Government made to fail

#1
TennNC

TennNC

a lover, not a fighter
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
5,669
Likes
0
#1
New book by Thomas Frank:

Thomas Frank The Wrecking Crew

"Casting back to the early days of the conservative revolution, Frank describes the rise of a ruling coalition dedicated to dismantling government. But rather than cutting down the big government they claim to hate, conservatives have simply sold it off, deregulating some industries, defunding others, but always turning public policy into a private-sector bidding war. Washington itself has been remade into a golden landscape of super-wealthy suburbs and gleaming lobbyist headquarters—the wages of government-by-entrepreneurship practiced so outrageously by figures such as Jack Abramoff.

It is no coincidence, Frank argues, that the same politicians who guffaw at the idea of effective government have installed a regime in which incompetence is the rule. Nor will the country easily shake off the consequences of deliberate misgovernment through the usual election remedies. Obsessed with achieving a lasting victory, conservatives have taken pains to enshrine the free market as the permanent creed of state."

Tip of the cap to OE - thoughts?
 
#2
#2
It is no coincidence, Frank argues, that the same politicians who guffaw at the idea of effective government have installed a regime in which incompetence is the rule. Nor will the country easily shake off the consequences of deliberate misgovernment through the usual election remedies. Obsessed with achieving a lasting victory, conservatives have taken pains to enshrine the free market as the permanent creed of state.
Click to expand...

On point 1 in bold - is he arguing that conservatives have installed incompetent democrats as well as republicans.

On point 2 in bold - what is deliberate misgovernment and why can't elections change that?
 
#4
#4
volinbham said:
On point 1 in bold - is he arguing that conservatives have installed incompetent democrats as well as republicans.

On point 2 in bold - what is deliberate misgovernment and why can't elections change that?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I just briefly heard a promo for this book this morning, and I haven't read it yet. But I want to.

Here's an interview with Bill Moyers that might shed some more light on it:

Bill Moyers Journal: Bill Moyers talks with Thomas Frank: Web Exclusive
 
#6
#6
TennNC said:
New book by Thomas Frank:

Thomas Frank The Wrecking Crew

"Casting back to the early days of the conservative revolution, Frank describes the rise of a ruling coalition dedicated to dismantling government. But rather than cutting down the big government they claim to hate, conservatives have simply sold it off, deregulating some industries, defunding others, but always turning public policy into a private-sector bidding war. Washington itself has been remade into a golden landscape of super-wealthy suburbs and gleaming lobbyist headquarters—the wages of government-by-entrepreneurship practiced so outrageously by figures such as Jack Abramoff.

It is no coincidence, Frank argues, that the same politicians who guffaw at the idea of effective government have installed a regime in which incompetence is the rule. Nor will the country easily shake off the consequences of deliberate misgovernment through the usual election remedies. Obsessed with achieving a lasting victory, conservatives have taken pains to enshrine the free market as the permanent creed of state."

Tip of the cap to OE - thoughts?
Click to expand...

So if this is true what you are saying is we are destined to fail as a country because as we have seen played out socialism has failed and now so will capitalism?
 
#8
#8
TennNC said:
He also went to two highly respected, right-leaning schools (UVA and U of Chicago) and writes a column for a conservative-leaning paper, the WSJ.
Click to expand...
How are they right leaning schools??

There actually is no such thing aside from those with religious affiliations.
 
#9
#9
BigPapaVol said:
How are they right leaning schools??
Click to expand...

I was wondering about this myself.


On the WSJ connection, from the Moyers piece it is clear that the WSJ invited him as a columnist but not because of his right-leaning views. I assume it is to offer an alternative viewpoint.
 
#10
#10
From the NYT:

"The Chicago faculty is more rightward-leaning than that of other top law schools..."

UVA - that's just my interpretation. Maybe it's overstated.

The point is that he's not dumb, and his opinions are respected enough to be chronicled in the WSJ. It sounded like the reference to the FS was an attempt to undermine them.
 
#11
#11
KB5252 said:
So if this is true what you are saying is we are destined to fail as a country because as we have seen played out socialism has failed and now so will capitalism?
Click to expand...

No - it's saying that government functions now as a "for profit" enterprise - more and more services are being contracted out, and government jobs are becoming less and less attractive to the talent who actually could make government work more efficiently. If you're a talented young professional, and you have a choice btwn a government job and a private sector job, the compensation for the private sector job is going to be much, much, much greater. Therefore government is doomed to fail, and instead of cutting government spending, it's now doled out to private companies who make a killing off our tax money.

It's interesting - it almost sounds like a blueprint for libertarianism.
 
#16
#16
TennNC said:
From the NYT:

"The Chicago faculty is more rightward-leaning than that of other top law schools..."

UVA - that's just my interpretation. Maybe it's overstated.

The point is that he's not dumb, and his opinions are respected enough to be chronicled in the WSJ. It sounded like the reference to the FS was an attempt to undermine them.
Click to expand...

right vs other law schools doesn't equal right.

I never claimed he was dumb.

I mentioned the FS because it is the root philosophy underlying his conclusions. His conclusions can not be separated from the underlying neo-Marxist philosophy on which they are based. If that's undermining then call me guilty but I don't agree with that underlying philosophy.
 
#17
#17
TennNC said:
No - it's saying that government functions now as a "for profit" enterprise - more and more services are being contracted out, and government jobs are becoming less and less attractive to the talent who actually could make government work more efficiently. If you're a talented young professional, and you have a choice btwn a government job and a private sector job, the compensation for the private sector job is going to be much, much, much greater. Therefore government is doomed to fail, and instead of cutting government spending, it's now doled out to private companies who make a killing off our tax money.

It's interesting - it almost sounds like a blueprint for libertarianism.
Click to expand...

All of this fails to recognize his incorrect analogy for conservative (using the soy milk and porridge analogy). The conservative view that he criticizes is calling for less spending by government whether outsourced or administered by government agency.
 
#18
#18
TennNC,

I'm really surprised that you tried to pass Frank off as moderate or even right based upon his education. Just a couple minutes of homework shows he's a hardcore marxist.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#19
#19
volinbham said:
His conclusions can not be separated from the underlying neo-Marxist philosophy on which they are based. If that's undermining then call me guilty but I don't agree with that underlying philosophy.
Click to expand...

Then why ever listen to anyone who starts out with a philosophy different than yours?
 
#20
#20
BigPapaVol said:
TennNC,

I'm really surprised that you tried to pass Frank off as moderate or even right based upon his education. Just a couple minutes of homework shows he's a hardcore marxist.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Hardcore marxist might be strong. But that doesn't matter.

I didn't try to pass him off as moderate or right. The intent was to show that even if he is leftist, he's been educated at respected (and IMO right-leaning, but that's beside the pt) institutions, and is even a columnist in the WSJ. Which means even the conservative editors at the WSJ think his opinions are worth considering.

So, to not read what he has to say simply b/c of his philosophy is a cop-out.
 
#21
#21
TennNC said:
Then why ever listen to anyone who starts out with a philosophy different than yours?
Click to expand...

If I get the impression that what they have to say will either interest or enlighten me then I'll take a look.

I looked at the excerpt you posted and read his comments with Bill Moyer. His arguments and presentation were so steeped in his world view that I see little additional value to reading any more.

I don't listen to Limbaugh, Franken, Michael Moore, etc. for the same reason. They are pushing a point and bending or selecting facts to support their claims.
 
#23
#23
volinbham said:
All of this fails to recognize his incorrect analogy for conservative (using the soy milk and porridge analogy). The conservative view that he criticizes is calling for less spending by government whether outsourced or administered by government agency.
Click to expand...

Is he really criticizing the idea of less spending by govt administration? Sounds to me he's criticizing more spending by government outsourcing and not allowing government administration to work properly, like it has and does in certain areas of government.
 
#24
#24
volinbham said:
If I get the impression that what they have to say will either interest or enlighten me then I'll take a look.

I looked at the excerpt you posted and read his comments with Bill Moyer. His arguments and presentation were so steeped in his world view that I see little additional value to reading any more.

I don't listen to Limbaugh, Franken, Michael Moore, etc. for the same reason. They are pushing a point and bending or selecting facts to support their claims.
Click to expand...

Are you comparing a 5-time book writing WSJ columnist with a PhD from the University of Chicago to Rush Limbaugh?
 
#25
#25
TennNC said:
Is he really criticizing the idea of less spending by govt administration? Sounds to me he's criticizing more spending by government outsourcing and not allowing government administration to work properly, like it has and does in certain areas of government.
Click to expand...


Conservatives are calling for less spending (not him). He lumps them into a group that only wants to shift tax spending from public sector to outsourced public sector. It is a false claim.

He doesn't appear to have a problem with government spending at all as long as well paid bureaucrats are in charge rather than private companies.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top