Thomas Frank: How the Right Wing Hijacked Rage Over the Economic Collapse and Swindled America

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/story/153593/thomas_frank%3A_how_the_right_wing_hijacked_rage_over_the_economic_collapse_and_swindled_america/

December 28, 2011 |

In his new book, “Pity the Billionaire,” Tom Frank turns his mordant eye on the unlikeliest political development of the Obama presidency: how the crash of 2008 served to strengthen the political right. The deregulation of Wall Street, championed for 30 years by right-wing leaders, had led to an economic catastrophe so frightening that the country elected a liberal Democrat to the presidency. Yet two years later, the most conservative faction of the Republican Party, the Tea Party, had taken effective control of the House of Representatives, the regulation of Wall Street had stalled, and the champions of economic deregulation in Washington had emerged stronger than ever.

Frank, author of the bestselling book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” provides a pithy and nuanced explanation of what he calls the “hard-times swindle.” He spoke with Salon from his father’s home in Kansas City, Mo.

Early in the book, you describe the moment in the spring of 2009 when free-market economics had been so thoroughly discredited that Newsweek could run a cover story proclaiming, “We’re all socialists now.” What happened? Why did that moment dissipate?

[pnorman]

1. Thanks for that find!

k/r

[ananda]

2. Um.. Obama was NEVER a liberal Democrat...

... but rather a "Democrat" who governs from
the economic right.

[getdown]

4. Frank knows this

but O was packaged and perceived as "Liberal Democrat"

[Romulox]

6. Frank touches on the real problem, but seems scared to proceed:

I'd buy a book about the following. I won't buy the book Frank describes, which seems more like an excuse for the following.

Question (Jefferson Morley): Looking back on it, I feel like people like myself were part of the problem. We sort of assumed with the Democrats in power, the system would correct itself.

Answer (Thomas Frank):One of the problems with liberalism in this country is that it’s headquartered in Washington and its leaders are a very comfortable class of people. Washington is one of the richest cities in the country, maybe the richest. It’s not a place that feels the crisis, that feels the economic downturn. By and large, the real estate market stayed OK. The city continued to boom. The contracts continued to flow. What we’re talking about here is the failure of modern liberalism. At one time it was a movement of working-class people. The idea that liberals wouldn’t feel economic pain was ridiculous. That’s who liberals were. No more.

[getdown]

9. excuse?

not sure how you concluded that.

Frank is the best. if you haven't read him, do

[Romulox]

10. Read the entire interview, if you haven't. It ends with far less focus than it begins,

such that I'm not so sure that a critique of Beltway insularity is really Frank's focus.

Certainly, there's no real overarching theme developed in the interview.

"Frank is the best. if you haven't read him, do"

Thanks, I'll give him a shot. As my edits show, I mistook him for another author at first.

[getdown]

16. seems he made the point

in an overarching theme he's written extensively on: populism, bailouts, outrage, Dem's didn't pick up the ball at a key point, Repugs ran with it ...

[riderinthestorm]

27. You literally pulled out the piece I did. I copied it to post here and then was reading the thread

before I posted and here you are, posting the exact thing that rang my bells.

[closeupready]

29. This x 1000. Liberal "leaders" are mostly of the 1%.

The Kennedy's, John Kerry, his now-discredited running mate John Edwards, Obama, Clinton - they are all very, very rich.

Do you think for one second they are going to seriously back measures that would effectively take their own wealth away? Sometimes, to their credit, they do indeed do so, as opposed to Republicans, who never do so.

Nonetheless, the fact that their own personal wealth comes into consideration is telling in terms of the fact that they aren't really liberal anymore, rather they are convenient liberals, who back liberal policies when it doesn't cost them anything. I.e., the failure of liberalism, which is rather not the failure of the ideas of liberalism, but rather, the failure of liberal leaders today.

[KG]

3. america is full of idiots who deny the obvious while falling for any myth.

i just can't come up any other other explaination.

[getdown]

17. america is full

of idiots who think everyone else is the idiot

[Romulox]

5. The Deregulation of finance was championed by Bill Clinton. Facts matter.

The current sitting President appeared on television to passionately argue that the alleged "sanctity of contract" (sic) indicated that Congress must not tax the bankster bonuses issued after the massive government bailout of Wall Street.

Facts matter.

[kentuck]

7. Excellent read!

"I’m speaking here of the liberal culture in Washington, D.C. There was no Occupy Wall Street movement [at that time] and there was only people like me on the fringes talking about it. The liberals had their leader in Barack Obama … they had their various people in Congress. But these people are completely unfamiliar with populist anger. It’s an alien thing to them. They don’t trust it, and they have trouble speaking to it. I like Barack Obama, but at the end of the day he’s a very professorial kind of guy. The liberals totally missed the opportunity, and the right was able to grab it."

[cthulu2016]

8. Had Dems understood and/or been honest about the situation this effect may have been smaller

It's like, "The people prefer their big sexy lies to our lower case, tepid version of the same lies."

Well, duh.

We never made a case for honest economics. We never tried to dispell economic ignorance, but instead tried to co-opt it.

When Obama became mister deficit hawk he was saying that the tea party is essentialy right, but too bold in their rightness.

If "we" had made a principled case for economic reality then there would be a valid complaint that the people chose fantasy over reality. But we didn't. We pandered to the people's ingrained ignorance seeking to finese that ignorance rather than to persuade people to the truth.

People will chose real republicanism over fake republicanism.

Sigh.

[Nay]

11. Gotta agree, Cthulu--not only did we not make a case for honest economics, we didn't even TRY to

make that case, nor did we use any persuasive method of any kind (framing; telling a compelling story; pointed ridicule where needed; bringing a gun to a knife fight instead of the other way around; etc.) to get a different message across.

That's why so many Democrats have come to the uneasy conclusion that Obama, as well as the Pubs, like things pretty much the way they are.

[Huey P. Long]

13. ...and the few that did (see progressive caucus budget) were ignored by the establishment.

In fact there is ANOTHER 'peoples' budget' being ignored as we type. If any attention is given, its to call us 'retards' or 'professional leftists'.

[cthulu2016]

14. Or are simply afraid

We have an endless list of things that we "obviously" cannot say because the people will rebel.

The pugs say whatever comes into their heads, the more extreme the better.

Yet the pugs are not notably less electorally successful.

[getdown]

18. and if Dems had tried to

persuade the public, how to explain the fiscal crisis "fix" of putting banksters in charge of the financial system?

[Zenlitened]

21. Totally agree. Excellent post. -n/t

[Huey P. Long]

12. occupy. -eom

[getdown]

15. excellent piece thanks for posting

"Still, I think that the conservative idea of revolting against the ruling class by holding up the market as an ideal is completely backwards. There is a ruling class in this country. But the notion that the free market is an act of rebellion against it seems pretty fanciful. I can say it stronger than that. It is absolutely preposterous."

[AnotherMcIntosh]

19. Who called Obama "a liberal Democrat?" The far right? The MSM? Tom Frank? The author of

Tom Frank's book, Jefferson Morley?

In contrast to JFK who expressly called himself a liberal
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Speeches/Address-of-John-F-Kennedy-upon-Accepting-the-Liberal-Party-Nomination-for-President-New-York-New-Yor.aspx
it does not appear that Obama ever called himself a liberal.

Can anyone point to an instances in which Obama said that he is or was a liberal?

Obama has called himself a Centrist. No one can define what that means and no one has done so. But whatever it means, it means that he is not a liberal.

Certainly, the nutty descriptions given to Obama by the Tea Party members and other loons doesn't make Obama a liberal.

And no one who is intellectually honest can claim to believe that a politician with a (D) after their name is automatically a liberal. Even Joe Lieberman (former-D, and almost Vice-President) would probably admit to knowing that.

Why should anyone follow the lead of MSM pundits and call Obama a liberal just because he is a President who does not have an (R) after his name?

The Great Swindle did not merely involve the transfer of the country's wealth and future to the super-rich. They also stole a portion of the language so that now even adults of at least normal intelligence can say without thinking that Obama is a liberal. At most, He-who-is-not-Gringrich is not a registered Republican.

[getdown]

22. u seem to be attacking Frank

which is sad

Being a "Liberal" was swiped and smeared long ago

call it what you will, O was considered a liberal Democrat (if not "A Liberal" !!!!) by the majority of Americans who voted for him and his Hope.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

23. Your perception that there was an attack upon Frank is wrong.

If you have a perception that there was a charge that Frank originated the misrepresentation that Obama is or was a liberal, that, too, is wrong.

Nothing of what you have otherwise said in your post is at odds with what I posted. I respectfully disagree, however, with your statement that "Being a 'Liberal' was swiped and smeared long ago". Newt Gingrich may have been the one who gave the greatest publicity to his pejorative use of the phrase "liberal Democrat" back before they discovered his criminality, but that does not mean that he swiped the term "Liberal" or that he successfully "smeared" that term with thinking Americans.

[getdown]

24. 2 wrds

Rush Limbaugh

[AnotherMcIntosh]

25. Question: How can you tell when this arrogant, obese, convicted felon is lying?

Answer: His lips move.



If you hear him call Obama a liberal (I don't because I don't listen to him at all), you'll know that he is lying.

[getdown]

26. he's led the campaign

to make liberal a four letter word for decades

[Zenlitened]

20. A must-read.

He is examining one of the most crucial junctures, IMO, in recent history.

Important stuff, will be discussed and studied for generations to come.

[kentuck]

28. true..

very important historical information that we should study very carefully.

[Bragi]

30. Kick! /nt

[Quantess]

31. This looks like something I will read when I have more time.

alternet has really good articles.

[kenny blankenship]

32. That moment was intentionally frittered away and robber baron capitalism given time it needed

to regroup, reassert its unearned advantages, put a brave face as though it had not just been discredited in its every premise and promise, and to counterattack (a counterattack in the face of no attack or even resistance)
No capitulation this disastrous or total could ever be due to sheer incompetence, and no I will never forgive and forget.