Six Questions — March 12, 2012, 9:51 am

Pity the Billionaire: Six Questions for Thomas Frank

tom-frank-by-jane-magellanic275

Thomas Frank’s Pity the Billionaire: The Hard Times Swindle and the Unlikely Comeback of the Right is the first full exploration of the rise of a new kind of false populism in the aftermath of our nation’s financial crisis. Like Frank’s best-selling What’s the Matter with Kansas and his Easy Chair columns for Harper’s Magazine, Pity the Billionaire grounds lively first-hand reporting with deep historical insight. Harper’s put six questions to Frank about his writing and the book:

1. Pity the Billionaire chronicles the revival of economic conservatism in the wake of the financial collapse. You term the means of this rise the “hard-times swindle”—the confounding story of a disaster caused by the freest of free-market capitalism, and the subsequent rise of a protest movement clamoring for more. How did Republicans channel the Tea Party’s outrage about economic issues into political power? Which is to say: Why did the swindle work?

First of all, it worked by muddling the story of the housing bubble and the economic collapse, shifting the blame from the real culprits—the much-deregulated financial industry—to those greedy neighbors of yours, buying too much house; or to the liberal state, which according to myth forced banks to hand out bad loans to poor people; or to society generally for tolerating debt at every level.

Secondly, the movement succeeded by capturing completely the one part of the story that was very clear: the bank bailouts, which instantly eclipsed the financial crisis proper when they happened and which immediately got people out of their armchairs sputtering with rage. The bailouts were not confusing. They were very clearly the deed of the federal government, apparently being operated by cronies of Wall Street. It was a spectacle of almost unbelievable corruption, the kind of thing that crushes the faith of a nation. What the public craved at that moment was a form of idealism that would allow us to scream a convincing “no” at the whole thing, and the free-market people—spotting the opportunity like any good entrepreneur—immediately stepped in and delivered exactly such an idealism. (Because, in a pure free-market system, they said, government would never rescue or bail out anyone. The market would decide who prospered and who failed.)

And thus, in miniature, was the complete failure of our great financial free-market experiment transformed into a protest movement demanding that we embrace the free-market system.

2. You vividly evoke the frothy “good versus evil” apocalyptic mania of Tea Party rallies throughout the book—I particularly liked your description of a March 2010 event that featured Jon Voight praying for our legislators’ souls. Did you find anything at those rallies that you didn’t necessarily expect to find? What most surprised you about the tea people?

They were a lot nicer than I expected them to be. The rhetoric you hear from them—all the boastful talk about guns and the outrageous protest signs they love to wave—is all so sanguinary and so apocalyptic that you expect them to be personally a little bit menacing. But they aren’t—quite the opposite: they’re friendly and polite. (At least, that was the case in my experience.) It’s as though they regard what’s being said from the podium and on the placards as a form of entertainment. Even the people selling the boastful or threatening Tea Party trinkets—and there are a lot of these—are just doing their job, getting through the day with a smile.

From Pity the Billionaire:

[T]hrough it all the [Tea Party] protesters’ sense of the injuries suffered by average Americans stayed fresh; their anger at the elites did not dim. They cursed the high and the mighty using the unmistakable terms of the democratic tradition: quoting Jefferson, quoting Franklin, quoting Tom Paine. The zeal of some was so great that they waved “Don’t Tread on Me” rattlesnake flags and wore powdered wigs.

Theirs was a different populism than the one we started with, however. In the early months of 2009, it was mass public outrage against bankers that threatened to pull Americans out of their chairs and into the streets. By the time a year had elapsed, however, the bonus boys’ misbehavior had been pretty much forgotten. In no time at all, the public’s rage had migrated from Wall Street to Washington. Before long the only populism available in the land was an uprising against government and taxes and federal directives—in other words, it was now a movement in favor of the very conditions that had allowed Wall Street to loot the world.

3. At one point, you describe a 2009 Labor Day rally in West Virginia, where thousands applauded the CEO of Massey Energy for his denunciation of government meddling. Eight months later, twenty-nine people died in a tragic explosion at a Massey coal mine, the direct result of the company’s egregious flouting of safety standards. This was only the most vivid example in Pity the Billionaire of a uniquely American paradox, in which working-class people make political decisions that seem to be in direct opposition to their own interests. What drives you to write about this dynamic?

I am drawn to moments of paradox and irony. From my first book about the counterculture’s weird symbiosis with Madison Avenue right down to that rally in West Virginia, this is what I am about. But if you asked me why this is so (and I guess you are asking me), I would have to answer that it’s because we live in paradoxical and ironic times. The social contract of the prosperous and roughly democratic America I was born into has been coming apart for decades, but not for any straightforward reason like “it didn’t work.” It’s coming apart because certain people want it to come apart; because they stand to gain if it comes apart; and yet for them to pull it apart they have to have our consent. And that spells I-R-O-N-Y.

4. In your work, you’ve highlighted politicians’ unending praise song for small businesses, whose proprietors are cast as America’s ultimate job creators—noble, unsung heroes under dire threat from government intervention. How does this fit in with the hard-times swindle?

Small business, it occurred to me, was the real cradle of the Tea Party movement; that’s who these protesters were, that’s how they identified themselves. And small business carries with it a form of populism—I call it “market populism”—that seems on the surface to be every bit as attractive as your traditional workerist populism. Like the original, it pits hard-working average people against parasitic elites (who supposedly get their way via some kind of conspiracy of the educated or via government connections). It imagines that markets are a naturally occurring form of democracy, in which the job-creating entrepreneur is equivalent to the individual citizen, and the countless small enterprises and family-run stores that populate our main streets are the great physical expression of who we are as a nation.

This can be a very attractive worldview in times like ours, especially given the almost complete absence (on the national level, anyway) of a traditional Thirties-style workerist populism. However, the practical effect of the free-market idealism of small-business is to bolster the power of big business. That’s the real beneficiary of small-business’s long war on organized labor and its endless campaigns to slash “red tape” and get government off our backs.

5. Many commentators have drawn comparisons between the Tea Party and union activism in Wisconsin, which you’ve identified in your 2011 Easy Chair columns as the true successor to the working-class populism of the 1930s. Having reported first-hand on both of these phenomena, to what extent do you think the comparisons are accurate? What about comparisons between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street?

Well, they’re both a response to the epic cronyism between Wall Street and Washington, and they’re both fond of those Guy Fawkes masks. When I was in Wisconsin reporting on the anti–Scott Walker protests, I also heard very Tea Partyish calls to bring America back to its roots, a familiar phrase by which the protesters meant something very different than what the Tea Party means: a social arrangement by which working people lived middle-class lives. Most importantly, though, they share a very general critique of the government–industry nexus that is similar to the one I described in The Wrecking Crew. With the tea people, however, that vision is always turned inside out. Instead of industry capturing government, it’s always the opposite: government treading industry under its iron heel.

9780805093698

6. Since the crash, economic issues have remained at the forefront of the national conversation. On one hand we’re seeing momentum around new taxes on the wealthy, like the “Paying a Fair Share Act” proposed in Congress last month, while in the Republican primary South Carolina voters seemed to respond to Newt Gingrich’s criticisms of Romney-style venture capitalism. What can we expect from the discussion around economic policy this election year?

From the Republican politicians, I think, we will hear the message they’ve been sharpening for the past three years: that free markets are the beau ideal of human civilization; that they are the incarnation of liberty itself, the dream of the Founding Fathers, and the great guarantee against corruption and tyranny. But more importantly, we will hear all this stuff spoken with a distinctly populist edge to it. Markets let average people choose for themselves; “elites” who think they know better than everyone else (“What a snob!”) want to control and limit your market freedom. Up till now, we’ve heard this mainly from Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul, but Mitt Romney will have to learn to do it too if he wants to be competitive this fall.

Share
Single Page
undefined

More from Simone Richmond:

Weekly Review May 28, 2012, 9:45 pm

Weekly Review

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Minimum number of shooting incidents in the United States in the past year in which the shooter was a dog:

2

40,800,000,000 pounds of total adult human biomass is due to excessive fatness.

Trump’s former chief strategist, whom Trump said had “lost his mind,” issued a statement saying that Trump’s son did not commit treason; the US ambassador to the United Nations announced that “no one questions” Trump’s mental stability; and the director of the CIA said that Trump, who requested “killer graphics” in his intelligence briefings, is able to read.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today