give insight and make the reader think or ponder on their ideas and views to conclude in this case if Reagan was a good President or not. Rivilin stated Just as in 1964, the problem still arises from the simple fact that mot of us... want more from our government than we want to pay for which was put in an Urban Institute study earlier that year. Rivilin went on to note that the President and his men hoped after the 1981 tax cuts and budget reductions that some economic miracle would make these choices unnecessary. It was a miscalculation born of reluctance to face the unpleasant.

Carter said the unpleasant was now the unavoidable, unless we the people are to court disaster. Carter made a kind of out of the ordinary statement, but it was true and related to the Congress. He said, Whats required is bitter medicine for Keynesian's and supply-sider's alike, but the patient cant recover without it. True a person cant survive without medicine and the country can not survive without the right amount of taxes and a good budget to work with, which the President has to take charge or oversee to get accomplished. Besides, talking about the budget, Carter goes into and discusses the subject of public criticism.

Carter goes on to discuss how the criticism grew steadily during his term and how the major critics included blacks, women, and environmentalists. The book really focuses on blacks and even has quotes from Jesse Helms. Carter goes into the different policies of Reagan and talks about how many blacks felt they were discriminated against. The Civil Rights of the 1950 s and 1960 s even were brought up. Between the new election of 1985 - 1989 was a lot of input from Carter. Carter wrote on January 24, 1985 There was a time, not many years ago, when most Democrats were fond of saying that it would be a cold day in hell before Ronald Reagan became President of the United States.

Well, earlier this week, as President Reagan was inaugurated for four more years, it was cold as hell in Washington, but those consigned to the nether regions were men and women who once sneered at the man and his ideas. Carter also stated that he was glad presidents could only serve two terms which was stated in the 22 nd Amendment of the Constitution. Carter made note that there were two major reasons for Reagan's success. The first is that his policies either have worked (witness the booming economy), have not failed (Americans are not in an official combat) or have been quickly abandoned when they came a cropper (Lebanon). The second and more important is the power of his transparently heartfelt convictions.

Carter made note that Reagan won repeatedly by demonstrating that a firmly held idea always fills a political vacuum. Later in the book, the Iran-Contra Affair was discussed and Carter strongly criticized for his involvement and the outcome of the whole ordeal. Overall, Carter made the statement that Reagan was not the master or so called leader that America needed. Carter thought Reagan did not voice and stand strong enough on his views and should have been more stern. The book concluded with Carter saying that media had the right and the duty to report and give Americans and all readers the views and thoughts on subjects and events occurring around them everyday.

The book started with Carter wanting to express his views, but after reading the book, I feel it goes much deeper than that. I believe expressing and informing society of leaders and who they really are was and is the message Carter tries to get across, no matter how bias it might have seemed at times. Personally, I did not think too much of the authors style. The book was not well written or I should say laid out well. Yes, for the most part all the information from Ronald Reagan's two terms as President was stated in the book. However, there were not any footnotes in the book and the overall the book could be confusing to some readers.

I got the point the book was trying to get across and saw that Carter did not think too much of Reagan as a President. Yes, I do believe Carter was trying to say that media does have a duty to give its opinion on matters in society and he felt he needed to voice his own opinion. Yet, by the book being written in journal entries, the thoughts and ideas of Carter were hard to follow. Also, Carter jumped from giving historical information to his own views. Also, it was confusing when out of the blue he would give a quote from an author or someone from the newspapers and there were no footnotes or adequate information leading to the quote for the reader to follow. Again, as a reader I was very disappointed to see the scholarship Hodding Carter had.

From Carters great and mighty introduction with his explanation of his father owning the newspaper in Mississippi and how he grew up during segregation, it would look like he would have had a better bibliography and that the book would have been researched more adequately. During the whole book, not a single footnote was used. There were quotes in the book and references made from editors from newspapers and people in government, but not one single footnote. At first I thought the book had no bibliography, until I looked further at the first couple of pages of the book and I see a small credited bibliography under the copyright for United States-Politics and government 1981 and Reagan, Ronald. I. Title.

I feel after reading the book that Hodding Carter was a little bias toward stating his views about Reagan. Carter did serve for three and one half years as State Department spokesman under President Carter, but I got my views from greater information than that. I started feeling Carter was biased from the start of his introduction. Carter stated how the government was being run fairly well, but how Reagan's term took even more of a turn for the worse. Carter did say So much for the good news about the Reagan years, unless the military victory of a nation of 240 million citizens over an island-state of 125 thousand is considered noteworthy. From this statement and others throughout the book where Carter blamed and fully stated the problem with the society and reasons for problems during Reagan's term were Reagan's fault and should only be blamed on him.

Personally even though the footnotes and bibliography were not as well as I thought they should have been, I benefited from reading the book. Overall, I learned the importance of media and how important it is to express ones views on certain subjects and on different matters. As Carter said, As the President exists his office, it will be up to his critics in the media, who have assessed his performance thus far, to determine his overall success or failure. I believe few have risen to that occasion as Hodding Carter has and I believe Carter has went above and beyond to voice his opinion and although I thought he did not think Reagan was too good in office, he did give his honest and true opinion of the man that ran the White House from 1981 until 1989. For this I guess Americans should be grateful we have people or I should say journalist whom although sometimes have bias opinions, state and give us, Americans something to think about.

Research essay sample on Reading The Book Ronald Reagan