Every loyal Democratic Party voter and self-described liberal in the U.S. should read \u201cListen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?<\/a>\u201d by progressive commentator Thomas Frank<\/a>. With meticulous research, Frank illustrates how, when and why the Democrats abandoned their working class constituents and working people overall. The book challenges one of the most powerful propaganda talking points in modern history: that the Democratic Party is unquestionably and always the lesser of two evils in our Democrat-Republican Party corporate duopoly.<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t a new book, but it has remained highly relevant through the Clinton administration, the Obama years, the Biden presidency, and now another Trump presidency. It’s an era where voters still wrestle with the impacts of Wall Street deregulation and free-trade deals.<\/p>\n If you already agree with Frank\u2019s assessment and are seeking guidance on whether you should continue voting for national Democrats, don\u2019t waste time and money on this book. The narrative is dedicated only to a diagnosis of the problem. Only two short paragraphs toward the end of the book actually allude to potential actions voters can take.<\/p>\n You may also enjoy our review of “America: The Farewell Tour<\/a>” by Chris Hedges.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cListen, Liberal\u201d provides a mixture of history on the post-FDR Democratic Party, opinion on these events and psychological analysis of the stereotypical professional managerial class (PMC) American liberal. Frank defines a liberal person more by class membership and mindset than the behavior of voting only for Democrats. It seems like Frank himself votes only for Democrats, yet he does not necessarily regard himself as a liberal.<\/p>\n On page 29, Frank mentions a comp title, \u201cDeath of the Liberal Class<\/a>\u201d by \u201cradical writer\u201d Chris Hedges<\/a>. Fence-sitting liberals should start with \u201cListen, Liberal.\u201d Hardcore leftists should follow Hedges. Hedges\u2019 work, much like Frank\u2019s, serves as a valuable counterpart on any book list covering critiques of liberal politics.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div> At The Rauch Review<\/a>, we care deeply about being transparent and earning your trust. These articles explain why and how we created our unique methodology for reviewing books and other storytelling mediums.<\/p>\n<\/div> Frank wrote this book primarily for people with his pedigree: college-educated loyal Democratic Party voters in white-collar professions. The narrative might resonate a bit more with readers who share aspects of Frank\u2019s demographic background: white, most of your friends are liberals, you were born in the 60s or earlier.<\/p>\n Nonetheless, this book has been life-changing for liberals of all ages and backgrounds. Frank\u2019s reporting is valuable for anyone who wants to become educated on Democratic Party history and political psychology, even for those who will never stop voting for Democrats. The book adds essential context to the rise of Bernie Sanders, who posed one of the most serious internal challenges to the party\u2019s neoliberal direction in decades.<\/p>\n For far leftists<\/a> such as myself, \u201cListen Liberal\u201d is a curation of affirmations for why we left the Democratic Party. For some conservatives, there’s anthropological sadism in spectating liberal hypocrisy.<\/p>\n In the context of U.S. politics, what is a liberal? Frank seems to perceive liberals primarily as white-collar folks who vote for neoliberal Democrats in general elections and have certain beliefs about the world. In his eyes, voting for neoliberal Democrats doesn\u2019t automatically make you a liberal. It\u2019s just that most self-described liberals happen to vote that way.<\/p>\n Since Picador released the 2017 edition of this book, the discussion on the definition of a \u201cliberal\u201d has changed in some factions of the left<\/a>. For people in my political community, voting only for neoliberal Democrats in a general election makes you a \u201cliberal,\u201d which we employ as a synonym for \u201ccentrist\u201d (meaning not on the left at all). It doesn\u2019t matter if you\u2019re working class, PMC, unemployed, educated, white or born in the U.S. You vote only for Democrats; you are<\/em> a Democrat.<\/p>\n Having leftist policy positions and ideology does not automatically make someone leftist. We are leftists because we have these ideals and we vote only for left third parties and independents when it comes to general elections. Many of us also focus more on mutual aid and labor than electoral politics.<\/p>\n Because Thomas Frank did not regard working class Democratic Party voters as liberals, the book does not speak to them effectively. \u201cListen, Liberal,\u201d a book about how the Democratic Party abandoned the working class, is not written for the working class. While lambasting corporate and cultural elitism, Thomas Frank employs fancy words that even I \u2014 a professional writer who loves fancy words \u2014 had to constantly look up. Frank\u2019s reporting champions the working people, yet it feels like he doesn\u2019t think any of them will read this book. He focuses heavily on the cultural and political evolution of the professional class, but rarely speaks to those outside it in plain terms.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t get me wrong. Fancy words are wonderful. People of all classes can enjoy them. They\u2019re part of the beauty of the English language. They just don\u2019t belong in a book about how corporate and cultural elitism expelled the working class from a political party.<\/p>\n You may also like “Empire of Illusion<\/a>” by Chris Hedges.<\/em><\/p>\n Editorial Note: We believe these three factors are important for evaluating general writing quality across every aspect of the book. Before you get into further analysis, here\u2019s a quick breakdown to clarify how we\u2019re using these words:<\/em><\/p>\n If you care about the working class and want the Democratic Party to change, you\u2019ll get a lot out of reading this book. You may feel compelled to publicly criticize the Democratic Party and educate liberals in your life.<\/p>\n Perhaps you\u2019ll consider the progressive Democratic Party reform strategy that has become popular since AOC was elected. Then there\u2019s the far leftist path: Some people, including known commentators Katie Halper<\/a> and Briahna Joy Gray<\/a>\u00a0have cited this book as one of the main reasons they no longer vote for corporate Democrats in general elections. These people have moved on to voting for left third party and left independent candidates.<\/p>\n Thomas Frank is a masterful writer and journalist. Every sentence was clear. Few were unnecessarily long. No typos. It was easy to tell when he wanted his tone to be blunt, sarcastic, mournful, angry or hopeful.<\/p>\n It\u2019s up to you, the reader, to decide whether Frank\u2019s excessive fancy words are a clarity issue. To me, the overall meaning of the sentences were still crystal clear even before I Googled the words. If you enjoy the process of learning vocabulary words, get ready for a treat. If not, I think you\u2019ll be fine.<\/p>\n Depending on how you approach this book, it\u2019s not as long as it appears. The Amazon page for the paperback edition says it\u2019s 352 pages. I don\u2019t know where they got this number. I ordered my paperback from Amazon. It\u2019s 334 pages. The hardcover is supposedly 320 pages.<\/p>\n In the paperback I ordered, 259 to 283 is a post-Trump victory afterword for the 2017 edition. 285 to 319 are notes, which are only worth browsing if you don\u2019t trust Frank as a journalist. 321 to 322 is acknowledgements, and the last pages are an index. After getting through the copyright and promo pages, etc. page 1 to 13 is the introduction, which is interesting for context but not strictly necessary. So, if you want to read this book as fast as possible while still digesting the meat, it\u2019s less than 250 pages for both the paperback and ebook.<\/p>\n I haven\u2019t listened to the Audiobook version<\/a>, but Amazon says it\u2019s around 8 hours. This timeframe feels comparable to how long it would take most people to read the book. Frank is the narrator. Released in March, 2016, we can safely assume it doesn\u2019t have the Trump victory afterword.<\/p>\n Normally I wouldn\u2019t dedicate this much of a review to discussing length, but a lot of readers have justifiably complained about the book repeating several points, especially ones related to the Democratic elite and liberal psychology. If you truncate the reading a bit, you might not experience as much repetition.<\/p>\n For readers who appreciate fancy words and want to learn their meaning, the vocabulary in \u201cListen, Liberal\u201d means an increase in reading time. Each of these words took me a few minutes to look up, digest and recontextualize: demurrals, sclerotic, locution, mugwump, vituperation, Thermidor, cosmogony, helot, telos, spake, climes, maudlin, curlicues, livery and topiary. That\u2019s not even the full list.<\/p>\n For a book called \u201cListen, Liberal,\u201d there is only a modicum of second person perspective (where the author speaks directly to the reader by writing, \u201cyou,\u201d etc.) Instead the work reads like a bookified collection of political essays and journalistic pieces because, well, it kind of is. A paragraph in the copyright page provides transparency:<\/p>\n \u201cThe introduction to Listen, Liberal<\/em> incorporates several passages about income inequality that were published over the course of 2014 in Salon<\/em>, the online magazine, as well as passages that appeared in columns for magazines like Harper\u2019s<\/em> and The Baffler. <\/em>This includes a Harper’s<\/em> column from September 2012 and one from September 2013. The Baffler<\/em> was founded by Frank himself, where he honed many of his sharpest critiques of entrepreneurs, corporate Democrats, and the commodification of culture. Chapter Seven includes bits of an essay that appeared in Bookforum<\/em> in the fall of 2013 and also expands on Salon<\/em> essays that appeared in March 2014, August 2014, and January 2015. Chapter Eight incorporates part of a Harper\u2019s<\/em> magazine column for September 2012. The Afterword includes passages from articles published in 2016 in The Guardian<\/em>, Le Monde diplomatique<\/em>, and Harper\u2019s<\/em> magazine.\u201d<\/p>\n So long as the work includes this type of disclosure and has received permission from the media outlets, it\u2019s perfectly legal, ethical and reasonable for writers to milk money out of their articles by incorporating them into books. If Frank had written the book more separately from his articles, however, I wonder if the narrative would\u2019ve contained less redundant pages.<\/p>\n Editorial Note:<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0Check out our review of “The Real Anthony Fauci” by RFK Jr<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n If The Rauch Review becomes big enough to secure an interview with Frank some day, I\u2019ll simply ask him about this issue. For now here is my theory about how the book\u2019s title developed and why it doesn\u2019t match Frank\u2019s tone.<\/p>\n I think Frank wanted to call the book, \u201cWhat Ever Happened to the Party of the People?\u201d That\u2019s it. This title is similar to \u201cWhat\u2019s the Matter with Kansas?<\/a>,\u201d the book mentioned toward the bottom of the cover and the one many readers believe is his best.<\/p>\n After he had already finished a solid draft, editors pushed for \u201cListen, Liberal\u201d to be the main part of the title, but not for the draft to change accordingly. The result was \u201cListen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?\u201d<\/p>\n Normally I don\u2019t include our setting section in political nonfiction book reviews, but Frank does an amazing job describing his personal and professional experiences with liberal areas and elite liberal gatherings such as South by Southwest. The conclusion chapter, before the afterword, is about how Martha\u2019s Vineyard has morphed from a working class fishing area to a microcosm of neoliberal elitism and corruption. These shifts are emblematic of how both parties, not just Republicans, embraced the interests of Wall Street and billionaire donors over those of the middle class. Frank\u2019s field notes remind us that he is a seasoned journalist and on-the-ground reporter, not only a commentator.<\/p>\n Using his excellent reporting and sharp wit, Frank deconstructs the classism of the modern Democratic Party. Below are some key points, some of which I thought were particularly interesting. Those curious about the details should read the book.<\/p>\n Unless the Democratic Party returns to its working class roots, this book will always be relevant. The latest edition may be from 2017, but it was an important book going into 2020 as well because millions of liberals viewed Joe Biden as yet another lesser-of-two-evils choice. Few liberals voted affirmatively for Biden, who is as corporate, corrupt and anti-working class as Hillary Clinton. It was all about stopping Donald Trump by any means necessary.<\/p>\n The definition of a liberal may be subject to change, but the history in \u201cListen, Liberal\u201d will always be important. Recommend this book to anyone interested in U.S. politics, regardless of how they politically identify.<\/p>\n The definition of a liberal is subjective. All of us politics buffs are going to debate it eternally.<\/p>\n If you\u2019re going to write a book and consent to it being titled \u201cListen, Liberal,\u201d however, it\u2019s best if people can\u2019t easily argue that the finger on the cover should be pointing at you. Regardless of whether Frank agrees, one of the most common definitions of a liberal \u2014 one I subscribe to \u2014 is a person who votes only for Democrats in general elections.<\/p>\n Not only did Frank vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election, he did so for one of the most shallow and stereotypically liberal reasons I\u2019ve heard. Here\u2019s a quote from page 243 of the 2017-updated paperback edition: \u201cShe had much to recommend for the nation\u2019s highest office\u2014for one thing, her knowledge of Washington; for another, the Republican vendetta against her, which was so vindictive and so unfair that I myself voted for her just to show what I thought of it.\u201d<\/p>\n Really? That\u2019s why you voted for Hillary Clinton? Because Republicans were mean to her? I have heard much better arguments.<\/p>\n Generally speaking, I don\u2019t judge people for their votes, especially not Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden voters. After all, I voted for Hillary Clinton in the general election, after voting for Bernie in the primary. According to my own definition, I was a liberal at the time. Between 2017 and 2020, I transitioned firmly into being a leftist\/populist<\/a>. Had I known in 2016 what I know now, I would\u2019ve voted for Jill Stein.<\/p>\n Editorial Note: If you haven\u2019t already, I suggest you read my article, \u201cA Friendly Open Letter to Liberal Readers Who May Disagree With Me.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Again, I\u2019m being hard on Frank specifically because he wrote this book and seems unwilling to discuss or seriously consider left alternatives to the Democratic Party. I would bet $1,000 that he voted for Biden in the 2020 general election and plans to do so again in 2024. During a 2021 interview<\/a> with Bad Fatih host and former Bernie campaign press secretary Briahna Joy Gray, Frank was very defensive of Biden\u2019s performance.<\/p>\n Nonetheless, Frank\u2019s weakness on this issue doesn\u2019t tarnish his amazing reporting and problem analysis. Perhaps solution creativity is a different part of the mind. There is only so much talent a man can be blessed with.<\/p>\n In Frank’s Amazon author page bio<\/a>, there is a “Questions frequently asked Thomas Frank.” section that includes this question: “Aren’t you one of these liberals that you’re always scolding?” The wording is confusing. I’m not sure how involved Frank is in the maintenance of this page. He doesn’t seem like the kind of person who would leave a typo such as “Questions frequently asked Thomas Frank.” Conversely, the wording of all the questions very much reads like Frank’s style. Perhaps he wrote those questions and sent them to the publisher. It’s common for commercially successful traditionally published authors to be oblivious to many aspects of their online presence.<\/p>\n If Frank did write that question, he’s aware of the “but you’re a liberal” criticism. Again, if I can ever secure an interview with him, I think our conversation will be illuminating.<\/p>\n The book itself shows off heaps of praise from liberal publications such as The New York Times Book Review, The Washington Post and The Huffington Post. My theory is that these outlets were willing to praise \u201cListen, Liberal\u201d during its pre-November 2016 release because Trump hadn\u2019t won yet, and they didn\u2019t think he would. In our post-Trump era, I can\u2019t imagine liberal publications cosigning a book like this. Their editors would be too scared of attacking the Democratic Party in a way that might contribute to a second Trump victory.<\/p>\n In terms of consumer reviews, there are pretty much two types out there:<\/p>\n As a former liberal who wants to push people left \u2014 from liberalism\/centrism to leftism\/populism \u2014 it\u2019s wonderful to see reviews<\/a> with lines like this: \u201cI have to admit that this book helped me challenge my own perspective on my so-called liberalism.\u201d<\/p>\n While browsing reviews, I saw the word, \u201cpolemic,\u201d for the first time, so I looked it up. Here\u2019s the definition from Cambridge Dictionary<\/a>: \u201ca piece of writing or a speech in which a person strongly attacks or defends a particular opinion, person, idea, or set of beliefs.\u201d<\/p>\n The word came up in this line from a high-ranking 5-star Goodreads review: \u201cI pretty much agree with most (heck all!) of Franks\u2019 analysis, although he veers into a full blown sarcastic polemic.\u201d<\/p>\n I also saw it in this Amazon review<\/a>: \u201cIn this polemic, Frank paints a grim picture of the evolving Democratic Party and how it has abandoned its natural working class constituency, which stems back to FDR’s New Deal and beyond.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cListen, Liberal\u201d is definitely a polemic against the stereotypical elitist professional managerial class liberal mindset. It is not a polemic against liberalism or the Vote Blue No Matter Who mindset. Frank is sympathetic to non-elite liberals.<\/p>\n The word, polemic, tends to refer to books with much more aggressive, controversial and potentially offensive opinions. If you Google search polemic books, the first result is a Goodreads page that includes these titles:<\/p>\n Compared to these books, \u201cListen, Liberal\u201d is barely a polemic, which is perhaps why only a few reviewers regard it as such.<\/p>\n For a moment, let\u2019s pretend we haven\u2019t heard of Thomas Frank or any of his books. We\u2019re walking through a bookstore, and we see \u201cListen, Liberal\u201d on a display shelf alongside other political thought leadership titles. We\u2019re too far away to see \u201cWhat Ever Happened to the Party of the People?\u201d The clearly visible elements are \u201cListen, Liberal,\u201d the author’s name and that big, white, knuckled hand with an index finger outstretched toward us \u2014 literal finger pointing.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know about you, but I would think the book is one of those conservative thought leadership titles on how liberals are wrong about everything, how they\u2019re ruining the country. I wouldn\u2019t take it seriously. I wouldn\u2019t even approach it closely enough to read the subheading portion of the title.<\/p>\n \u201cListen, Liberal\u201d may be catchier and simpler than \u201cWhat Ever Happened to the Party of the People?\u201d, but the latter would be much more effective for referring the book to liberals. I have yet to successfully refer this book to a liberal loved one. It\u2019s obvious that the title is a barrier for them. Instead of a finger pointing, something like a blue donkey could have ensured people understood the Democratic Party subject matter.<\/p>\n\u2018Listen, Liberal\u2019 Summary: A Mixture of History, Opinion and Psychological Analysis<\/h2>\n
\n
‘Listen, Liberal’ Audience and Genre: Thoughtful Political Analysis for White-Collar Liberals Who Vote Blue No Matter Who<\/h2>\n
Differing Definitions of a Liberal<\/h3>\n
Alienation of Working Class Readers<\/h3>\n
Three Cs: Compelling, Clear, Concise<\/h2>\n
\n
Compelling: Only If You\u2019re Open to a Critical View of the Democratic Party<\/h3>\n
Clear: Excellent Writing, But Do You Like Fancy Words?<\/h3>\n
Concise: Not As Long As It Appears, But A Lot of Repetition<\/h3>\n
Revisiting the Fancy Words Issue From a Length Perspective<\/h4>\n
Prose Style: Political Essay Collection, Lack of Second Person That Doesn\u2019t Fit the Title<\/h2>\n
My Theory on Why the ‘Listen, Liberal’ Title and Prose Style Don\u2019t Match<\/h3>\n
Setting: Rich Descriptions of Elite Liberal Gatherings and Areas<\/h2>\n
Rhetoric: Very Specific and Compelling, Beyond the Usual \u2018Democrats Suck\u2019<\/h2>\n
\n
Cultural and Political Significance: Always Relevant, Especially When a Lesser-of-Two-Evils Choice is Looming<\/h2>\n
Authenticity\/Credibility: Does Frank\u2019s Vote for Hillary Clinton Make Him a Liberal?<\/h2>\n
A Confusing Amazon Author Page Bio<\/h3>\n
Critiquing the Critics: Would Liberal Outlets Praise a Book Like This Post-Trump?<\/h2>\n
Consumer Attitudes: Some Liberals Are Listening<\/h3>\n
\n
Is It a Polemic?<\/h3>\n
\n
‘Listen Liberal’ Book Aesthetic: Eye-Catching But Easy to Misunderstand<\/h2>\n
Reviewer\u2019s Personal Opinion: I Thought It Would Dissuade A Lot of People From Voting for National Democrats. I Was Wrong.<\/h2>\n