Thomas Frank: "What's the Matter with Liberals" (NY Review of Books)

[scottxyz]

I think Frank is brilliant, because his essy "What's the Matter with Kansas" exposed the Republicon bait-and-switch - the big gaping disconnect between their talk and walk:

The leaders of the backlash may talk Christ, but they walk corporate. Values may "matter most" to voters, but they always take a back seat to the needs of money once the elections are won.
...
Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital-gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization efforts.

http://www.wesjones.com/frank1.htm
http://www.polisci.wisc.edu/~soss/Courses/PA974/Readings/week%2013/Frank_2004.pdf

Now Frank has a new article out called "What's the Matter with Liberals?" out, which seems particularly relevant after so many Dems voted for the bankruptcy bill favoring banks:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17982

In the election of 2004 all the class anger was on the other side. Now it was the Democrat whose aristocratic lifestyle was always coming into question, who couldn't seem to take a step without detonating some explosive reminder of his exalted position. And it was Republican operatives who were gleefully dropping the word "elitist" on the liberal at every turn for his affected, upper-class ways. For his supposed love of brie cheese. For his wealthy wife's supposed unfamiliarity with chili. For his mansion. His yacht. His windsurfing. His vacations with celebs on Nantucket Island. The secretary of commerce said he thought Kerry "looks French." The House majority leader made a habit of starting off speeches with the line, "Good afternoon, or, as John Kerry might say: 'Bonjour!'" The NRA came up with an image that brilliantly encapsulated the whole thing: an elaborately clipped French poodle in a pink bow and a Kerry-for-president sweater over the slogan "That dog don't hunt."

And now it was the drawling son of 1992's aristocrat who was drawing the adoring throngs in the shuttered mill towns and coal-mining regions. It was the committed enemy of organized labor whose prayerful public performances persuaded so many that he "shares our values." It was the man who had slashed taxes on inherited fortunes and dividends who was said to be, in the election's most telling refrain, "one of us."

George W. Bush was authentic; John Forbes Kerry, like all liberals, was an affected toff, a Boston Brahmin who knew nothing of the struggles of average folks. Again and again, in the course of the electoral battle, I heard striking tales of this tragically inverted form of class consciousness: of a cleaning lady who voted for Bush because she could never support a rich man for president. Of the numerous people who lost their cable TV because of nonpayment but who nevertheless sported Bush stickers on their cars.

...

The illusion that George W. Bush "understands" the struggles of working-class people was only made possible by the unintentional assistance of the Democratic campaign. Once again, the "party of the people" chose to sacrifice the liberal economic policies that used to connect them to such voters on the altar of centrism. Advised by a legion of tired consultants, many of whom work as corporate lobbyists in off years, Kerry chose not to make much noise about corruption on Wall Street, or to expose the business practices of Wal-Mart, or to spend a lot of time talking about raising the minimum wage.

...

Swearing off economic liberalism also prevented Democrats from capitalizing on the great, glaring contradiction of their rivals' campaign, namely, the GOP's tendency to demote "values" issues once elections are over.

[blm]

1. Horseshit, Tommy. It was made possible be the corporate media who LIED

every single day to keep the American people from learning the truth about Bush, his lies, his crimes, his negligence, his cruelty.

The Democrats campaigned on every issue a working person needed to consider, but the corporate media chose NOT to discuss those matters and edited the Democratic proposals on those issues out of every news report.

[scottxyz]

3. Did Dems campaign against Iraq war?

Dems ran, as usual, a campaign where they said "Hey we have values too!" Accepting the lying Republican framing of the campaign.

What Dems SHOULD do is say this: You, the public, can take care of your OWN values. We'll take care of giving you healthcare and education and peace and prosperity.

Instead, we now get Hillary complaining about violence in the movies.

[blm]

4. You want to tell me that the media didn't portray Bush the way Rove wanted

and DIDN'T cover up for Bush's failings on terrorism?

And DIDN'T edit out Kerry and Edwards numerous proposals for the average citizen and working person that they expounded on at every campaign rally and speech?

Frank said the Democrats' campaign helped Bush because they didn't make these things an issue. I say it's BULLSHIT because they DID. The MEDIA chose not to report on it or use it as a basis for discussion and they made that choice every day of the campaign.

The GOP controls most of the broadcast media in this country and Frank does NO SERVICE to this nation when he points out how remarkable the Republicans are for shaping their lying message. ANYONE can shape a message when they control most of the broadcast media.

Why the hell doesn't Frank use his time and recognition to point out the HELP the corporate media gives to Bush and his lies instead of blaming the Democrats who get nothing but the heavy hand of the edit buttion.

[scottxyz]

2. Campaigning for Values, governing for the Rich

Another great Frank quote:

In March the President and Republican congressional leaders chose to make much of the tragic Terri Schiavo affair, but the obvious futility of their legal demands and the patent self-interest of their godly grandstanding require little embellishment here. Let us simply note how perfectly this incident, when paired with simultaneous GOP legislative action on big-business items, illustrates the timeless principles of the backlash. For its corporate backers, the GOP delivers the goods; for its rank-and-file "values" voters it chooses a sturdy wall against which they are invited to bang their heads.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17982