Bestselling author Thomas Frank, who previously wrote a book telling people that he knew what's better for them than they do, has now written a book called "The Wrecking Crew," in which he takes his question-begging sideshow to the next level, proclaiming that conservatives are wrong because he says so.
Again, as before, it's not as though he has no points at all (although he misdirects his attacks at large government against "conservatives," when actual conservatives argue that the people responsible for such things are NOT conservatives). But his real problem is that he has no actual argument to tie it all together. He said on The Colbert Report that it is a "redefinition" of "government" to say that "[federal] government isn't about looking after the general welfare ... the problem is that's not what we have the elections about, that's not what they were elected to do."
Colbert asked, "What were they elected to do?" Frank ignorantly replied, "I'd start with enforcing the laws."
You see, that's funny, because when Frank was talking about blanket federal government care of the general welfare, I was thinking about the fact that such a thing is illegal according to the highest law we have, the Constitution.
Colbert joked about how labor laws are subject entirely to personal interpretation, and Frank guffawed. But that is precisely what you have to believe in order to intellectually accept his view: that the Constitution is not objectively interpretable, that laws do not have to mean what they say. That's the only way you can think that most, if not all, of his desired social programs are not unconstitutional.
On Colbert, Frank extended his themes self-righteousness a little bit further than before. Colbert was talking against wealth redistribution, and Frank responded, "there was a time when a lot of people shared your view on this." "A lot of people share my views now, sir," Colbert responded.
Frank followed, "Maybe so, but hopefully it's not the people who vote." Colbert and his audience went virtually silent at that point, and even a few boos were elicited from the audience. (You know you've crossed the line from "leftwing" to "commie fascist" when you're getting booed for being too far left on Colbert.)
So, here's Thomas Frank's message in a nutshell: I am right because I am right, even when it comes to your own personal life, and if you disagree you're wrong and shouldn't vote.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 11, 2008 10:16 AM | Email ThisSad that this is not uncommon.
Effective public discourse is made all the more difficult when lunacy has a place and a voice at the table; serious minds waste time dealing with the debris before being able to address reality.
Posted by: scott158 on August 11, 2008 12:20 PMWhy would you vote for something totally in contrast to your values? For the sake of a few dollars more?
To echo my favorite woodworker, "what does it profit a man if he gains the world, but loses his soul?"
The "dumb hicks" in flyover country have a lot more wisdom than people like Frank could ever comprehend.
Posted by: Jack Turk on August 11, 2008 05:36 PMYes, you WOULD like that. The problem is, his premise is a huge logical fallacy. Frank defines what "hurts" them differently than they do. Frank says that they should share his values, but they don't. This is called the question-begging fallacy, because he assumes what SHOULD be his argument: that they have a certain value system that they do not have.
Jack Turk says it in a similar way, and he's right on. Even if Frank were right that Republicans are against Kansans' economic self-interest -- and he's not -- he would still be wrong because Democrats are against all their OTHER interests, and Frank has no standing to say that they shouldn't value those things as much, or more.
Again: Frank is pretty dumb.
I'll tell you this Facts, when everybody starts voting "their own best interests" we will be in deep doo doo. That's when all any politician has to do to win is simply up the ante to match the greed of his constituency. He will simply promise that he'll take (for example) a $1000.00 from somebody who has more money than you and give it to you once elected. It's called "class warfare" pal and Stalin and Marx were pretty good at it. The reason I used the thousand dollar figure is because that is the amount that Obama has promised to steal from the oil companies and give to jerks like you. Me, I'll take it and mail it right back to Exxon. It was theirs first.
Heard an interview with Frank on Medved's show today. He's seems like a nice guy but is exceptionally clueless. I can see why he writes what he does, he doesn't know any better. But hey, Facts likes him.
Posted by: G Jiggy on August 11, 2008 07:00 PM