Thomas Frank, author of "What's The Matter With Kansas?" and "The Wrecking Crew" writes about the poor, poor plutocrats who are so very sad that no one appreciates them:

Rhetoric like this makes the very rich feel very sad. It has sent them on a crusade to restore matters to their rightful place. And in the process they have developed one of the distinctive literary forms of our time: the plutocrat’s j’accuse.

The most famous example is the open letter to the president written last year by the hedge fund manager Leon Cooperman and dissected at length in this week’s New Yorker magazine. In it, Mr. Cooperman blames Mr. Obama (and his “minions”) for “setting the tenor of the rancorous debate now roiling us that smacks of what so many have characterized as ‘class warfare.’ ” This is serious, this roiling and this tenor-setting, but it is not the only damage the president’s words have done. The “divisive, polarizing tone of your rhetoric is cleaving a widening gulf,” Mr. Cooperman continued, “between the downtrodden and those best positioned to help them” — meaning, apparently, hedge fund managers like himself.

Other princelings who have made noteworthy contributions to the genre include Ted Leonsis, the owner of several Washington sports teams, who feels that “anyone who has achieved success in terms of rank or fiscal success is being cast as a bad guy in a black hat,” and the casino magnate Steve Wynn, who griped in a famous conference call that the president “keeps making speeches about redistribution.” He said, “We haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.”

Reports have even reached us, via The Wall Street Journal, of a tragic incident last year on the streets of New York in which an unnamed “panhandler” rejected a handout with a spiteful, “You Wall Street fat cats!” Thankfully, the man at whom this imprecation was directed, the chief executive of a venture capital firm, knew whom to blame: President Obama, whose “incendiary message has now reached the streets.”

Nobody likes to be criticized, but one would expect captains of industry, Darwinian tough guys that they are, to have thicker skins. Were Mr. Obama a true incendiary, he might have found a way on Wednesday to mention his opponent’s millions; his work for Bain Capital; or his dismissal, captured on video, of those layabouts who make up 47 percent of the country. Mr. Obama called for ending the tax break for corporate jets, sure, but that’s about it.

In the broad scheme of things, these are excellent times to be a billionaire. Labor is powerless. Taxes are low. The banks that survived the crisis are bigger than ever. So why do the well-to-do whine so? Why do they wring their hands?

For one thing, their criticisms reveal a contemptuous view of their fellow citizens. That all the books and articles on the financial crisis and the recession might have had an effect — that people might see the economic downturn as a reflection on the individuals who were, a few years back, lionized as the economy’s leaders — is inconceivable to the class-war complainers. The public’s attitude, they seem to believe, can have arisen only as a result of propagandizing by Mr. Obama. No American would ever stop respecting his betters unless he was brainwashed into it.

It is also a play for legitimacy. In good times, the very rich compare themselves to the Almighty; in hard times they convince themselves that Huey P. Long lurks just around the corner. History, they fear, will repeat its most sordid chapters unless it is stopped right now, and that’s why they act as if a few mean words wound as hurtfully as any program of, say, antitrust enforcement.

They whine because whining works. One only wishes that if he wins a second term, Barack Obama will give them something to really cry about.

Hey Megan, in a word? Yes. They are, and particularly those who made their big fat bonuses by trading bogus securities in a bogus market where the only tangible item was devastating loss to the little guys. You betcha, Megan. But readers, I will put the question to you and let you answer. Here is one of her examples:

And yet, some of the difficulties that people are complaining about are genuinely, well, difficult. Yes, your kids have been absurdly privileged, getting to attend expensive private schools with lots of amenities. On the other hand, all my parent friends seem to think that it's actually really hard on kids to yank them out of school and move them somewhere else, particularly in the middle of a school year. I doubt that it gets any easier because your parents used to be able to afford stratospheric tuition.

Let's not forget that these are kids we're talking about--we shouldn't take joy in uspetting them, even if their parents happen to make a lot more money than we do.

Likewise, when middle class people take out a mortgage that's perfectly affordable on the income they've been enjoying for years, and then lose the house because they suddenly saw that income cut in half, we don't feel a delicious sense of joy because they finally got what was coming to them. We recognize that this it is really terrible to be forced out of a home where you've built loads of happy memories and dreams--and not incidentally, to possibly be forced to yank your kids out of the aforementioned schools.

Why are people supposed to shrug off the exact same thing because they're rich? It's still really awful to lose your house. I hardly think it's whining to worry about this when your income drops and your fixed expenses don't.

Well, how about this for starters? High-end properties foreclose at a far slower rate, giving those rich folks an opportunity to actually catch up on their mortgage or sell their house before the banker comes and boots them out. Generally they get six or so more months than the schmo on the other side of town who finds himself homeless, jobless, and struggling to keep his kids in public school, much less private school.

Continue reading »

If you're not really familiar with what, exactly, Jack Abramoff did and why he was convicted (taking many prominent Republicans down with him), "Casino Jack and the United States of Money" is a helluva good start to explaining the rise and fall of Washington's most powerful Republican lobbyist.

Documentary filmmaker Alex Gibney ("Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room", "Taxi to the Dark Side" and "Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson") glosses over quite a bit to keep the complex story flowing smoothly (he mentions Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy aka CREA* only in passing) but still leaves out large, meaty chunks. What he sacrifices in detail, he makes up in digestibility. Even hewing to the bare facts, it's an awful lot to absorb.

He asks the question: Was it really more idealistic in the past, or was it always this bad? He never quite answers his own question.

Salon writer Thomas Frank ("What's the Matter With Kansas", "The Wrecking Crew") is one of the counterpoints throughout the film, as is convicted Rep. Bob Ney and Neil Volz, Ney's former chief of staff.

Volz, who went to prison, seems clearly regretful for his part in Abramoff's legalized bribery. "He could talk a dog off a meat truck," he says of Abramoff. Volz also talks about the revolving door between Congress and the lobby shops, and how easy it is to get caught up in chasing the money. "You forget why you came here," he says.

The film examines Abramoff's long-standing ties with Grover Norquist, Karl Rove and Ralph Reed from their days in the College Republican National Committee.

Volz's former boss Bob Ney is also seen in a candid interview, and comes off as relatively human - and bitter about the entire mess.

Tom DeLay, as you might expect, acts as if Abramoff's illegal acts were a total shock to him - even though we know they couldn't be.

Reporter Shawn Martin, a writer for the Lake Charles American Press, points out that members of Congress are so obsessed with getting campaign contributions, "They're willing to risk their careers for $25,000, or $50,000, or a golf trip."

Abramoff refused to go on-camera for this film, although he did take part in several interviews. It would have been more than a little interesting to hear how he feels about his achievements now.

In the bigger picture, "Casino Jack" makes the most powerful argument yet for public campaign financing, and of course we watch it knowing that the same kind of big-money lobbying that allowed sex slavery to thrive in the Marianas Islands also allowed the regulatory breakdown that is now polluting the entire Gulf of Mexico.

This documentary is a clarion call to get money the hell out of politics.

* Via Mary Beth Williams at Wampum, whose investigative work on Abramoff was used without attribution by many, many people:

Throughout its short but controversial existence (CREA was highly implicated in the Abramoff scandal, which is how I discovered it), CREA's central mission, despite purportedly being a 501(c)3, was to undermine the environmental credentials of high-profile Democrats, particularly Al Gore, and later, John Kerry. It accomplished this mostly through paid media, ads buys in major newspapers and on TV. How it paid for those high-priced ads is still a mystery, as CREA consistently claimed on its filings with the IRS that, outside of a three-month period in the summer of 2000 where it raked in $121K+, including $10,000 from Koch, it claimed it had no income. The half-million dollars from Abramoff tribal clients has yet to be declared, as well as any proceeds from the numerous fundraisers hosted by Julie Finley, the queen bee of Republican Washington society.

Groups like CEI, CREA, the Cato Institute (also Koch funded) and the National Center for Public Policy Research (also a laundry for Abramoff money) all began a non-stop brutal campaign, managed by Grover Norquist and Karl Rove, on VP Al Gore, a campaign aimed at cementing public doubt regarding Gore's superb environmental credentials. The effort worked so well, that Gore's own campaign advisors purportedly urged him not to focus on his green record.

Unfogged: McCain has done the same thing Edwards did. At least Edwards isn't running for president anymore.

Chris Floyd: Marching through Georgia ll: The Kremlin Surge

Improvisations: This is our friend Blue Gal's favorite Olympic story

A Tiny Revolution: In NPR inbterview, Suskind says Bush jeopardized an airline terror case and deceived the British for political advantage.

Seeing the Forest: Trying to get conservative and corporate groups to obey the law.

The Opinion Mill's Sunday Bookchat: A dynamite week for progressive books! Thomas Frank shows why conservative governance is one long perp walk into history! Ron Suskind exposes forgeries and lies from the White House! Jane Mayer wonders: Where have all the wingers gone? Conservatives may try to bulk-order their books into heaven, but when it comes to ideas and substance, they're strictly sub-basement.

Thomas Frank appeared on "The Colbert Report" last night to promote his new book, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, and succinctly explained the thesis of his latest work thusly: Conservatives may be good at winning elections, but they suck when it comes to governing.

Download | play Download | play

"Once you start treating it as a business, you know once you start turning over government operations to the market you're not talking about democracy any more. What you're talking about is plutocracy. Rule by the wealthy. Rule by the market."

(h/t Heather for vids and transcript)

Rough transcript below the fold:

Continue reading »

Our Future: Seventeen months ago, Rick Perlstein wrote an essay predicting exactly how the 2008 campaign would go down. Turns out the only thing he didn't predict was the Paris Hilton reference.

Tomgram: Thomas Frank on Washington's Lords of Creation

collateral: The next crisis to hit our sinking ship of state may be a pension fund debacle that, had we stuck to a sensible tax policy, could have been avoided.

Mock, Paper, Scissors: The MPS Guide to GOP vice presidential candidates. In a handy print-out and keep format for further reference, it brings you the Pro, the Con, and the Baggage for each of the whispered candidates!

earthfamilyalpha: Change I Can Believe In

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: Morning Martini, Conservative Truths, Montreal Simon, WTF Is It Now?!?

Zaius Nation: A brief preview of the 2008 Republican National Convention.

Corrente: ICE Raid in Iowa: We ARE the Terrorists Now

The Agitator: War Crimes

Seeing the Forest: Latest wingnut/unaccountable BUSHCO meme: Insolvency and heedless regulators are not the cause of bank failure. It's Chuck Schumer's fault.

Discourse.net: Miami wakes up to political reality

The Opinion Mill's Sunday Bookchat: Get a look at the new blockbuster from Thomas Frank, author of What's the Matter with Kansas? Get an earful from Naomi Klein about the latest uses of the "shock doctrine." Get a load of the jailbird who did a book review for the New York Sun. Get a boost from the success of a book about prosecuting Bush. And get a chance to compare the verse of Mao Zedong with the prose stylings of Bill O'Reilly. All this and more...

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: Broderella channels Nooners...Leader writing...The Pentagon wants you to get the 'full story'...Bugliosi is selling a lotta books, but the MSM won't touch him...MoDo goes to Fantasy Camp...FOIA Is Bushed...This is the last post of longtime LA Times reporter, Ken Reich...Arlington Cemetery whistleblower fired for trying to grant media access to Military funerals...Primetime Ad Rates fall 11%...Matt Drudge rules the 'journo' political world....Your press thinks killing people is funny...And That's The Way It Is... Journalisms...Hysterical controversy about Jesse Jackson's remarks...Fourth Estate or Fifth Column?

Economist's View: Thomas Frank on the culture war

The Daily Banter: Middle East and North Africa update.

Attackerman: 'Bring 'em on," redux

Suburban Guerrilla: Politics makes for strange bedfellows

HOLY CRAP: Bill Moyers talks to Martha Nussbaum about her newest book and her views on the church and state debate..Jesus Junk...God endorsed the Holocaust says Bush pal...Persecution complexes...The FundamentaList...The real expulsions...Scientology is under attack from a faceless cabal of online activists...Prosecuting Polygamy ...Heaven is not the end of the world...Man kicked off plane for refusing to interrupt prayers and sit down for takeoff..Moon, Money and Messiah

I read this op-ed late last night and while I agree somewhat in principle with the gist of the article, I had a problem with the construct the author took to reach his conclusions. So I bring it to the larger C&L readership; are we seeing a resurgence of liberal thinking in the US? Did any of you find the author's reasoning a little clueless, as I did?

IHT:*

These are balmy days on the American left - genuine, uncharacteristic sunniness unpolluted by some fluky political climate change. There is even talk of a - stutter, clear-throat, perish-thought - liberal resurgence.

Or, treading gingerly, a "liberal moment."

"Hell, ya, this is a liberal moment," exults Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?" - and yes, he even calls himself a "liberal" writer, eschewing the sleeker "progressive" stage name that many lefties are preferring these days. He declares this "liberal moment" loud and proud. Until the inevitable qualifier comes.

"A potentially liberal moment," Mr. Frank says, "assuming that liberal politicians can seize the moment and get beyond their usual plague of incompetence."

Oh, snap. Liberal optimism, thy name is caution and caveat.

But it is optimism nonetheless, and well-founded, too, say Mr. Frank and a broad spectrum of political thinkers and leaders. And, they say, the evidence goes beyond the obvious indicators - the ascendance of Democrats in the House and Senate, President Bush's second-term belly-flop and poll numbers showing the Democratic Party trending left and the nation's political center trending Democratic.

* This op-ed, originally printed (and linked to) in the NY Times had a registration requirement to read, and so I've found it reprinted for free access by the International Herald Tribune.

Thomas Frank writes an excellent article about the possible rise of the teabaggers. Paul Ryan, the man who takes more money than anybody from big business is trying to be their golden boy and he's using an ideology that is based on crony corporatism embedded with language that actually opposes the fundamental root of their philosophy.

They paint themselves as anti-corporatists and want to destroy the government for the benefit of the corporations they are supposed to hate. And if that doesn't work, then kill more government and give more tax breaks to the rich and make sure you hate brown people enough. It's all this twisted logic, but they make it work because of the influence of the right-wing media machine led by FOX News and have been making it work since the '80s in one form or another. Just ask Grover Norquist since he's an orchestrator of the K-Street project.

Thomas Frank:

It's easy to underestimate conservatism's chances in these dark days. Over the last year, the Republican Party has appeared to be either a gang of obstructionists or a confused relic of some prehistoric past; its thinkers seemed to do little more than repeat catch-phrases you've heard dozens of times before; even its most earnest activists sometimes appeared to be the pawns of lobbying organizations.

But the movement might stage a comeback yet. According to the demented logic of American politics, the world began anew with the Obama presidency, and so it is the Democrats who will have to go before the public this fall and defend the bailout of Wall Street. Similarly, it might be the Republicans who seize the opportunity to capture public outrage this time around, denouncing concentrated economic power, insisting on holding big business accountable, and promising to settle scores with the nation's erstwhile financial rulers. Given the GOP's doings over the past 30 years, such a reversal may strike you as implausible, if not downright ridiculous...read on

Read the whole article, because Frank knows as much about movement conservatism as anyone alive.

Digby has a great analysis of the article, and writes:

He goes on to explain that this is actually an old argument about how free markets keep business from gaming government and forming cartels. Indeed, according to this concept deregulation is the only way to control corporations. Isn't that convenient?

As Frank points out, that cracked notion is "twisted and counterintuitive" and you'd think that after three decades of a mass experiment in government deregulation, privatization and "free" market ideology people would realize how cracked it really is. But Frank rightly understands that to the Republican base, it will all ring true: the problem with big business is big government.He goes on to say that for the disaffected Independent voters (the new electoral Holy Grail) the logic is less important than the sincerity of the emotion. I actually don't think sincerity is necessary at all and that the reason it will have salience is because all these DIVs will hear the comforting old saws about Big Gummint being the enemy and will breathe a great big sigh of relief that "somebody is finally talking some sense."

Frank predicts the future and I agree:

That's why we may be heading for the greatest burst of fake populism since those TV commercials 10 years ago that showed a mob breaking down the doors of a stock exchange—not because the revolution was on but because they wanted to trade like the pros, which the sponsor promised to let them do.