Thomas Frank: "Pity the Billionaire"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-01-09/thomas-frank-pity-billionaire
Americans responded to the Great Depression with resolve: Wall Street crooks went to prison, public works programs created jobs, and a new social safety net aided the poor and elderly. By the late 1930s, Democrats held a majority in Congress, which lasted for nearly 60 years. The 2008 financial meltdown nearly equaled the Great Depression. But the political outcome was starkly different: Republicans took back the House in 2010 as public rage shifted from Wall Street to government. Diane talks to author Thomas Frank about what he calls a "hard-times swindle," which he says fueled an unlikely conservative comeback.
Guests
Thomas Frank
author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and monthly columnist for Harper's magazine
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"Thomas Frank set out in 2009 to look for expressions of American discontent, all he could find were loud demands that the economic system be made even harsher on the recession's victims and that society's traditional winners receive even grander prizes. The American Right, which had seemed moribund after the election of 2008, was strangely reinvigorated by the arrival of hard times. The Tea Party movement demanded not that we question the failed system but that we reaffirm our commitment to it. Republicans in Congress embarked on a bold strategy of total opposition to the liberal state. And TV phenom Glenn Beck demonstrated the commercial potential of heroic paranoia and the purest libertarian economics."
This book is a deliberate lie and misinterpretation of the facts. The Tea Party is about returning to constitutional government and living within our means, certainly not reaffirming a commitment to the status Quot. Like the Tea Party or not this message is pretty clear. Sounds to me the author is thrashing out because the "occupy" movement fell flat on it's face. I always wonder who buys these trashy books, reading things you already agree with does not seam to be a worthwhile pursuit if the goal is expanding ones understanding. If the authors intent is to make a fast buck cashing in on the prevalent culturally anal populist ideas from the left trashing the rich and corporations, then I say well timed Sir.
America has failed on a number of fronts since George Bush took office (or rather stole it in 2001) but our greatest failure was to unite after the near global meltdown in September 2008 resulting in millions of workers losing their jobs. Instead of our uniting behind our obvious needs to create new jobs to rebuild our crumbling parks, bridges, and highways and for stricter regulation of the banking, oil, and coal industries, we got a Republican minority in Congress that resisted doing anything.
Thanks to the quick organization of the billionaire Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, we got public rallies of TEA Parties opposing solving any of our problems: no health insurance reform, no jobs programs, and no regulation of Big Business. Those rallies still seem to be the most shameless public displays of selfishness and greed in American history. Because of those Astro-Turf rallies, their defense of the plutocracy, and the Republicans’ abuse of the filibuster in the Senate, anything that eventually passed got watered down to dilute their effectiveness.
What united the Republicans during the Clinton Years was their desire to restore the plutocracy of the late 19th century and to find a reason to impeach Bill Clinton. What unites the current Fox-Republican-TEA Party is quite similar: they are more determined than ever to return to the Gilded Age when the super-rich had near-absolute power, and they want to be sure President Barack Obama fails. It is their only purpose, this talk about a return to the constitution is simply a ruse. This does not unite the nation, it divides us. Ever since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, we have seen a 30-year increase in the wealth of the few at the top but a decline or stagnation of the middle class. The last ten years have been the most devastating.
Teece; synopsis-corporate coup.
These little Zeros who keep buzzing the deck are in the employ of the fascist Oligarchy. They have to win Mr. Bigbritches approval to get more gas because they are unwilling to work, co-operate, conserve or make any sacrifices. It shames me to be a citizen in a nation where our "Way O' Luff" is now whining and crying for goodies at the expense of other people's lives. They dream of their financial victims toting them on a litter. The game show called Capitalism they worship produces a preponderance of Losers, so most likely their nihilistic tantrums go for naught.
Every day I meet more dispossessed "conservatives" in a dither because "We done everthang right, but we still broke." Some are changed beings when they discover there ain't "all this help and welfare out there" and that their church (if they went) still requires dues. The USA is a mean cabin with a dirt floor where Oligarchs live in the rafters like bats and rain guano. See the danger is that if you make too many of your brainwashing victims too poor, not only will they not buy anything, they will turn on you with a vengeance. They don't need to listen to DRShow or read a "trashy book" because they are living it and they feel injustice in their bones. I'm close to the ground and I can tell you the rhetoric of hate and envy has a frost on it already. (No bobble-head de-baits are fooling anyone. Occupy lives.)
Pancake:
I agree with your synopsis….
But, when you listen to the false rhetoric of the wealthy investor class claiming that they have been “successful” in their own right, it’s not hard to understand why people are angry at bankers. It is not that Americans hate successful people or the wealthy, they in fact, do just the opposite. What is difficult, almost impossible to comprehend is that Americans…. live these fantasy lives, with their love of the success stories. It is a distinctly American trait to believe that we can all follow in the footsteps of the elite…. strangely, so few of us ever actually do. It makes you want to grab people and shake them, require them to actually do the math….they are the top 1%....if you were ever going to be part of them, someone up there would have to die or move aside. It doesn’t happen. You will NEVER join that elite club. So why are you protecting them?
The rich are predators that have found their success as a consequence of the damage that their activities have done to our country and the lives of so many innocent people. People who take and give nothing back in the form of innovation, convenience, entertainment or scientific progress. The wealthy who’ve exploited political relationships and stupidity to rake in even more of the nation’s wealth while simultaneously driving the potential for success further away from the grasp of everyone else.
It’s hard to look at this “wealth worship” that Americans do and not conclude that there is some kind of nationwide pathology, even as millions of Americans, who had no part in the sick, pathetic sideshow, languish in a wounded economy.
Claptrap!
Response to Mars comment.
"The Tea Party is about returning to constitutional government " LOL! Seriously LOL.
Late last year the Tea Party members of congress overwhelmingly voted to allow the government to detain citizens indefinitely without a trial, which completely goes against their supposed love of the constitution. As far as I can tell all they represent is the selfish greed of the 1%, which is slowly destroying this country.
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-san-francisco/congress-approves-...
From the article:
"Both houses approved the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, S-1867, both Democrats and Republicans voted for it, and the majority of them were Republicans, mainly Tea Party elected Republicans. This shows you, how wrong the Tea Party movement was wrong, when they elected this bunch of losers into office back in 2010.
I have to admit being a Canadian it's hard to understand how the American public is so misinformed. For whatever reason the truth is seldom heard about any issue. For instance in the health care bill referring to things such as death panels. Or all of this talk about "Big" government when the truth is that the gov. grew very much under George Bush much more than the current President. After a war that cost many lives based on propaganda and lies the American people should not be satisfied with sound bites. Not being informed about the most important issues will lead the voters to make an unwise decisions. And again like they have done so often in the past they will vote against their own best interest.
On the Diane Rehm Show Friday, one of the guests gave the astounding statistic that of the people who say they support Obama only 35% of them are white. Did I hear this correctly?
Diane, better watch out your liberal underwear is showing.
Robin Shoulders -
To understand why conservatives are so misinformed one needs to watch Fox Channel. It operates in the universe created by Rupert Murdoch. This universe does seldom intersect with reality.
Denise Moore wrote:
"On the Diane Rehm Show Friday, one of the guests gave the astounding statistic that of the people who say they support Obama only 35% of them are white. Did I hear this correctly?"
Probably right, Denise. That's because 65% of white people are racists. It's the only reason to oppose Obama.
Now - to the topic at hand ... at least I applaud the guest for admitting he's a lib. How would you possibly expect to get an unbiased view from a leftist, of the Tea Party and the political right. Ugh!
Robin Shoulders -
"To understand why conservatives are so misinformed one needs to watch Fox Channel."
You should start with the man in the mirror. Watch the O'Reilly Factor for one week straight and come back and tell me that he does not give a fair hearing to both sides.
I watch O'Reilly Factor for entertainment only.
Stop watching the television for any reason....period.
"..And again like they have done so often in the past they will vote against their own best interest.'
depends on what you believe those interests are. the dem party has changed and many anglos know that on some level the purpose of the party now is to demarginalize them especially if they are of a traditional christian faith and straight.
so, unfortunately the republicans feed off this and use it to their own evil ends. regular people, while they will vote against their financial interests they won't vote against their moral ones. does this author truly believe that auntie em and uncle henry of kansas would vote for someone who despises christians, wants to change the definition of marriage and allow unlimited immigration all the while making the middle class pay for it?
give me a break. if you want to read a true populist conservative view read pat buchanan's book. props to diane, she did have him on the show awhile back.
It's not that the Democrats lack wordsmiths.
It's not that the Democrats lack organizers and strategists.
It's that the Democrats find it understandably hard to effectively champion true populism---in other words---to represent the good of all the citizens and the well-being of the country---when they feed from some of the same big money, self-interested troughs as the Republicans.
"We're less corporate cronyist than the other guys" is simply not something many can get passionate about.
I'm still waiting for the leader or group who figures out that what the majority of Americans want, across the political spectrum, is honest, transparent, and accountable governance.
Robin Shoulders wrote:
"the truth is that the gov. grew very much under George Bush much more than the current President. "
Not the truth at all. Spending under Obama in 3 years has now exceeded spending under Bush in 8.
" Not being informed about the most important issues will lead the voters to make an unwise decisions. "
Absolutely true. Bravo! That's why we got BHO.
To reinhard, so what? Rush Linmbaugh shows his conservative underwear, skid marks and all, every day!
FYI
"George W. Bush, First Term (2001-2004)
Spending Grew by 6.41% YoY
Spending Grew by 4.02% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)
George W. Bush, Second Term (2005-2008)
Spending Grew by 6.82% YoY
Spending Grew by 3.4% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)
Barack Obama (2009-2012)
Spending Expected to Grow by 6.71% YoY (according to White House projections)
*inflation numbers not available
YoY (Year over Year)"
sane wrote:
"I watch O'Reilly Factor for entertainment only."
Then you should recognize that he is fair - tough, to be sure - but fair to his guests. He does not abide bloviating from either side and some people see that as "mean". What he does do is cut through the BS to get to the nub of whatever the issue is.
Fox has its partisans - Sean Hannity is one, although he does have people on his show from the left - every night. But MSNBC has its partisans too - but I would argue - almost exclusively leftists. CNN has its partisans too - every major network does.
But as for Fox being a tool of Rupert Murdoch? Nonsense. What Murdoch recognized is that a segment of the population was not being served in that they wanted a "fair and blanaced" view of the news, not news filtered through left-colored glasses. As Charles Krauthammer has noted, "Rupert Murdoch recognized a niche market - and it was half of the American population".
it's the people like Dimbulb and Dreck and the people who listen to their frothy nonsense that gives impetus and cover to people like the Kansas Speaker of the House who refers to The First Lady as "Yo Mama" and threatened the President through bible verses. The right has been successful in deceiving public perception into believing the bailout was under the Obama administration, when the first bailout occurred under the Bush Administration without any restrictions that would have prevented the bailout going for individual bonuses. The reason the working class doesn't embrace worker movements is they don't think of themselves as workers, but as temporarily distressed millionaires.
Johnandere -
Read history of Fox News. It came as brainchild of Nixon and Ailes to promote Nixon's "world view". Murdoch is just conservative "angel" bankrolling it all.
Fox is just a right wing propaganda channel, little in common with reality.
Anything our government does to protect, preserve, or improve the well-being of MAJORITY of it's citizens is portrayed today by many if not most media outlets as "socialist".
The obvious remedy of any socialist/communist notions is to weaken our government in all regards except in those areas that protect, preserve, and improve well-being of the "master-class" (the wealthy) and our "leaders" are doing a wonderful job of this.
Let the rest eat cake- this new "American Way" has been brought on by decades of "trickle up" politics and economics.
Mr. Frank dismissed Tea Party protestors by describing one who he saw who was wearing an ascot - and then laughing at his own joke. Really?. "that story is in the book", he says. Really?. I lost count of how many times has he said "I love it when...."I love it when...."
He reminds me of those who want to discount the OWS protestors by describing one who, well, fill in the ridiculous caricature here ____
I was very glad Diane did not join him laughing at his own "jokes".
Jokr8790:
Exactly. If you work for an employer, if you earn a wage, if you have to leave your home every day in order to ean a living.....you are part of the Working Class.
People who don't lift a finger, whose money works for them, or who do not create anything but shuffle money around, the investor class, they are what is wrong with America.
Stop using the term middle class, there is no middle class....you're a worker or you're a non worker. If you are a worker, don't look to either political party, they don't care about you.
It seems to me that a gaining a binding 'None of the Above' vote may be the most important thing that the American electorate can gain in order to preserve what little is left of our liberty and encourage a way back to prosperity.
What if we didn't have to endorse the lesser of two evils in order to throw the bums out? Watching the GOP trying to decide which of the current crop of career criminals and theocratic zealots they would like to nominate as the Leader of the Free World makes me think that perhaps devotees of the Republic party are as poorly represented as I, a Green from Cincinnati, am.
Diane is wrong about the Republicans having better wordsmiths. Democrats do have a problem with language, but that problem arises from their fear of articulating a program that values government activism. In America, we live in an environment in which Conservativism has successfully placed a dark onus on government institutions and workers. If that weren't so, Democrats would be free to espouse their positive philosophy and language about government that is now hiding in the shadows. For example, if Conservative ideology might be reduced to "Stand on Your Own", Democrats can easily counter with "One-for-All and All-for-One", but Democratic wordsmiths are handicapped because that simple, core idea implies government activism. So, until Democrats are willing to state their simple, core ideas and articulate a positive view of government, they'll remain intellectually cut off at the knees, and their wordsmiths will have nothing with which to work. The fallback position for those who can't give voice to their deeply held values and beliefs is to support "worthy" legislation that they can't adequately promote for fear of exposing the underlying values and principles.
With regards to the Tea Party's need to "fight" for their ideals... I am growing cautious of any person or organization that expresses their ideas using the word "fight" in their rhetoric. This is the number one turn off for me to any political person and or person I interact with on a daily basis.
sane wrote:
"FYI"
Thanks for the numbers although I'm not sure where you got them - realize of course that percentage spending as time moves on is actually MORE in real dollars because the base has grown from previous excesses. This graph will help:
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue
Not the BLUE line.
Now as everyone knows, when one loses their job, for example (i.e. revenue is dramatically cut), one increases spending at an exponential rate in one's household ... right? Well, maybe one does when one prints one's own money - but not when one has a even a modicum of fiscal responsibility.
side issue- The conservative take on "love your neighbor" seems to be a commitment to "personal charity" instead of "institutional charity." Has the concept of "economies of scale" been forgotten? Or is it a naive idea of how much help, in so many ways, is needed out there? Or is it a clandestine will to control and judge others by personally deciding who we help?