Comments on: What’s the Matter With Thomas Frank?

By: The Agitator » Blog Archive » What’s (Still) the Matter with Thomas Frank?

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:27:04 +0000

[...] his book, and I’ll concede I haven’t read the rest of the book. I have read his prior criticism of Beltway libertarians, which is that we’re walking contradictions because we advocate for free markets while living [...]

By: max

max — Wed, 21 May 2008 22:07:15 +0000

i was on the fence about being insulted or amused. either frank ( supposedly brought up as a libertarian republican) is woefully ignorant of libertarians or has a severe case of washingtonitis. while not a libertarian myself, i know several and have never met a single one who object to subsidies, and indeed well over half of them subsidize other people themselves. the objection is not to subsidy but to government subsidy ( or coerced subsidy but many would argue that all government subsidies are coerced), a person should be free to accept or give any subsidy they want with their own resources and i know of no libertarian who would find this offensive. individualism does not mean being isolated from society but means that one must be allowed to be autonomous in control of one’s life.

By: James Poulos » The Tragic Irony of Thomas Frank

James Poulos » The Tragic Irony of Thomas Frank — Wed, 21 May 2008 21:04:40 +0000

[...] vexes Frank so deeply, it’s be the very organization he’s using to symbolize it. As Radley Balko has just blogged, “It isn’t difficult to mock libertarians for arguments they aren’t [...]

By: Andy Vance

Andy Vance — Wed, 21 May 2008 19:49:45 +0000

Oooops.

By: Greg C.

Greg C. — Wed, 21 May 2008 19:37:11 +0000

Starting with the whole RP newsletter thing ( at least that’s when I noticed it) all this “Beltway libertarian” nonsense seemed to pop-up. I don’t know if people are delusional or just really stupid.

If you believed everything that “beltway libertarian” critics wrote, you would know that Radley is a big-government Republican, pro-war, pro-police state “neocon” who spends all his free time doing lines of coke off male strippers.

And we know that is the case, right?

By: Kevin B. O'Reilly

Kevin B. O'Reilly — Wed, 21 May 2008 17:14:26 +0000

This does not reflect on the validity of your argument, but I don’t think it’s accurate to call Reason a Beltway organization. I mean, you know that. I guess it does have a Beltway *presence* now, but this would be akin to calling every newspaper with a D.C. bureau a Beltway news organization.

By: Radley Balko

Radley Balko — Wed, 21 May 2008 16:55:01 +0000

But that’s sorta’ the whole point. Frank blames libertarians for making the world safe for lobbyists — whether actively or passively. But that’s not what we’re saying. What we’re saying is that if government were less influential, there’d be less influence for sale.

Lobbying in itself isn’t inherently good or evil. It can be used for both purposes. And let’s fact it, if you’re a corporation of any size and you don’t have a presence in Washington, you’re doing your shareholders a disservice–because all of your competitors do.

That said, I certainly don’t believe that lobbyists are an integral part of the free market. In a free market, lobbyists wouldn’t be necessary.

By: BloodyMaryBreakfast

BloodyMaryBreakfast — Wed, 21 May 2008 16:24:40 +0000

I guess I don’t read that article the same way. Frank doesn’t say you argue for or champion anything; I read the “pious shine” comment to mean a “well, what did you expect?” tone that places blame squarely where it belongs – government power and money – rather than blasting away at lobbyists performing jobs that the “current” (as opposed to “free”) market incentivises heavily.

30 seconds of Googling “lobbyist site:reason.com” yields plenty of results that fit that description, including this from Kerry Howley dated April 4, 2006:

“Lobbyists do have too much power in Washington relative to regular citizens, and Congressmen are constantly consulting lobbyists for specialized information on a dizzying array of detailed issues they have no knowledge of and no business deciding. Lobbyists are substitutes for knowledgeable staffers in a federal government sprawled so greatly, micromanaging so intently, that K Street’s 14,000 foot soldiers are a necessary backstop.

If lobbyists have a hand in everything Washington does, that’s at least partly because Washington wants a hand in what everyone else does. Real “lobbying reform” wouldn’t outlaw free lunches. It would just make them worthless. ”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/117382.html

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 21 May 2008 16:13:59 +0000

It’s simplistic beyond belief to claim that an employee of Defense Company X International is in the private sector and leave it at that. DCXI wouldn’t exist without the deep well of federal money. Ditto for any of a huge number of corporations and firms in the area. And good luck trying to measure the productivity of DC’s private sector ;)

Truly, unless you live here it’s difficult to comprehend how vast the whole enterprise is. Spend a night in a Georgetown bar and you’ll be unlikely find a single professional who isn’t employed by a Congressional staff, lobbying firm, law firm with ties to federal agencies, or a government contractor.

By: TomMil

TomMil — Wed, 21 May 2008 15:52:27 +0000

…by which a public servant takes a cushy corporate job after engineering some extravagant government favor for the corporation in question – or its clients.

He calls it “free market”, I call it “corruption”. Oh well, you what they say, “You say, ‘tom-ay-toe’ I say. ‘You’re full of shit’.”

By: UCrawford

UCrawford — Wed, 21 May 2008 14:57:52 +0000

So I’d guess that this would be an indicator of the kind of changes the Wall Street Journal’s undergone since Rupert Murdoch took over…subtly shifting from attacking big government to supporting corporatism. That’s a damn shame, since I really loved reading the Journal.

By: Christopher Monnier

Christopher Monnier — Wed, 21 May 2008 14:25:50 +0000

Straw man!