![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is a cri de coeur -- and the French is appropriate, since many Kansas conservatives would probably associate Frenchness with other facets of my liberalism. Frank, from Kansas himself, tries to figure out why this once-radically liberal state is now reliably radically conservative. He ends up dividing conservatives into true believers (organizers, working-class people who believe that liberals are out to burn their Bibles and abort their children) and cynical upper-class exploiters (who actually get elected and then serve the interests of big business). Conservative politicians want our culture to be crass and want abortion and gay marriage to be legal, he argues, because that lets them have an eternal campaign of outrage and victimization. When they win the elections, they then cut taxes on the rich, but they don’t prioritize appointing judges who’ll overturn Roe v. Wade. Now, not prioritizing is not the same thing as opposing – and Frank understates the extent to which conservative activists have made serious progress against abortion rights in particular; he also tends to waver between the cynical exploiter/true believer characterization depending on what best suits his argument.
Frank also has two somewhat different versions of “working-class folks as dupes” – in the first, they vote for cultural reasons but get economic conservatives; in the second, they actually believe that it’s morally wrong to tax the wealthy and that (their) poverty is deserved (and also, in their own cases, noble because it reflects spiritual wealth). This is an unresolved tension in his analysis, and impedes his ability to propose solutions, since if version two is true then liberals have a lot more work to do to convince these voters that progressive economic policies are a good idea. It’s a painful book to read, because it has so much analysis of anger and so little in the way of solutions: He ends with a passionate indictment of the Democratic Party’s turn to being the other party of business and a call to rediscover overt discussion of class issues, economic security, and other ways to reach once-Democratic working-class voters.
To the extent that voters in this past midterm focused on corruption and economic issues, the Democrats may have started to figure this out. (Kansas results discussed here.) But it’s hard to say that the Democratic wave won’t retreat under the tidal pull of conservative explanations of what’s wrong with the world – which Frank argues are perfectly self-preserving, since kowtowing to capitalism (which includes big media companies) ensures that culture will continue to be rude and offensive, sustaining in Kansas voters the feeling that their values are under assault. This too has some lurking contradictions, but Frank’s priority isn’t resolving them but explaining to people like him and me just how deep the fault lines run.
For a conservative perspective on Frank’s analysis and its relationship to the midterms, see here. As an aside, my favorite thing in this article is “When you average-out family incomes over 15 years and capture only the peak earning years--from age 26 to 59--fully 60 percent of Americans will live in households making over $60,000 a year” – that is, if you ignore 40% of America, ignore children and the elderly, and ignore year-to-year instabilities that make it impossible to predict and save for the future, things are economically wonderful! I myself never expect to be old and sick – what, me worry? Coming in a close second: The Weekly Standard’s hope of “freeing workers from employer-based health care,” which I suspect means something different than I would mean by the same phrase.
Frank also has two somewhat different versions of “working-class folks as dupes” – in the first, they vote for cultural reasons but get economic conservatives; in the second, they actually believe that it’s morally wrong to tax the wealthy and that (their) poverty is deserved (and also, in their own cases, noble because it reflects spiritual wealth). This is an unresolved tension in his analysis, and impedes his ability to propose solutions, since if version two is true then liberals have a lot more work to do to convince these voters that progressive economic policies are a good idea. It’s a painful book to read, because it has so much analysis of anger and so little in the way of solutions: He ends with a passionate indictment of the Democratic Party’s turn to being the other party of business and a call to rediscover overt discussion of class issues, economic security, and other ways to reach once-Democratic working-class voters.
To the extent that voters in this past midterm focused on corruption and economic issues, the Democrats may have started to figure this out. (Kansas results discussed here.) But it’s hard to say that the Democratic wave won’t retreat under the tidal pull of conservative explanations of what’s wrong with the world – which Frank argues are perfectly self-preserving, since kowtowing to capitalism (which includes big media companies) ensures that culture will continue to be rude and offensive, sustaining in Kansas voters the feeling that their values are under assault. This too has some lurking contradictions, but Frank’s priority isn’t resolving them but explaining to people like him and me just how deep the fault lines run.
For a conservative perspective on Frank’s analysis and its relationship to the midterms, see here. As an aside, my favorite thing in this article is “When you average-out family incomes over 15 years and capture only the peak earning years--from age 26 to 59--fully 60 percent of Americans will live in households making over $60,000 a year” – that is, if you ignore 40% of America, ignore children and the elderly, and ignore year-to-year instabilities that make it impossible to predict and save for the future, things are economically wonderful! I myself never expect to be old and sick – what, me worry? Coming in a close second: The Weekly Standard’s hope of “freeing workers from employer-based health care,” which I suspect means something different than I would mean by the same phrase.
Tags: