Kevin Hopkins Interview – Episode 2.13

Kevin Hopkins is a former White House speechwriter and senior policy advisor who helped write some of the key rules that undid the draconian government energy regulations that grow out of the energy shortages of the late 1970s.

Since then, he has written widely on energy and environmental issues, and currently serves as consulting Director of Research for the California-based Communications Institute, a public-policy research center focused on emerging energy and environmental concerns.

Kevin has been a writer nearly his entire life. Since that time, he has written and published two nonfiction books and numerous book-length studies, has written four feature-film screenplays, has written and published more than 150 articles, and has written three novels.

As a communications professional, he has written scores of speeches (including speeches for the President of the United States, two presidential candidates, and key state and local government leaders throughout California. He also has written an untold number of corporate marketing, web, and sales materials.

Kevin lives in Salt Lake City, Utah, with his wife Mary and his son Brandon, along with a loving Seal Point Siamese cat, Layah (named after Princess Leia in “Star Wars”), and energetic Sheltie dog named Casey. Author of the book “Skylight.”

4 thoughts on “Kevin Hopkins Interview – Episode 2.13

  1. Hopkins almost had me ready to purchase his book, and then he said it.

    He went through a good part of the interview suggesting that in our approach to political issues we need to be more open minded, investigating the approaches of others critically instead of merely rejecting those that don’t fit our political party or ideology without investigation.

    I like that part, and I agree. Its what I try to do in my own investigations of politics.

    The problem arose when he then immediately dismissed Obamacare as obviously a failure and a bad law.

    Perhaps Hopkins has investigated the ACA and has a reasoned logic behind his flip attitude to the law. But that wasn’t what came across in the interview. It came across as the same kind of ideological dismissal that he had just finished criticizing.

    If you are going to bring something like that up in an unrelated interview like this, then either make plain that you have in fact investigated the law and researched what should be done about it, or don’t bring it up!

    As it stands, I’m convinced that reading Hopkins’ book is a waste of my time — because it seems like it will just push the same predictable views that I hear from those with views similar to Hopkins’ views on politics.

    Why should I be open minded about reading a book by someone who apparently is not open minded himself, yet claims to be?

    • Hi Kent, Thank you for your comments. I apologize for not having made clear the basis and background of my comments about the ACA. I should have pointed out that I have extensively researched the ACA and related issues. For instance, I directed a year-long research project on health care during the Clinton Presidency when a law similar to the ACA was being debated. In the case of the current law, I write a monthly national economic report every month that, among other things, reviews the state of health care and the ACA.

      My comments about the ACA were based not on ideology but on years of observing the practical effects of this and similar laws. I am sorry that you thought the ACA reference was unrelated to the overall discussion in the interview. In fact, my point with regard to the ACA was intended to be that the law itself was promoted with a serious intent to do good, but that some of its supporters were driven more by ideology than practicality, and that they either failed or refused to look at the true effects of the law ahead of time. When six million people lose their insurance as a result of a law that is supposed to expand insurance coverage, there obviously has been a breakdown somewhere along the line. This failure to observe consequences is a key theme of “Skylight” as well.

      I hope you’ll re-consider your views on the value of reading the book and give it a chance. You’ll find that a key point of the book is that ideological thinking on all sides of this issue is what has brought us to this point and this potentially disastrous conclusion – and that only by being more intellectually demanding of all parties in the process will we be able to avert catastrophic problems like this in the future and create a country that works for all its people, and not just for some.

    • “Open minded” doesn’t mean self-deception, which most of the main steam media habitually participates in.

  2. Pingback: This Month in Mormon Literature, April 2014 | Dawning of a Brighter Day

Comments are closed.