reagamh's review against another edition
3.0
5 stars for the research
1 star for his unnecessary opinions
1 star for his unnecessary opinions
almartin's review against another edition
3.0
Frank's big thesis, that the democratic party's interests and agenda has been captured by an economic and educational elite, was worth the kindle deals deals deals deals price of admission.
unfortunately Listen Liberal is much stronger at diagnosis than it is at cure - while it's very clear that Frank is Real Mad about the end of the New Deal, it's not totally clear what the path not taken was. He has some valid critiques of the 2009 stimulus (lots of it funneled through the tax code; long on highway repairs, short on monumental public buildings), but the arc he charts from FDR to Obama is pretty thin.
"Carter turned out to be a sort of archetype, the first in a series of passionless Democratic technocrats" ... that includes Walter Mondale (!). Frank's reading of "budget-balancing Walter Mondale"'s 523-13 electoral vote loss to Reagan is, apparently, that the party failed to nominate a true liberal. Right.
At the same time, his insight that Democratic leaders had completely lost touch with the working-class roots of the party - while claiming to represent their interests in Washington - sounds pretty damn insightful, especially considering that the bulk of the book seems to have been written in 2015, before the election was even underway.
professionals are the ones whose technocratic outlook tends to prevail. It is their tastes that are celebrated by liberal newspapers and it is their particular way of regarding the world that is taken for granted by liberals as being objectively true. Professionals dominate liberalism and the Democratic Party in the same way that Ivy Leaguers dominate the Obama cabinet. In fact, it is not going too far to say that the views of the modern-day Democratic Party reflect, in virtually every detail, the ideological idiosyncrasies of the professional-managerial class.
unfortunately Listen Liberal is much stronger at diagnosis than it is at cure - while it's very clear that Frank is Real Mad about the end of the New Deal, it's not totally clear what the path not taken was. He has some valid critiques of the 2009 stimulus (lots of it funneled through the tax code; long on highway repairs, short on monumental public buildings), but the arc he charts from FDR to Obama is pretty thin.
"Carter turned out to be a sort of archetype, the first in a series of passionless Democratic technocrats" ... that includes Walter Mondale (!). Frank's reading of "budget-balancing Walter Mondale"'s 523-13 electoral vote loss to Reagan is, apparently, that the party failed to nominate a true liberal. Right.
At the same time, his insight that Democratic leaders had completely lost touch with the working-class roots of the party - while claiming to represent their interests in Washington - sounds pretty damn insightful, especially considering that the bulk of the book seems to have been written in 2015, before the election was even underway.
mikefromco's review against another edition
challenging
medium-paced
2.5
This is one of the interesting pre-Trump left populist books that spends a shocking amount of time whining about liberalism and a even more shockingly little amount of time stating what should be different. Except for saying over and over again “it doesn’t have to be this way” the book does little to actually articulate how it could be different and/or how.
Very much an early contribution to the post-Trump election “dirtbag left” populist trend this one doesn’t quite do as effective job as many of its brethren have done in articulating what should be different.
I also listened to the self-read audiobook and the cadence of the entire book was just a very bitter whining which made this difficult to sit through.
Very much an early contribution to the post-Trump election “dirtbag left” populist trend this one doesn’t quite do as effective job as many of its brethren have done in articulating what should be different.
I also listened to the self-read audiobook and the cadence of the entire book was just a very bitter whining which made this difficult to sit through.
reasonpassion's review against another edition
4.0
Ugh!! If you're of the opinion, even it's only a fragile maybe, that our two-party system is, by and large, truly a one-party system where money simply shifts to which "haves" want more, leaving the "have-nots" wondering who cares about them, then this is the book for you. Nobody leaves unscathed here. This is not simply an indictment of our the democrats and their loss of the worker's soul, it is a declaration of our broken system.
ifoundtheme's review against another edition
3.0
A lot of good points that need to be said. Suffers a little from being written in 2016 under the assumption that Hillary would win.
rick2's review against another edition
3.0
I mostly like this book, but it does raise a few red flags as far as general truthines. In the book ‘good economics for hard times’ there’s a throw a line about how anyone who says there’s a cut and dry answer to the growth of south east Asia is trying to sell you something or is flat out ignorant. I think the same can be said for this trend of “tempting to understand where the left has gone wrong.”
I need to get out of this loop. At some point, every year or so, I get drawn into political books. They’re interesting and give you this artificial feeling that you understand the world better. I’m realizing now, that they really don’t. It’s just hashing and rehashing a bunch of the same events. Trying to sound clever and whatnot with their analysis, but without ever really contributing anything. It’s tough, because I like to read a lot of different stuff, from psychology to history to entrepreneurship and technology. So inevitably someone recommends me a poly sci book and away we go. And all these books have a wide variety of methodological rigor. But I think the PoliSci is the worst. People will look at an event and just level their unfounded opinions at it.
Now that digression aside, I think this book tiptoes that line between nonsense and interesting analysis. Some of it steps into nonsense. But it does seem like a good chunk of it is good. The demographic shifts of the Democratic Party seems spot on. The criticism of tech and “startup culture” is spot on. For all the “innovative” talk, it’s tremendously impressive how most of the startups I see in Austin are rough templates of pretty safe businesses “but with tech!”
Worth a read. Not taking any of it as gospel.
I need to get out of this loop. At some point, every year or so, I get drawn into political books. They’re interesting and give you this artificial feeling that you understand the world better. I’m realizing now, that they really don’t. It’s just hashing and rehashing a bunch of the same events. Trying to sound clever and whatnot with their analysis, but without ever really contributing anything. It’s tough, because I like to read a lot of different stuff, from psychology to history to entrepreneurship and technology. So inevitably someone recommends me a poly sci book and away we go. And all these books have a wide variety of methodological rigor. But I think the PoliSci is the worst. People will look at an event and just level their unfounded opinions at it.
Now that digression aside, I think this book tiptoes that line between nonsense and interesting analysis. Some of it steps into nonsense. But it does seem like a good chunk of it is good. The demographic shifts of the Democratic Party seems spot on. The criticism of tech and “startup culture” is spot on. For all the “innovative” talk, it’s tremendously impressive how most of the startups I see in Austin are rough templates of pretty safe businesses “but with tech!”
Worth a read. Not taking any of it as gospel.
salmonread's review against another edition
3.0
Book Riot Read Harder 2016 Challenge #21: Read a Book About Politics in Your Country or Another (Fiction or Nonfiction)
foxmoon's review against another edition
4.0
This could and should have been about two hundred pages longer.
aamccartan's review against another edition
1.0
The entire first chapter was about how Obama personally let down Thomas Frank, and the second was a selective history of the Democratic party that seemed to elide any information that didn't fit his thesis. Skimmed the middle/end and the thesis did not change or seem to offer any insights I hadn't already gotten from better-argued sources.
transitionaljoint's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
relaxing
medium-paced
3.0