Scan barcode
A review by civreader
The People, No: A Brief History of Anti-Populism by Thomas Frank
3.0
I'm a fan of Frank's books. I've read most of them, and been a follower of his shorter work, too. Some of his books have been superb, and a couple of have not been as convincing/persuasive.
I'm in two minds about this book. There's a lot of interesting history in here, much of which will probably be new to many. Lots of interesting details, observations, points. But it's also quite frustrating. He allows some of his research to take him seemingly off topic - it's eventually clear why he went in these directions, but a bit more focus on structure and overall argument (as opposed to tacking on a summary at the end of each chapter) would have made this a more fluid argument/history.
However, it's not always clear what point he's trying to make - is he just annoyed that the term "populism" has been manipulated into a different meaning to its original? (Yes.) Is he trying to uncover the dishonesty in its use? (Yes.) Is he annoyed with seemingly every political faction? (Yes. Except for Bernie Sanders, maybe.) It takes until the final pages of the book for the author to explicitly draw the connection between original populism and the new progressive movements lead by Sanders et al. Which just seems weird, if I'm honest.
It's a passionate argument, at times. His language, therefore, can come across as just as scolding as he accuses/bemoans others of being. I agree with a many of the points in the book, but he paints with such a broad brush that he comes across as anti-intellectual - "expertise" is used in a tone that can only be described as sneering or dismissive. Government is NOT easy - can we PLEASE stop with the BS that "anyone can do it". It's complicated, vast. Does it need new ideas? Absolutely. But to dismiss expertise and education as fig leaves for rigid consensus thinking, etc., is incredibly dishonest (the author, after all, has a PhD, so it can't ALL be bad...).
In a similar vein, and like Matt Taibbi (who quoted Frank extensively in his last book, "Hate, Inc."), Frank draws sweeping conclusions from anecdotal evidence about Democrats and the Left. He takes issue with the woke Left, and he has a point, but offers pretty minor examples of poor behaviour that really haven't moved the needle for the majority of voters/Americans. This is an area that many on the critical left come a-cropper: what the Left does is pretty minor by comparison to the Right. I also wonder if it's an example of learned research/writing: it is so easy to find plentiful and indicative examples of Republican/right-wing idiocy, corruption, dishonesty, etc., that it leads writers to think that any example of progressive dishonesty/poor behaviour is therefore indicative of the entire movement/faction. (Yes, I'm progressive. But I've also studied US politics for 20 years, and have a PhD in US foreign policy, so I have a bit of game and have done the reading.)
There's a great deal wrong with the American left (and far more wrong with the American right). This is a book that will explain the history of "populism" and, eventually, explain the corruption of that term into the blatant lies of Trump and others of his ilk. (It goes back to Reagan, and has only been enhanced ever since by the Republicans and right-wing in America.)
It's certainly worth a read, and I'd recommend it to anyone with an interesting in American politics and history. Just... be warned that it's sometimes frustrating. And could have been more focused. Also, even though it's a pretty short book, I think it maybe should/could have been shorter.
I'm in two minds about this book. There's a lot of interesting history in here, much of which will probably be new to many. Lots of interesting details, observations, points. But it's also quite frustrating. He allows some of his research to take him seemingly off topic - it's eventually clear why he went in these directions, but a bit more focus on structure and overall argument (as opposed to tacking on a summary at the end of each chapter) would have made this a more fluid argument/history.
However, it's not always clear what point he's trying to make - is he just annoyed that the term "populism" has been manipulated into a different meaning to its original? (Yes.) Is he trying to uncover the dishonesty in its use? (Yes.) Is he annoyed with seemingly every political faction? (Yes. Except for Bernie Sanders, maybe.) It takes until the final pages of the book for the author to explicitly draw the connection between original populism and the new progressive movements lead by Sanders et al. Which just seems weird, if I'm honest.
It's a passionate argument, at times. His language, therefore, can come across as just as scolding as he accuses/bemoans others of being. I agree with a many of the points in the book, but he paints with such a broad brush that he comes across as anti-intellectual - "expertise" is used in a tone that can only be described as sneering or dismissive. Government is NOT easy - can we PLEASE stop with the BS that "anyone can do it". It's complicated, vast. Does it need new ideas? Absolutely. But to dismiss expertise and education as fig leaves for rigid consensus thinking, etc., is incredibly dishonest (the author, after all, has a PhD, so it can't ALL be bad...).
In a similar vein, and like Matt Taibbi (who quoted Frank extensively in his last book, "Hate, Inc."), Frank draws sweeping conclusions from anecdotal evidence about Democrats and the Left. He takes issue with the woke Left, and he has a point, but offers pretty minor examples of poor behaviour that really haven't moved the needle for the majority of voters/Americans. This is an area that many on the critical left come a-cropper: what the Left does is pretty minor by comparison to the Right. I also wonder if it's an example of learned research/writing: it is so easy to find plentiful and indicative examples of Republican/right-wing idiocy, corruption, dishonesty, etc., that it leads writers to think that any example of progressive dishonesty/poor behaviour is therefore indicative of the entire movement/faction. (Yes, I'm progressive. But I've also studied US politics for 20 years, and have a PhD in US foreign policy, so I have a bit of game and have done the reading.)
There's a great deal wrong with the American left (and far more wrong with the American right). This is a book that will explain the history of "populism" and, eventually, explain the corruption of that term into the blatant lies of Trump and others of his ilk. (It goes back to Reagan, and has only been enhanced ever since by the Republicans and right-wing in America.)
It's certainly worth a read, and I'd recommend it to anyone with an interesting in American politics and history. Just... be warned that it's sometimes frustrating. And could have been more focused. Also, even though it's a pretty short book, I think it maybe should/could have been shorter.