Skip to main content

Win-Win Incompetence


 
There are some books that one enjoys reading. There are others that one reads because they have to know the contents of it, whether the journey is enjoyable or not. Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew is definitely in the latter category. It is a book that is not a pleasant read, but one that should be read nonetheless. I've had it in my possession for years, but I long held off reading it because I still thought myself a conservative at the time it was given to me. The subtitle (How Conservatives Rule) and my own biases made it all too easy to push off to the side. When I was no longer a conservative--or at least when those who claimed the name conservative in the public sphere had grown so offensive and ignorant that I could no longer share the label--I suspected that the book would not be a joy to read, rather along the lines of Crimes Against Nature by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I was right on that account, but I should have read it sooner nonetheless.
 
The Wrecking Crew is, to put it simply, the definitive expose of conservatism in action. Frank investigates the public persona of many members of the conservative movement, with a focus on the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Grover Norquist of the no-tax pledge fame, seeking to understand the modern conservative movement in theory and in practice. The result of his inquiries is the most damning indictment of what passes for conservatism that I have ever read.
 
At its heart conservatism is about limiting government, operating under the dogma (and dogma it is, for it never falters in the face of any contrary evidence) that no matter what the case in question is, the private sector is always more qualified than government to handle it. Government bureaucracies are considered to be incompetent at best and criminal interferers at the worst, taxes are considered to be theft no matter what they are used for, and, according to several conservative thinkers, having qualified, bright people in government amounts to a theft of their talent from the private sector. The only good regulations are those that are never passed at all or those that are unenforced. The ideology of modern conservatism, beginning before the election of Reagan and reaching perfection under the Bush Administration, wants to see government out of the way of business, and desires quite a bit of business in government. All other issues are secondary to this goal--those who vote for conservative politicians because of their views on gay marriage, evolution, or abortion are merely useful idiots who help advance the main purpose of the movement, to handicap government and let businesses have their way in every matter.
 
And perhaps it may be said that, while one might disagree with this idea as I certainly do, there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea itself. It is how this idea is put into practice that makes the whole thing an abominable philosophy. In example after example, Frank demonstrates that when self-proclaimed conservatives are in charge, deliberate misrule results. Government does not get smaller when conservatives rule, government gets hijacked in the service of business. Services that the government once performed are privatized, often to companies with no knowledge of how to perform the service. These companies then sell it off at a profit to other companies, thus greatly inflating the cost of that service. Taxes are cut in devotion to the religion of supply-side economics and deficits are run up at record pace. All of this is done to benefit corporations and at great cost to the taxpayers. But the taxpayers are not an important consideration in this conservative algorithm--what matters is that businesses get more money and more control and that government is weakened. Most perverse of all, government is deliberately made incompetent; conservatives proclaim that government is dysfunctional and can do nothing right, and once in power they work to ensure that this is so by gutting agencies, placing political appointees in positions that they are distinctly unqualified for, and crushing the morale of the civil service to ensure that the bright and qualified are out and only the demoralized and incompetent remain. This is, in Frank's words, "win-win incompetence," as the failure of political appointees only reinforces the anti-government message of conservatives. FEMA was a prime example of this strategy, though mercifully under the current Administration that particular agency is being built back up to the level of effectiveness that it once had. The actions that these operatives have taken to destroy the reputation and efficiency of government are nothing short of criminal, and having read the book I could list example after sickening example of deliberate misrule. But why do that when I can merely say this--go and read the book, and see for yourself what the fruits of this faux conservatism are.
 
Once you've read the book, once you've seen what has been done, you'll be better equipped to understand where we are now. Even though the book was published in 2009, reading it has helped me to understand why conservatives act the way they do--still working to advance the same agenda even while decrying the supposed "betrayal" of conservatives by George W. Bush. I have no doubt that the situation has improved, even if only slightly, with conservatives out of power, but the damage is so extensive that it will take a long time to recover. These people haven't gone away, and they still make every effort to undercut the effectiveness of the government. Read this book, and then pass it on. This is a story that deserves to be heard by everyone.

Comments

  1. I'm nearly finished with a one-volume biography of Eisenhower, by Michael Korda, and it proves to me that he may well have been the last good Republican. And he, too, was surrounded by greedy right-wing nutbags, like Joseph McCarthy and his "red scare" abuses of far too many people (btw, Eisenhower did NOT approve of nor agree with McCarthy...I think he actively loathed the man). He WAS conservative and I disagree with many of his policies. But this book, and a few others that I've read, suggest he was an honest pragmatist who cared for the well-being of the country and not in the glorification of the powerful and wealthy.

    Frank's book IS a depressing read, for it shows the current crop of Repugnicans to be far worse than those immediately after WWII...the coterie of conservatives that Ike had to deal with. Willfully ignorant and patently mendacious, this group seeks little less than the destruction of representative democracy and the installation of a oligarchic plutocracy.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Unanswerable Questions" for Evolution Part One

Creation Ministries International has launched a new initiative, which seems a lot like all the other creationists blitzkriegs before it. With the wonderfully creative tagline of "Question Evolution", CMI intends to challenge "evolutionists" and their "indoctrination" of high school students with the supposed dogma of evolution. They also aim to  cut the population of atheists by half , presumably by challenging the "faith" that every atheist (and only atheists, no "real Christians") is supposed to hold in Darwin's great idea. The main thrust of this is a tract with fifteen "unanswerable" questions for evolutionists. I'm done putting quotation marks around the word, evolutionists; from here on out I ask my readers to recognize that it is a creationist term that is about as silly as calling someone a general relativist (accepts general relativity) or germist (for accepting germ theory). Regardless, CMI seems just as i...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...

The Absurdity/Agony of War

Science writer Mary Roach is never one to shy away from parts of science that verge on the absurd, as anyone who has read any of her books surely knows. I'd read two of her previous books, and been enchanted enough by Roach's unique combination of endless curiosity and a wry sense of humor that I rushed to lay my hands on her newest book. Grunt: The Curious Science of Humans at War will not fail in living up to the expectations that fans of her work will bring. Those who have never read her before will be hard-pressed to put down a book that I finished in a few short days.  The real joy of reading something by Mary Roach is her talent for seeking out strange areas of science that a reader might never have known about. As an investigator, she answers questions you never knew you had. Her newest work   is no exception. We discover, for instance, how the military tests the ability of a fighter jet to survive a mid-air collision with a large bird--by firing a dead chicken...