If you want to measure the success of conservatism by a linguistic standard alone, count the political ads that use the word conservative and those that use the word liberal. It won't be a close race.

Thomas Frank, author of the best-selling What's the Matter With Kansas?, doesn't think there's anything wrong with being a liberal - and he believes most Americans like what liberal policies have meant, from Social Security to environmental regulation to seeking a balance between labor and capital. In his new book, The Wrecking Crew, he scrutinizes the conservative movement, calling it a brazen hijacking of public policy.

In advance of his appearance in Denver next week, we interviewed Frank from his home in Washington, D.C.

There's a move afoot to establish a Chair of Conservative Thought at the University of Colorado. Based on your knowledge of conservatism, what would that person teach?

There's a growing and quite large literature on the history of conservatism. What we often forget is we're always thinking of contemporary conservatism, which got its start as a reaction to the New Deal and picked up speed in the '60s, but you'd also want to study Victorian literature - that was the era when conservatism was really in the saddle - and of course Victorian economics. Maybe I should apply for the job.

The Wrecking Crew is about how conservatives use government to further their interests. But if they were in power, wouldn't moderates or liberals do the same thing?

They were always accused of doing that back in the heyday of liberalism - of operating the state to enrich their constituents. What's funny is I think it's a (more) accurate reading of what conservatism has done with the state. Conservatives are brazen in the way they reward constituents - handing out contracts to the clients of particular lobbyists, for example. I'm sure stuff like that went on during the liberal era, but I don't think it was as brazen or complete as it is now.

One of the reasons you say that conservatives have succeeded is that they play by different rules from liberals. What do you mean by that?

One of the big classic works of the conservative movement was Suicide of the West, by James Burnham. Burnham made the argument that the fatal flaw of liberalism is it allows opponents to have a voice and to participate in the system. He thought liberals weren't tough enough to crack down on communism. Liberalism is all about reaching a consensus to a degree that annoys me, frankly. It's a weakness of liberalism. Conservatism plays by different rules. Remember the DeLay Congress, where they held votes in the middle of the night and excluded liberal participation altogether?

I recently received a letter from John McCain warning that "If liberals have their way, government spending will skyrocket as they implement government-run health care and resurrect their entire portfolio of the failed welfare state programs of the '60s and '70s . . . Our free-market solutions and conservative principles are better for America . . . " Do you agree?

Wow. I don't agree with that, and it's funny coming from McCain. He's changed so much. He was the Republican that the liberals loved because he didn't seem like a free market kind of guy. I wonder how much you can scare people talking about the '60s and '70s. I'm middle aged - I was born in 1965 - and I don't remember much about that time. But what I do know was that the economy in the '60s was a lot better than it is now in terms of the way wealth was distributed and general prosperity. But the idea that liberals will drive the country into deficit and the conservatives won't is simply a blatant contradiction of how the two factions have behaved.

Liberals invented deficits. Government should be able to do that when it's called for. But it's conservatives who have given us the crippling deficits of recent years. The deficit exploded under Reagan, got into the black under Clinton, and got driven back into the ground by Bush. This isn't just bad luck; this is the way conservatism behaves in office. It always promises a balanced budget but then delivers incredible deficits.

It does this for two reasons: Conservatism believes in enriching a particular class of people - the owners of this country - so it gives them tax cuts. And tax cuts defund the state and drive the government into deficit. That's what they're intended to do, so conservatives get a twofer: They reward their constituents and push the government into crisis where they then scream that they need to do things like cut spending on social programs and privatize Social Security. So it's in their interest to run up these enormous deficits.

Is public financing of campaigns the answer to stopping this cycle you describe of constituents contributing to politicians who in turn reward those constituents?

Public financing would solve a lot of problems. This is something conservatism would fight to the last. It's even more controversial than national health care. That would be the end for them because it takes money out of the picture. And conservatism is about, whether they admit it or not, representing the interests of the wealthy. If you take money out of the picture, it would be the end of their political clout. . . . It's never going to happen. But public financing would be a great thing. If that would happen, even someone like me could run for office.

Well, that would certainly rally conservatives.

Yes it would.

Dan Danbom is a Denver freelance writer.

Thomas Frank

* What: Appears at 7:30 p.m. Monday at the Tattered Cover in LoDo, 1628 16th St.

* Cost: Free

* Information: 303-436-1070