So, I recently finished the book "Listen Liberal" by Thomas Frank and felt like talking about it. Overall, the book was good. It was written during the 2016 election cycle and essentially was a discussion about how the democratic party hasn't been the party of the people since the 1960s. This aligns with my own theory about a party realignment beginning in 1968, and Robert Putnam's theory about collectivism declining in the 1960s, leading to an era of much more individualistic mindsets.
Essentially, he's arguing that starting with the 1972 election cycle and from then on, the democrats turned their backs on organized labor and began to embrace the professional class. His theory makes a lot of sense, and while I will disagree with him in details, I largely agree with it. And this is why in both 2016 and 2020, progressive ideas have failed to take root in the democratic party. Because the old democratic party is long dead, and now the party answers to upper class technocrats rather than the working class. And these technocrats are basically right wingers. They have professional class attitudes about things like entrepreneurship, their place in society, income inequality, etc. And honestly? Given HRC's mindset in 2016, he's dead on the money. Frank talks about how the democrats, over the past generation, have presided over a period of increased income inequality and a decline of opportunity across the country, with most opportunities now being present in a handful of cities, with the rest of the country being screwed. The democrats tend to represent the winners of this economy.
He talks about how the Clinton administration really solidified the neoliberal order in America, and how Bill Clinton was able to get away with things that the republicans could only dream of. Like declaring the era of "big government" over, and slashing welfare, and deregulating wall street, and attempting to privatize social security (he failed on this one). He talks about how Obama had the perfect opportunity to reclaim the democrats for the left but instead surrounded himself with 'experts" who were lenient on wall street, and how he could have advocated for single payer or a public option but didn't. And how he did the bare minimum to actually fix the country after the recession, with many people feeling the effects, long after.
In a lot of ways, this book spoke to me, because he wrote it around the time I started this blog, and I live in one of the more "screwed" areas of the country economically. And I know Obama did the bare minimum to solve problems, and how he left a legacy that left a lot to be desired. my calls for UBI, universal healthcare, and free college/student debt forgiveness came out of my own frustrations with the economy. Ideas that the democratic party have repeatedly rejected since then.
Still, while I agree with Frank's main thesis, there are a lot of details I don't agree on. For example, I have slight differences in my view on, for example, McGovern's 1972 run. He views McGovern as the first of the technocrats. A democrat who turned his backs on organized labor in favor of the wealthy professional class. But...I have a slightly different outlook on the 1968-1980 period. In mean, to give a brief timeline:
In 1968, the democratic party fractured. For a long time, potentially since as early as 1948, the democratic part has had to balance the priorities of two major factions. Conservative southern democrats, and progressives. Conservative democrats were democrats who were on board with the new deal, but whose views on say, racism, were a bit regressive to put it lightly. In 1968, the democrats lost these guys due to Johnson's backing of civil rights. Johnson himself refused to run for reelection in 1968, I think mainly due to health issues, and this led to a scenario in which the democratic establishment chose Humphrey as a nominee. And this alienated the young progressive class. In 1972, that young progressive class chose McGovern. And the party establishment lost their crap over it and revolted against him. Now, to be fair, McGovern DID suck in some ways, but organized labor turned against him for not representing their specific concerns (an issue I tend to have with that branch of the left, more on that later), and also because the establishment didn't see him as part of the club. And then in 1976 they ran Carter who was more establishment friendly, but after that the democrats just...lost it. And THEN they started angling to be more right wing in the 80s, with them having the massive centrist takeover in the 90s with Bill Clinton.
That's kind of where I have a falling out with Frank. Frank's politics are the politics of dinosaurs to some extent, and he makes sweeping generalizations about some people and policies that I just don't agree with. He's stuck in the New Deal era, with his obsession with jobs and organized labor, and to some extent, while I believe he means well, he comes off as a bit of a luddite to me. He tends to rip anyone who doesn't represent "Ye Olde Left" of FDR as a technocrat, crapping on both McGovern, and a lot of people in Silicon Valley who I would see as friendly to my version of left wing politics. And he seems stuck in this era of bringing back the factory work, and solving every issue with union organizing and jobs programs. And I'm going to be honest. This is a bit of a turn off for me too.
I get it to some extent. The 1932-1968 alignment was one of the best, for the people, in American history. We saw massive improvements to quality of life, and it is a shame that things have turned away from that. But in some ways, thing's were never perfect. And there was more change and evolution to be done. Between 1968 and 1972, I feel like the country was starting to evolve in a positive direction, before partisan politics and infighting caused that "babel" moment that then undid everything.
In 1969, Richard Nixon had a commission on poverty that studied the issue and found that no amount of traditional new deal esque approaches to it would solve the issue. They recommended, essentially, a UBI to solve the problems. You can read about this in "Poverty Amid Plenty: The American Paradox". This led to Nixon to support the family assistance plan in 1970. But, members of his own party were themselves obsessed with what it would do to work ethic, and the democrats didn't think it was progressive enough and kind of had a sense of pride of it undermining their accomplishment, so were against it too. But then McGovern championed the issue in 1972 and this just turned more people against it. The democrats refused to back it because once again, if you didn't do things ye olde way with organized labor, they weren't going to back it. And then Nixon turned on it, shifting right and claiming it would put half the country on welfare. So while there was a moment where it had support, everyone ended up turning against it, and then the country shifted right in general.
My take, being a UBI supporter, is that the idea was in discussion, but neither party was committed to it, and often used it as a way to attack each other for their respective support of it. The left claiming it would undermine welfare and organized labor, and the right screaming about work ethic and lazy people on welfare. Sound familiar? And let's be honest, both were wrong. And I admit, Nixon was a scumbag, and McGovern was poor candidate who couldn't even defend it properly, so politically it just never had a chance, but yeah. But yeah, Frank's take was that McGovern was too technocratic and he turned his back on organized labor, while in reality, organized labor was a relatively corrupt part of the democratic establishment at the time looking to crush any ideas but theirs, and honestly, I dont have the hatred of the educated that he does. I mean, does he not understand the same people who supported McGovern in 1972 are the type of people who support the likes of Bernie today? Young, relatively educated voters. And honestly organized labor back then was the equivalent of all of those Hillary supporting insiders who in 2016 were calling us "Bernie Bros." But Frank doesn't seen to make that distinction. He just has this blind hatred toward the educated and seems to be glorifying blue collar jobs and "labor." I mean, I get it, the educated of 1972 would get high paying jobs and become quite economically conservative. But this generation of educated voters can't find jobs half the time, are members of the working class, and are crippled by student debt. He's right about Clinton overemphasizing education. And his overemphasis has led to an economy full of college grads, many of whom can't find decent jobs. And that's what sets the stage for my own politics.
You wanna know why I think the way I do? Because first of all, I was never really gung ho on the idea of working in the first place but seen it as a necessary evil for much of my life. But for two, I graduated into an economy with no jobs, shattering my illusions about how great these jobs are. The economy HAS changed. There are entire regions of the country where jobs don't really exist. We are going through the 4th industrial revolution just as say, Yang says. Factory jobs are gone. They're not coming back. Gig work is on the rise, minimum wage jobs abound. And all Frank is focused on is unions and making jobs pay good wages. As someone who has studied at least SOME econ in college, dude, here's the cold hard fact about employers. THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY LIVING WAGES, AND PROVIDE HEALTHCARE. THEY EXIST TO MAKE PROFITS, AND THE LESS THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR LABOR THE BETTER. That's the entire source of misery with our society. We live in this fantasy world in our head in which all jobs are good jobs, they just gotta pay you enough and give you healthcare, and then viola, problems solved. But I'm going to be honest. That kind of life just doesn't exist any more, and I would go so far to say it was never great. The idea of getting a factory job out of high school and doing the same thing for 40 years until I retire might sound nice in a romanticized fashion, but it just isn't realistic any more. And rather than trying to get that back, I feel like I see reality, and understand that you're never going to solve our problems this way. Because employers exist to extract the most labor for the least money. And then this guy craps on neolibs for talking about the new economy and all the tech people in silicon valley automating stuff and acting like they're the bad guys, which I can kind of understand, but isnt' that progress? This is why I see Frank as a bit of a Luddite. This kind of left he focuses on, while it means well, is anti progress. What happens when you spend time unionizing jobs, only for those jobs to disappear, and then be replaced by other non unionized jobs for less money? Congrats, all that effort is down the drain. And honestly, unionization just makes wage slavery slightly less crappy. it doesn't resolve the issue. It doesnt help people who can't find jobs.
I would go so far to say that what we're seeing is the hollowing out and slow death of the idea of a job for most Americans. And rather than it being something to be feared, it should be celebrated. This shift is the beginning of the science fiction era where people work less, and many don't have to work at all. We just don't know how to adapt to that, because our institutions are so focused on jobs, that we don't have alternative means to provide for people that don't involve people working 40 hours a week for a livintg wage and healthcare. And we need to get on that.
Honestly, we need to get out of this idea that the good old fashioned "job" is a concept worth saving. I'm all for paying people more and treating them better. I'm not even anti union. I just don't think they're the end all and believe that they can become corrupt. I definitely don't like their machine type nature within democratic party politics. Because they will fight to preserve jobs that no longer exist and fight against ideas like UBI and medicare for all because it undermines gains unions have fought for. Instead of doing the right thing for the people, unions want people to be like "you need us, aren't we great?" The second jobs disappear or we push for UBI all of the sudden that's bad because it threatens their power. It's all about power with them.
Honestly. I say bring on the gig economy. I actually kind of view the concept of the gig economy as better for workers in some ways. It offers more flexibility and freedom to prospective workers, it just sucks in terms of wages and benefits. And if a UBI can partially decouple jobs and income, and universal healthcare can replace employer sponsored healthcare, well, those are GOOD things. We should be for that. Honestly, I'd rather live in a world with UBI and government sponsored healthcare and I could work part time doing gig work. I dont want a full time job with a traditional employer really. Because employers are slave drivers. Employers want respect. Employers want me to dress a certain way. Show up at a certain time. leave at a certain time. Look busy all the time because they own my time. I'd rather have a world where work is decoupled from income and my basic needs are met, and then I work for extra spending money. Maybe I become a dog walker *cough*. Or I do uber. Or Mturk. Or whatever. The fact is, the traditional job isn't that great, it's not worth saving, and the world has moved on.
In some ways, Frank's ideas, as well meaning as they are, are the stuff of dinosaurs. They represent the world 2 generations ago, and a lot has changed since. Jobs are less stable. They pay less. They have found ways to evade the new deal era labor laws. And workers have no power of their own. We need ways to help workers that aren't unions or regulation. Not that those things are bad, mind you. I'm not attacking positive change. But such institutions and means of improving life are clunky, slow, and don't solve the root problem of oppression in our economic system. So, while Frank is right about the neoliberal nature of the democratic party and how for the past 30+ years they just don't give a crap about you any more, he's wrong about the solutions.
Honestly, while I respect the intentions of the old left, I honestly think some aspects of their politics are best not brought back. The answer to today's problems isn't just unions and jobs programs. We need things that decouple income and benefits like healthcare from work. We need ways to solve the education crisis without people having to be in crippling student debt. And Frank just wants to bring back the politics of a long gone era, not actually create the politics of the modern era. I mean, I could even get behind certain capitalists like Elon Musk if they champion my ideas. But the left would rather hate billionaires just because, while throwing away bad solutions because punishing the rich and obsessing over "labor" is more important than raising peoples' quality of life.
Still, regardless, the book "Listen Liberal" is good, and just puts another nail in the democratic party for me. It is not an institution for change, and progressive politics, whether it's ye olde left a la Bernie, or my own proposed new left a la Yang, are equally unwelcome within it. The democratic party as it is, is too technocratic, too rooted in support of the status quo, and fails to offer new and innovative solutions to our problems that work. They instead focus on watered down and overly complex solutions (that according to Frank are intended to sabotage and obfuscate any policy they implement). And the party needs change. I don't agree with his specific form of change, but I still think he means well and some aspects of his politics are still useful. I just wish he wouldn't crap on educated people and people who want new solutions to focus on the economy as is, rather than bringing back 80 year old solutions that never worked well anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment