Thomas Frank: The Wrecking Crew

Wrecked beyond reconstruction? Author Thomas Frank discusses how conservatives wreck and rule our government.

It might be hard to believe, but sometimes politicians don't have our best interests at heart. Though this is the gist of Thomas Frank's argument, his in-depth analysis of the conservative movement over past decades is hardly simplistic. In What's the Matter with Kansas? he explored why middle and lower class Americans vote for politicians who support the rich. In The Wrecking Crew, Frank ventures to the capitol of wealth: Washington, D.C. There he pens a stinging indictment of conservatives' ultimate goal: to tear down government and move things into the private business sector.

CP: You state that it's the conservative agenda to dumb down government, and bring in private business. Why would conservatives do this?

TF: For one thing, their hostility toward government runs pretty deep. As a business party they've always objected to government because it meddles with the economy, and regulates things like business and taxes. The particular tactics they use come from their hatred of bureaucracy and the civil servants they regard as the "permanent government," which they think is inherently liberal. The idea is to replace them with private sectors. Privatizing the work of government has a lot of advantages from their perspective: Not only do you get around the civil servants; you can reward particular companies and build your own constituencies. The problem is that it really doesn't work.

CP: We're founded on the principle of separation of church and state, but what about separation of business and state? Do we need to rethink boundaries? Is it even possible to separate the two?

TF: Well, those boundaries have to be there, but ultimately it's impossible to separate them. People have to be ever vigilant. Business and government, you can never disconnect them entirely. And business should have a role. When decisions are being made that will affect an industry, you need to consult with those businesses. But the way things are now they are calling the shots at every level. They essentially control the government.

CP: You state that there’s two types of conservatives: economic and social. Why do social conservatives continue to vote conservative when it's probably not in their best interest?

TF: My feeling is that they vote for Republicans because of culture war issues: chiefly abortion, but also gun control, debates on patriotism. These arguments are phrased in class terms, and the culture wars are a form of class wars. I don’t know if it’s going to work now; the economy is so bad. I’m hoping Obama can reach out. The Democrats were once the party of the working class, and losing that demographic has been disastrous for them.

CP: You believe that conservatives want the public to lose faith in government. Why? Aren’t they, ironically, the government?

TF: It’s basic contradiction or what you would call a paradox. This goes to the core of their movement. You put people in charge of government who don’t believe in their mission and bad things happen. It’s not a coincidence. They don’t have a way to answer to that other than to say after the bad things happen and government fails, Oh those people weren’t conservatives in the first place! This is a standard line. George W. Bush? Jack Abramoff? Tom Delay? Not really conservatives. And of course that is ridiculous; they defined the movement! They were the leaders.

CP: Are we approaching a culture of apathy? Do we simply expect politicians to be corrupt? Are we definitively a plutocracy now?

TF: I would say it’s more about cynicism. When government fails, like FHIMA after Hurricane Katrina, they say, Well, that’s because government can never do anything right. Government failed. That’s not the correct answer. It’s the conservative movement that failed. The people running the government failed. We need to understand why they failed. The public accepts the cynical explanation because it’s the easiest and simplest solution, but the truth is slightly more complicated.

CP: How about this coming election? Are you recognizing any new trends or older ones in the campaign that McCain is running? How about Obama?

TF: It is interesting that a lot of the culture war stuff has worn off. No one is talking about the war on Christmas anymore. A lot of the culture war issues seem silly because the economic pain is real this time. But I don’t see Obama doing what he needs to do to win this thing. I think he is assuming he is going to be able to go on through without getting his hands dirty in the battle. He does this high–flying rhetoric thing very well, but ultimately he has to get into the fight.

CP: And McCain?

TF: I'll tell you, I used to like John McCain. You hear this from a lot of liberals. He was the one Republican in Washington that I really liked; the man that busted Abramoff. He's good on contractor issues, or was. He's good on campaign finance reform, something I really believe in. In a lot of respects he's a really good guy, the best candidate the Republicans could have. He's one of the few not tainted with scandal. But since he got the nomination, that John McCain is gone. I don't know what happened to him. It's just crazy attacks, one after another after another. It's like Karl Rove has taken over his personality. I don't understand it. You know, "McCain the Reformer" could actually get my vote. It's possible! But not "McCain the Hit-and-Run Artist." No. Hell no.

Come see Thomas Frank tonight at 7:30 p.m. at Barnes & Noble (3225 W. 69th St., Edina; 952.920.0633). Also 7:30 p.m. Thursday, August 28, at the First Universalist Church (3400 Dupont Ave. S., Minneapolis; 612.377.6608).