While Frank’s questioning of how the good people of Kansas vote is legitimate, it is not only in Kansas. The entire basis of his claim basically is because people in Kansas earn less, they should favor the Democratic Party. However, the same “backwardness” happens in areas such as California where Hollywood stars are making tens of millions of dollars and the entire industry is virtually liberal. If I were to stick to Frank’s reasoning, they should be some of the strongest conservatives in the country; whereas they are actually probably the strongest liberal segment.
I feel Bartels is clearly more right on w/ his analysis than Frank; but I still somewhat feel he is missing the point perhaps. The people of Kansas want to earn their money, and even though they aren’t making a ton of money, they don’t expect government handouts. They want to work hard for their money and have their success be measured in bushels and the amount of bricks they lay. They clearly like the idea of a free market capitalist economy, and would rather work hard making an honest living than accept government handouts.
These red staters are humble and just down to earth, good, normal folk. They believe strongly in their ideas, but wont push them upon you; contrary to the idea of many liberals who feel their ideas are best and that they need to push them on others. Kansas, and the Midwest in general, hasn’t always been this way however; see our former Mayor Frank Zeidler who served from 1948-60 as a Socialist.
What I feel Frank is implying is that the GOP is pushing this culture war ideas onto their constituents in order to get the votes and make it seem these social issues trump economic issues, because he feels that the GOP doesn’t cater to the lower class (our next book deals w/ this culture war so maybe I’m on to something?!).
Frank also implies that the unfortunate state of Kansas cities is due to its workers being powerful, taxes being high, and labor being expensive; something that sharply resembles powerful unions, a democratic idea supported by blue staters. Kansas does still support each of the basic elements of the American economic mix though. While Frank may have studied Kansas, he hasnt studied the rest of America.
People may be poor by Frank's standards, but by most American's standards, they arent poor. If he were to redefine this, I feel he could make his argument more valid and perhaps convicnce me. Another grip I have is his only comparissons are between white college educated and white non-college educated; and it seems to me he is somewhat demeaning of those who didnt earn a degree. I almost take offense to his stance of non-college educated people should be voting democrat because they are the party for the less educated and less wealthy. A majority of Americans havent gone to college, yet a lot are still very successful. And the truth is, since 1980 there have been no consistent differences in voting patterns between those w/ or w/o a college degree.
In this past election, as we've discussed before, the economy as it usually does trumped everything. In 2005 when this debate was going on the economy was good and that helped President Bush win a second term and allowed the light to be shed on the social issues. And even in this past election cycle, social issues were big until the collapse and it was demonstrated w/ Sen. McCain still leading in the polls all the way up until September/October. These economic issues outweigh the social issues, as Bartels notes. Bartels also notes that during the two Bush Administrations there was a notion of "saving" the Democratic party and a mass overreaction to the current times; only a few years later now they are in complete power and the GOP is now in their situation -- these are simply political cycles and I'm sure a few years from now the GOP will be back in power and then we'll do it all over again.
No comments:
Post a Comment