I actually had a discussion about this last night. We came to the conclusion that you can't invalidate an argument solely because it might be biased. Otherwise you'd probably invalidate all arguments due to some bias found somewhere. We agreed you must take biased arguments with a grain of salt, recognize and assess bias, etc. but the presence of bias does not alone invalidate an argument. Even "scientific research" is biased, ask Kuhn.
> I actually had a discussion about this last night. We came to the conclusion that you can't invalidate an argument solely because it might be biased.
Clearly. That's well-known. I'm just saying that the argument from authority being made actually was supported by evidence of ideology, not authority.
I'm saying the premise “the author is a Hoover Institution fellow” offered to support the intermediate conclusion “the author is a credible authority that it is worth spending time listening to” does not support that conclusion, and therefore the further conclusion “one should read this book”.
I’m not speculating on the quality of the work, based on the identity of the author or any other information, only stating that (aside from a clue as to it's likely ideological bias, which might be relevant to some) no reason has been presented to overcome pre-existing skepticism about the value of the book noted upthread by a different commenter.