LISTEN, LIBERAL – Thomas Frank

The author of this one, Thomas Frank, hit it big in 2004 with the book What’s the Matter with Kansas? . In it, the author investigated how rural Americans grew to abandon their once left-leaning, populist politics. As the 20th century wore on, they grew to embrace conservatism that often worked against their economic interest.  After reading it and reviewing it, I picked up Thomas Frank’s 2016 book, Listen, Liberal. Here, we explore how the Democratic Party stopped being a relative working-person’s party. Instead, they became one catering to professionals and cultural elites.  It’s a hard look at the party that will make many liberals uncomfortable, as they should be.  The Democrats’ mediocre fortunes won’t change unless they understand where they went wrong. Well, that or we get a true multi-party system. Alright, or we start a revolution, but the first option is the least messy by far.

A lot of left-leaning political observers call out the power of organized money. They view money as corrupting the political process, and plenty of independents and libertarians agree.  But Thomas Frank argues that the oligarchs who own most of our wealth are not the only ones dominating us.  He calls out the professional class who gain status not through wealth but through job status, knowledge and credentials.  Think of doctors, attorneys, religious leaders, managers, programmers and finance guys. Most of these professions consider themselves only open to those with specialized knowledge. Often hopefuls have to pass tests or rituals to gain their status. Their importance and influence over American life has increased in the 20th century. The same goes for their voice in the Democratic Party.

The idea that these people are the ones who should be making the critical decisions in our society is often described as meritocracy. Another way to describe it is the “rule-by-experts”. It’s an idea the Democrats in a way that Frank believes was bad for the party and the country.  Once, the Democrats tried to position themselves as the choice of working people.  This vision of the party entered its golden age with FDR’s New Deal Coalition. That alliance consisted of unions, blue-collar workers, African Americans, rural farmers and intellectuals. This grouping lasted more or less through Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society in the 1960s.  Frank goes through how that coalition died, and who killed it. He also calls out Dems like Bill Clinton who decided to abandon the working class in all but rhetoric. Despite this, they gained major traction within the party.  With them and their generation, the meritocracy’s reign was secured.  It’s bothered me for some time that the Clintons are still seen as exemplars of the Democratic Party. Instead, they may be better seen as major deviations from its prior history. I’m not a Democrat, and haven’t been for some time, they weren’t always this.  Even the TV series The West Wing showed tension between remnants of the New Deal (in folks like Toby Ziegler) and the professional-class Dems (like Josh Lyman).  In general, Thomas Frank’s work is well written, and effective at cutting through that kind of noise. Once that’s accomplished, we can view the situation for what it is.

Why does this all matter?  Because meritocracy centers on the idea that if you are successful, it’s because you deserve to be – and the opposite is also true.  If you’re a failure, that’s something you made yourself, not anyone else.  The problem is that this view doesn’t reflect reality.  A great deal of our status and fortunes in America is out of our hands. This can be seen both anecdotally and by looking at relevant data on the subject.  If we believe the rich and successful are destined for their lot, and the unsuccessful are fated for theirs, where does this leave us? What incentive do we have to fix inequality, create greater opportunities for all? What, then, compels us to treat each other with generosity and brotherhood in our public lives? 

Hell, recent history has proven that people don’t buy this meritocracy idea in the long run.  It’s part of the backlash that helped elect Donald Trump to office. A lot of people felt left behind. They didn’t feel the Democratic Party had any interest in addressing their concerns.  Yes, there was plenty of racism and sexism in that backlash, too. But that election, like all elections, was also very much about the economy. I’m pretty tired of people writing that element off. Only folks who focus on top-line numbers like how the Dow is doing (or the unemployment rate) didn’t see it coming. We can’t just ask how many new jobs are being created, and how big our stock portfolios are. We have to ask who is getting a living wage. We have to ask who is getting a second or third job but can’t pay rent. We have to ask who is financially and materially set for retirement – or, at least, next Christmas.

Capitalism is in a very late stage. In this stage, it’s content to let the chips fall where they may for most of us. It will serve the interests of the already-successful class gobbling up what’s left.  The idea that the best will rise and the weak must fall is one that, for better or worse, isn’t going away. But the left – and even the middling pseudo-left that the Democratic Party represents – never wins this way.  Neither will the country, Frank argues, until the meritocracy myth gets chucked aside.

For bringing home this central point alone, Thomas Frank’s book would be worth a read. He reminds us that these preferences aren’t static. Radical, populist views and policies from the left aren’t alien to American life. They aren’t doomed to failure. The Democratic Party has always been a deeply flawed vehicle for working class politics. A multi-party system that allowed for the rebirth of parties like Eugene Debs’ socialist movement would shake things up for the better. But as long as we lack that, Frank is right about the Democratic Party’s next moves.