The Michigan Partisan | About Me | Home | | Contact Me |

By Page W. H. Brousseau IV

It makes sense, pay people more and less the government has to pay for social benefits, yet complexities are never liberal strong points. Therefore, I can forgive Frank for his slight. However, what keeps companies paying their employees a high wage? What keeps them in the States when other workers can work for less and without environmental constraints? The sole answer: unions. This seems to be the answer to America's wage woes, if more people worked in union jobs wages would skyrocket. The author never mentions how untrained people acquire job skills since many unions place restrictions on new employees and who are hired, forcing companies to overlook the untrained and uneducated. Yet Frank's book succeeds because it is not an economic, but social look on politics.

For a more simplistic look at this is the 1994 book, The Great Limbaugh Con, by Charles M. Kelly. Kelly bluntly illustrates that Limbaugh listeners, and Republican voters, are buffoons, ignoring the downtrodden for a chance at sticking it to the little guy. Kelly does what most liberals do when they attack conservatives, they do what they accuse the other fellow of doing, in this case Kelly begs the questions that liberal economic ideas lead to high wages and low unemployment. This is done through total unionization and stiflement of international trade, so says Kelly. However, those pesky Republicans seek to destroy unions in order to pay their workers as little as possible, and then ship their plants overseas. Evil Republicans, in the pocket of "Big Business" line up in support of laws and policies that hurt the poor working Joe.

I see unions as a counter balance to capital, what I disagree with is the overt political nature of unions. Election after election unions line up to pour their rank and file's dues into the coffers of Democrats across the country. The rank in file get no voice into where, or even if, their dues should be dispersed. Democrats can support Free Trade and not pay a price with the unions, Republicans can demand other countries increase their environmental and worker laws and not receive a "thank you" card. Then to add the non working issues unions take stands on, which happen to by right from the DNC platform. Issues from abortion to gun control are debated by nearly every major union at annually conferences.

Is there any wonder that such a high percentage of union members listen to Limbaugh and yank the handle for the GOP every other year? Kelly never takes on the unions as a cause of their workers voting behavior, rather he places blame on capitalism, which he defines getting all you can and bilking your company and local areas out of every resource imaginable. This theme is repeated at such a rate I wondered how anyone can get ahead in this country, which is Kelly's precise point. You need to work for a union at a high wage to support your kids, businesses have no right to lower costs, and Republicans do not care for workers. Which if the last is true it makes you wonder how the GOP plans on gaining voters.

The author's hilarity reaches a crescendo with Limbaugh's attacks on the media. Kelly freely admits an overwhelming majority of members of the Forth Establishment are liberal, but he says that hardly proves there is liberal bias. He even goes as far as stating nearly all reporters are liberal, "Those who report the news…those people are predominately liberal." As proof that liberals can report the news objectively he uses the Wall Street Journal, yea that left me scratching my head as well. Since Kelly believes Republicans and conservatives care nothing at all about environmental problems, worker rights, or corrupt CEOs, he pulls out a list of articles where the Journal reported on the above. Thus, since conservative reporters would never report on that, you must have liberals churning out these articles. How else can you explain that one, Mr. America?

Using one of the greatest, and I would give him, creative, leaps in the book, Kelly states the reason there are so many liberals in the media is because, "the reporter sees what is happening in our country, reports news events objectively, and, in the process, becomes liberal."

Let us use this logic in different predominately liberal areas, colleges, and Hollywood. Professor X is a history teacher at the University. He was just a young spunk when he was hired, but now he is a crotchety-flaming liberal, the worst kind. His transformation was brought upon countless cups of coffee, and reading term papers. He begins to see that liberal policies were indeed the nirvana that they were promised, and if not for the likes of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan, the New Deal and Great Society would have rid America of poverty. Also, if we were not so aggressive in defeating Communism, we could have lived in harmony with our Red brothers.

Do not get Professor X started on the Global War on Terror. His reading of history has given him the clairvoyance to see Republicans as war hungry liars, just look at that douchebag McKinley. He also knows the world revolves around conspiracies, mainly run by evil corporations, and they are the true puppet masters, GOPers are merely empty shrills carrying out their master's commands.

In Hollywood, actor Mr. X is a flaming liberal as well. He never cared so much for politics when he came here, but years of drug parties, wild sex, and learning about life's problems from the scripts his agent sends him has forced him to stand up. Now he is pro-choice, because of that movie where the girl died from that coat hanger at Wal-Mart. He is anti-death penalty, because of that movie where the man was executed because he was black. He is anti-gun because of that movie where that kid took his dad's gun and shot his girlfriend.

So, can you can see how easily it is to morph from a know nothing conservative to a liberal? Reality says how silly it is to say reporters are liberal because they report what happens in life. Only if your view is distorted before you "see" what happens can you say, "If only handguns were banned this drive-by would not have happened." A conservative could look at it and say, "If only that thug stayed in jail longer, and prosecutors took illegal gun activity seriously, and those involved had parents that cared and loved them this crime would not have happened."

Kelly takes issue at the way rich spend their money. He lambastes Forbes for advertising eccentric gifts and do-dads, apparently only to their conservative readers, because according to Kelly, liberals care little about such fluff and flair. Those damn rich buy more homes than they can live in, and in one heartbreaking story, a rich man from Florida bought river front property in Tennessee and fenced it off. Leaving the local kids barred from their dipping spot on hot summer days. Excuse me, I

have to wipe a tear away. Ok, I am back. One aspect which I found myself grudgingly agreeing with was Kelly's argument that rich can force poor to moderate income workers out of housing markets. Because of the system of Capital Gains Tax, wealthy investors can buy property, causing the market to increase, sell, and then pay less than if the income was real income. Since this hole in the CGT inflates the property values he argues about the evilness of the CGT, ignoring its double taxation when used on Wall Street.

The book is over a decade old, which excuses Kelly from implicating that Republicans feel poor workers get what they deserve because of their educational background (what year was that part of the platform?). I remember in the Cheney-Edwards debate last year. The Veep was asked what the GOP was planning to do to help people climb out of poverty, Cheney started ticking off the education programs the Administration was pushing. Edwards interrupted, adjusted his hair with a sway of his head and said, "The question was about jobs, not education." Ah, yes, Democratic logic, working as Fry Cook #2 is not just a job but a career.

Milton Freeman's view on increasing wages is simple, bring more jobs in, more people are working, then employers have to compete for workers, thus wages shoot up. It does work, but companies and governments conspire to keep wages low. Kelly points to Spartanburg, South Carolina, as proof Freeman is a loon. The unions can be a balance to capital when wages are not controlled by local employers but by the corporate office.

In Spartanburg, the local government, and governor's office actively discouraged union shops from locating there. They continued to discourage employers from paying their workers more than the local economy sustained. This is quite counter productive, you have jobs in the area, but now social services are high to make up for the shortfall, it is nearsighted and fails to wing the local governments off taxes. States routinely give away tens of millions of dollars to companies to lure their new factories. This puts politicians in a hole before a single new job is created.

Freeman's view is correct, if government stays out of the way businesses and wages will increase. It should actively try to increase number of jobs and wages at the same time, it does not have to be one or the other.

The tax question. What would a liberal book be without a call for higher taxes? Conservatives, Kelly says, "would rather spend money for police and prisons than for libraries, public schools or public parks." There you have it, more trees and fewer men in blue could solve our problems. His argument is that preventing crimes saves money, but what about those criminals in jail? Are not crimes being prevented by that? No matter, conservatives care not about the poor.

Kelly, to his credit spends little time on social issues like abortion and gun control. If he did I wonder what he would say. He comes close to threatening a Lenin style revolution by the working class if conservatives do not get their act together. He excuse violet crime that infects the poor neighborhoods with a, "hey these guys are poor and not unionized," attitude.

He gives a dire warning to those conservatives that fail to take heed: "Even if you are rich and well educated, the areas of your own community in which you can safely travel are constantly getting smaller. You could be sitting in a shopping mall and get shot in someone's killing spree." Dun, dun, dunnnnn. I could be sitting at a traffic light and be struck by spacecraft controlled by zombies. In the decade since Kelly wrote this violent gun crime has fallen to 1960's levels. Wait, he goes on, "But there are too many people without decent jobs who just don't care if they live or die any more." Can't you see what we are creating?! Millions of willing revolutionaries just looking for an excuse to knock you off, Mr. CEO and Mr. Republican. I always love it when economic arguments morph straight into violent threats.

What liberal attack against Republicans is complete without race. Kelly quotes Limbaugh saying, "I am not a bigot, I am not a racist, a homophobe, male chauvinist pig, or any of that." Kelly responds with a, "Maybe not," that is like me calling you a traitor, you say you are not, and I shoot back a "maybe not" in a sarcastic tense.

Kelly then says Limbaugh "appeals" to racists and homophobes; in fact that is precisely what Al Franken does. Of course, proof of this is lacking, one of those, "Republicans only care about the rich" type of arguments that fill this book.

He does offer some proof, "You know it, and I know it," to be true. Man, he convinced me. Never to miss an opportunity to equate Nazis with Republicans, Kelly wonders if Americans can resist, "the same kinds of destructive appeals," that let Hitler rise to power. Just for good measure he lets a, "More and more of our citizens no longer care if they live or die," slip into the argument. Dun, dun, dunnnnn.

The book ends with a tidy call to vote for liberal politicians or face having "totalitarian leaders." That call seems to fit into this book. What's the Matter with Kansas? debated economic policy from a view point that both sides actually cared, but differed on their view of economics. The Great Limbaugh Con sees Republicans (and conservative Democrats) as the source of poverty, crime, poor education, lack of tax base, lose of jobs, racism and cause of kids losing their swimming holes. When I think about it, I do miss Reagan's policy on "no-good Commies" frolicking in our countries lakes and stream. Reading this book makes me wish we had man like Ronald Reagan again.

© The Michigan Partisan 2005