Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush [Paperback]

Joshua Frank (Author), Jeffrey St. Clair (Introduction)

Book Description

Publication Date: March 1, 2005

“The evidence unearthed here will unnerve many progressives who nurse their news from the nipples of the New York Times. But it’s not too late to wean yourselves. Frank’s sober assessment offers progressives a nourishing shot at redemption at the most tremulous hour of the republic.”—Jeffrey St. Clair

Noam Chomsky once pointed out that a lot can be learned by examining the left end of the mainstream political debate because it reveals the limits to the principles guiding American power. Joshua Frank reveals that those limits are not only narrow, but are an ominous trend.

Born and raised in Montana, Joshua Frank lives in New York City. His work has appeared in many publications, including CounterPunch and Z Magazine.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Born and raised in Montana, Josh Frank lives in New York City. His work has appeared in many publications, including Counterpunch, Left Turn and Z Magazine. This is his first book Jeffrey St. Clair is an award-winning investigative journalist, co-editor of political newsletter CounterPunch and author of nine books, including Whiteout: the CIA, Drugs and the Press, Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: the Politics of Nature and Imperial Crusades: Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia.

Product Details

• Paperback: 180 pages
• Publisher: Common Courage Press (March 1, 2005)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1567513107
• ISBN-13: 978-1567513103
• Product Dimensions: 0.6 x 5.4 x 7.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,125,923 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Joshua Frank, born in Billings, Montana, is a journalist and writer living in the United States and covers current political and environmental topics. His articles and essays appear in CounterPunch, Z Magazine, Truthout, and Alternet, among other publications. His work can be found at: http://greenmuckraker.com/

He holds a graduate degree in environmental conservation from New York University.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

36 of 38 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Quite a Marvel June 15, 2005

By SR

Format:Paperback

This really is an excellent read. Although Amazon states that this book was released in March of 2004, it was actually just released in June 2005. It is an analysis of the 2004 elections from a left-liberal perspective.

Frank's introduction is about an experience he had in DC with his Montana Senator Max Baucus, and how at a young age he was a stanch Democrat who didn't ask questions, but just went along for the ride. It was only later that he realized that not all Democrats could be trusted. And Sen. Baucus taught him a harsh lesson.

From there Frank opens Left Out! with a 100 page or so section on DNC chair and ex-Vermont Gov. Howard Dean for his tenure in Vermont and positions on many issues during his campaign for president. Frank argues that by analyzing Dean and his candidacy, which was on top for so long, we can learn a lot about Democratic politics and progressive "change" within the party. This section of the book is really great. It uncovers more on Howard Dean than any other book out there, and I've read all of the Dean books. This is one journalist that isn't afraid to dig deep. And he does just that. The Dean section alone should be enough to entice any Democrat, Deaniac or progressive to read this book. It really could shake some things up.

From there Frank exposes Wesley Clark and even the late liberal Senator Paul Wellstone, both supposed anti-war politicians. But as Frank argues, they were anything but. Frank than goes into many issues so many think Bush has spearheaded: the assault on civil liberties, the environment, Iraq, the economy, domestic issues etc. This section of the book is quite provocative. Frank lays out very clearly how Bush and the neo-cons have capitalized on the Clinton years.... I have to say, I had no idea Clinton did all these things. From bombing Iraq to enacting the Salvage Rider law and the Effective Death Penalty Act. It's all in here and really the similarities between Clinton and Bush are astounding.

In the end Frank says that in order to beat the Republicans we must really take on the Democrats for their faults. Because if we don't, we will continue to lose because we are not standing for the issues we believe in.

I really think this is the must read book coming out of the 2004 elections. Frank is a great writer. I couldn't put this book down once it arrived in the mail. So if you want to know why John Kerry and the Democrats lost in 2004, read this book! It makes sense! And it's about time someone did. Read more ›

25 of 28 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars If you don't take charge, the inmates run the aslyum....and election August 17, 2005

By Robin Orlowski

Format:Paperback

Written by a progressive, this book concedes that the Democrats failed to capitalize on the ever-growing citizen opposition to the Iraq war during the 2004 elections. After saying how badly we wanted to have Bush out of office, we failed to accomplish this on Election Day because our message became virtually indistinguishable from the Republicans.

Although they started out good (nominating a Vet who later became an anti-war organizer) the Democratic Party became timid during the actual fall contest. Ironically as Kerry was being portrayed as a "Massachusetts Liberal" he was attempting to moderate himself. Unfortunately, this moderation was what undercut the efficacy of the campaign.

When it became a race to see who would not say anything bad about anything having to do with the military, some voters tuned out. They supported the troops, but had wanted to hear straight talk about how the Bush administration forged evidence and wasted taxpayer money in Iraq. With the information that they were then-being given, these people had assumed that the candidates were uniformly alike and/or having Bush remain in office during a 'war' was better than attempting to change course with an 'unknown'.

The main problem was that the Kerry campaign did not clearly articulate where and how it differed from the White House. While it is true that incumbents do have an organization advantage over their challengers, an effective challenge provides strong justification (as did the 1992 election of Bill Clinton) for a regime change.

Then the Bush campaign proactively defined Kerry's image to the voters. Kerry spent the campaign having to tell voters who he was while he should have been able to instead talk about the issues which were going to be decided by and through the election.... For all of the 'liberal bias' complaints which conservatives lodge, they were silent because this spin was benefiting their own candidate's campaign efforts.

He also addresses the issue of third party voting as a means for American progressives to effect genuine political change, and (I feel) does a much better job than occasional Green Ralph Nader. A third party would give progressives a better chance at having their preferences heeded in the American political system. Yet, I feel that he too fails to acknowllege that a better chance is not the same as a guarantee and any elected official has to compromise with each other (including members of their own party) in order to pass a bill.

Reading the prescriptions in this book would have been very hard immediately following Election Day 2004. I and many other progressives then felt as if something inside America had died. Because we honestly expected that Bush would loose, those results were especially frustrating. Yet, this tough love is needed so we can stop making the same mistakes and then begin creating the change which we do want to see. Read more ›

20 of 23 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars The Democrats are almost as bad on many issues as Republicans September 12, 2005

By Chris

Format:Paperback

This book seems to have been very quickly written. It seems sloppy and lacking clarity at times. At the same time, the first half of the book at least, is very well researched.

The first half of the book is devoted to Howard Dean. Frank quotes an official at a right wing Vermont think tank who remarked during Dean's presidential campaign that the candidate's populist liberal persona was quite different from the persona of Howard Dean the Governor of Vermont from 1991-2003. Dean instituted welfare reform in Vermont and enthused over Clinton's national version of it. On law and order issues, he was a typical demagogue,. In 1999, as governor he blocked the provision for Vermont of 115,000 dollars in federal grants for legal representation for mentally ill defendants.

He praised Newt Gingrich's schemes for medicare. He repeatedly declared himself against any government run health program, a position which he seemed to reverse during his campaign. As governor he postured as a fiscal conservative in the usual fraudulent ways of politicians. He cut 7 million dollars in funds for state education and teacher's retirement, 4 million in health care for the elderly, 2 million in welfare benefits for the disabled and 1.2 million in medicare. Of course while he cut funds for the working class and the most vulnerable in the relatively small population of Vermont, he appropriated 30 million for new prisons (and for the pockets of prison contractor corporations and the rest), seven million for a low interest loan program for businesses and cut the state income tax by eight percent. By 2002, Dean had increased funding for Vermont's prisons by 150 percent but for it's colleges and universities, only increased 7 percent....

Dean is a strong supporter of Israel's oppression and apartheid in the Occupied territories. He supported the first Gulf War and said in February 2003 that he would support a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq if Saddam failed to comply with UN resolutions (or at least if the U.S. claims that he hasn't complied with them)within a one or two month deadline.. Even more to the right, Frank notes, "anti-war" Wesely Clark, a war criminal and convert to the Democratic party apparently when Bush wouldn't appoint him to any position in the War on Terror, wrote in the British press in April 2003 that Bush and Blair should be proud of themselves for their "liberation." Frank writes that Norman Solomon gave 1500 dollars to Clark's campaign.

Dean aroused the fervent opposition of Vermont grassroots activists with his environmental policies. He continually sided with big agricultural interests against persons complaining that pesticides were causing cognitive disorders, producing noise, dust, flies, reducing property, etc. His administration was notorious for issuing permits for virtually any development permit and the result was massive sprawl, strip malls, the elimination of small farms, etc.

It is ironic that while during his presidential campaign, he denounced tax havens in the Carribean, but as governor only a few years before he had declared that he wanted Vermont to become the a "little Bermuda." He was able to give tax shelter to certain insurance companies, including an Enron laundering operation and reduced the insurance premiums that corporations like Dupont were supposed to pay by 60 percent. Dean supported NAFTA and the WTO. He said that NAFTA had helped Vermont. Frank notes that in reality, after NAFTA, Vermont's exports declined by 38 percent and 6,000 plus jobs lost in the state's relatively small workforce.
Real wages at the height of the Clinton "boom ", Frank writes were still 10 percent below the Nixon-Ford era, even though U.S. economic productivity in 2000 was 50 percent higher than in 1974. The rich absorbed the vast majority of the gains in wealth during that time. The poverty rate declined by 4 percent, reversing its increase since the Reagan years but it only climbed back down to the level it was in 1974. The poor acquired such tiny benefits during Clinton's regime however the GDP at the end of Clinton's term was 74 percent higher than in 1974, the stock market increased by 600 percent in value, etc. The rich got almost all the gains in wealth during that time. Measured in 2001 dollars, Frank writes, the amount of money needed by the average impoverished family to move across the poverty line went from $1538 in 1993 to $1620 in 1999.

He writes about how establishment environmental groups like the Sierra Club serve as covers for destruction of the environment by endorsing Democratic politicians like Ron Wyden and Max Baucus who have nice rhetoric on behalf of the environment but are heavily funded by environmentally destructive industries and push forward highly destructive actions like Clinton's salvage rider bill. Then there was the destruction of 2.5 million acres of old growth forests in Oregon under the Fire Prevention Bill. Frank notes Fox river case in Wisconsin. It was recommended that the Fox River be reduced to .25 ppm's of PCB's in sediments in the river. The Sierra Club brokered a compromise whereby the sediment level would be reduced to only 1 ppm PCB's, ninety percent higher than concentrations of ppm PCB's that are fully protective of human health. The river is a heavy source of fish, so people consuming the latter are at a high risk for cancer and other things. Then the club endorsed a plan in Montana which allowed for timber sales and clear cutting on 14,000 acres. Frank writes that the annual board feet of clear cutting of forests was vastly greater under Clinton than under Bush so far, as bad as Bush is.

Frank writes of the interesting episode in 2000 when Richard Holbrooke and Paul Wolfowitz came together at a function at John Hopkins University. Holbrooke played a leading role as under secretary of state for Asian affairs in the late 70's in. sending U.S. weapons to Indonesia as it slaughtered many tens of thousands of people in its occupation of East Timor. Wolfowitz was once ambassador to Indonesia and a Suharto apologist. Holbrooke said something interesting at the function about keeping the issue of East Timor out of the 2000 campaign. Read more ›