Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Thomas Frank: Sad Little Progressive on WSJ

I'm trying to enjoy Thomas Frank's leftist columns in the otherwise right-libertarian Wall Street Journal. This latest one just makes it harder.

Frank starts off with a wonderfully useful premise, that Conservatives really blew it while in power in the Congress over the period 1994-2006, and are now busy failing to learn from it. His quotes of the architect of the Republican sell-out to power, Tom DeLay, are hilarious. (DeLay tries to paint himself a pure conservative who is pained by the Republican fall into corruption, rather than as one of the leaders of the plunge.)

And he's right to skewer those who define "conservatism" as being inherently incorruptible, meaning that all "those" corrupt Republicans are of course "not conservatives" - the sort of cute verbal trick I usually attribute to the Left. Conservatives who so embraced DeLay so long and so strongly need to answer, why they didn't reject him before he got caught.

Unfortunately, Frank's column quickly falls apart.

He tries to tie Republican corruption in Congress to the basis of conservative ideas. He wants us to believe that conservative ideas are "bad ideas" that naturally and inevitably led to "disastrous consequences."

Here he offers nothing but 'proof by blatant assertion' - no analysis, no explanation. He doesn't even bother to list what ideas he means, other than 'true conservatism is opposed to "big government."'

Had Frank offered some real (or imagined) link between corruption and the values of limited government, personal responsibility, individual liberty, and free markets, then he would have done us a favor. Instead he merely asserts that conservatism is somehow inherently bad - a logical fallacy also known as assuming your conclusions.

Here's hoping we get a better column from him next week.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

You make very clear arguments on your site here. I found your blog via your Frank post on the WSJ site.

Well said. (Though I think your title betrays the even-handedness of your post.) These were my thoughts about the Frank article when I read it as well: I wanted him to back up his claims with more facts. I'm an ideas guy like most WSJ-ers I would imagine and I want to be schooled on the failures of others. But the article was more gristle than meat... something I see in most liberal commentators who preach to their choirs. Here's a question: what liberal commentators out there do make intelligent, reasoned, insightful arguments in defense of their politics and of their philosophy? If any, I'd be interested in reading him or her...

Anyway. I see your posts are sporadic here. Here's hoping you stick with this blog and keep making your ideas public. My eyes are open...