FREE TAPATALK APP

punchdrunk · 28th October 2004, 08:01 PM

Tonight on the Lehrer News Hour, they aired a segment on Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America". He asks, why do the majority of Kansans vote for a party that promotes economic policies which are less likely to benefit them? He cited union-busting, the widening economic gap between the upper and lower classes, halts on minimum wage increases, and decreased regulations on safety conditions in the work place, among others, as the economic policies. Just so you know, Thomas Frank is a contributor to 'The Nation' and other "liberal" magazines.

His answer: the Republican party avoids the subject of economics and instead focuses on social and religious issues, such as abortion rights, gay marriage, etc. These issues, usually more emotive in nature than economics, have successfully been used to make a connection to the lower and middle class.

As a counterpoint, the show interviewed David Frum, columnist for the conservative National Post and former speechwriting assistant for GWB. He argued that the Democrats were ignoring the values and beliefs of lower and middle class Americans, and that there is nothing wrong with people placing non-economic policies at the same or higher priority as economics. George Will, in this take on Frank's book, basically expands on Frum's theme: "... Frank ignores this question: Why does the left disparage what everyday people consider their fundamental interests? ... So, what's the matter with (Frank's idea of) Kansas? Not much, other than it is has not measured up -- down, actually -- to the left's hope for a more materialistic politics."

This is a very telling position to take by Frum and Will.

But before I go into that, let me first share some of my own political beliefs. Most people, and always Republicans, consider me a liberal. Read my posts on politics, and I'm usually promoting or defending what is usually considered the liberal point of view. I believe the government should strive to provide for the basic needs of its citizens, such as safety, infrastructure, utilities, health care, social security, etc. I believe this is the reason for government. I do not believe in the "religion of the free market"; I think minimal government regulation is necessary to ensure that the responsibility to corporate shareholders does not conflict with citizen or employee welfare. However, I do believe that, barring that conflict, it's always in our best interest to pursue a free-market solution over larger government. And I don't believe government should have any say in how we conduct our lives. I believe in the axiom, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins." I know the word liberal has become an epithet in today's culture, yet I still embrace it, because I try to hold on to what I always thought liberalism should mean, and what I wish it stood for today: moderate libertarianism. Libertarian Lite, if you will.

And so, I believe that economic policies should be the government's highest priority, because I don't believe the government has a right to take up non-economic policies, such as gay marriage, in the first place. That Frum and Will, both self-acclaimed conservatives, believe that the government should make these high priorities, or that they should have any say in them at all, goes against the very definition of the word conservative.

To again quote Will in his article: "The economic problem, as understood during two centuries of industrialization, has been solved. We can reliably produce economic growth and have moderated business cycles. Hence many people, emancipated from material concerns, can pour political passions into other -- some would say higher -- concerns. These include the condition of the culture, as measured by such indexes as the content of popular culture, the agendas of public education and the prevalence of abortion." He's right; we live in better times than before. Many people (certainly not the lower class) may be emancipated from material concerns. The government should not be. Take away the smokescreen of the "condition of the culture", and you see that the Republican party's economic policies are more apt to benefit the upper class than the middle and lower classes, and it's economics - not abortions - that determines the welfare of the people.

This is not to say that values and character aren't important. But, in my opinion, the only way you can tell if a politician at the state or federal level has character is if you see him or her differ on key issues with the party to which they belong. Having "values" that are always in agreement with the party line only means that you have substituted your idealogy for your values. As such, when it comes to character, Bush and Kerry are a wash. I'm more apt to believe in the character of John McCain, who has at least shown the ability to have an original position within his party.

Lastly, at the end of the segment, in a response to Frank's suggestion that the lower and middle class have been duped by the Republican party, Frum responded by asking how Frank or the Democrats can pretend to know what's best for the lower and middle classes? Why can't they decide for themselves? With this, I totally agree. No matter how misled I think lower or middle class Republican-minded voters may be, it's always our own responsibility to investigate an issue, to find out the facts, and to try to make an informed vote. My hometown newspaper used to have a quote in its Opinion section: "Freedom is self-responsibility; nothing less, nothing more." The older I get, the more sense this makes.

edited to add -

A key assumption of my argument is that Republican economic policies are less beneficial for the lower and middle classes. Many would disagree with this. Yet I didn't go into this, because Frum only briefly mentioned it to get to his other points, which I've already discussed, and Will didn't even mention it. Odd, or revealing?

shecky · 28th October 2004, 08:55 PM

It is interesting. I'm not familiar with the book, nor did I see the segment. But it sounds like Frum and Will don't really disagree with Frank very much.

I'm wondering if the Republican party will steer away or toward the social/religious issues in the future. I'm thinking they're more and more toward a tettering point of one way or the other. But I can't figure out which way it'll go.

ManfredVonRichthoffen · 28th October 2004, 09:32 PM

I've always felt that if people didn't vote religion, the red states and blue states would switch.

Charlie Monoxide · 29th October 2004, 12:09 PM

I saw the segment and read his condensed article in Harpers earlier this year. It's truly baffling how the mid-West backs Bush. According to From, the mid-West has been basically screwed by the Bush administration yet they support him very strongly (that big red streak up the middle of the electorial map).

If (and I hope strongly) Bush loses this election, his marketing team could go out and sell ice to Eskimos.

Charlie (thank-you sir, can I have another - mid-West) Monoxide

toddjh · 29th October 2004, 01:17 PM

This is one reason why I think we should have four parties: one for each combination social and economic liberals and conservatives. Maybe throw in a fifth, centrist party to keep the others from going too far to any extreme.

It does strike me as odd that there's no real political presence in the socially conservative, fiscally liberal corner, since all the other three are accounted for, and you'd think there'd be some demand in places like Kansas. I suppose the libertarian corner (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) is a bit small right now, too, but I think that's mainly because not many people think of it as an option, and there's a crackpot party currently sitting there.

Jeremy

patnray · 29th October 2004, 01:17 PM

It has amazed and frustrated me for the past 30 years that the left lets the right steal the moral issues. The left has failed, again and again to expose the hypocracy of those using these issues to disguise their real agendas. They have lacked the courage to make stands that will claim the moral "high ground" and directly challenge the hypocracy.

For example, they have tacitly accepted that "pro choice" and "Anti abortion" are opposites. They have failed to campaign against abortions by promoting aggressive campaigns to reduce the demand for abortions (real sex education, increased access to birth control, etc.) and exposing the right's real motivation on the issue, which comes down to forcing their own life style choices on everyone else.

Spiro Agnew declared that the liberals were "an effete corps of impudent snobs." Sometimes it seems as if the left has spent the last 35 years trying to prove he was right...

billydkid · 29th October 2004, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shecky
It is interesting. I'm not familiar with the book, nor did I see the segment. But it sounds like Frum and Will don't really disagree with Frank very much.

I'm wondering if the Republican party will steer away or toward the social/religious issues in the future. I'm thinking they're more and more toward a tettering point of one way or the other. But I can't figure out which way it'll go.

Self righteousness and intolerance is the bread and butter of Republican right, they will never abandon it.

SezMe · 29th October 2004, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
It's truly baffling how the mid-West backs Bush. According to From, the mid-West has been basically screwed by the Bush administration yet they support him very strongly (that big red streak up the middle of the electorial map).

Actually, that Red streak corresponds very closely with huge farm subsidies and other handouts to rural and small-town America. So, while they claim "rugged individualism" that does not correspond to objective reality.

28th October 2004, 08:01 PM	#1
punchdrunk Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,003	Interesting segment on PBS news show tonight Tonight on the Lehrer News Hour, they aired a segment on Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America". He asks, why do the majority of Kansans vote for a party that promotes economic policies which are less likely to benefit them? He cited union-busting, the widening economic gap between the upper and lower classes, halts on minimum wage increases, and decreased regulations on safety conditions in the work place, among others, as the economic policies. Just so you know, Thomas Frank is a contributor to 'The Nation' and other "liberal" magazines. His answer: the Republican party avoids the subject of economics and instead focuses on social and religious issues, such as abortion rights, gay marriage, etc. These issues, usually more emotive in nature than economics, have successfully been used to make a connection to the lower and middle class. As a counterpoint, the show interviewed David Frum, columnist for the conservative National Post and former speechwriting assistant for GWB. He argued that the Democrats were ignoring the values and beliefs of lower and middle class Americans, and that there is nothing wrong with people placing non-economic policies at the same or higher priority as economics. George Will, in this take on Frank's book, basically expands on Frum's theme: "... Frank ignores this question: Why does the left disparage what everyday people consider their fundamental interests? ... So, what's the matter with (Frank's idea of) Kansas? Not much, other than it is has not measured up -- down, actually -- to the left's hope for a more materialistic politics." This is a very telling position to take by Frum and Will. But before I go into that, let me first share some of my own political beliefs. Most people, and always Republicans, consider me a liberal. Read my posts on politics, and I'm usually promoting or defending what is usually considered the liberal point of view. I believe the government should strive to provide for the basic needs of its citizens, such as safety, infrastructure, utilities, health care, social security, etc. I believe this is the reason for government. I do not believe in the "religion of the free market"; I think minimal government regulation is necessary to ensure that the responsibility to corporate shareholders does not conflict with citizen or employee welfare. However, I do believe that, barring that conflict, it's always in our best interest to pursue a free-market solution over larger government. And I don't believe government should have any say in how we conduct our lives. I believe in the axiom, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins." I know the word liberal has become an epithet in today's culture, yet I still embrace it, because I try to hold on to what I always thought liberalism should mean, and what I wish it stood for today: moderate libertarianism. Libertarian Lite, if you will. And so, I believe that economic policies should be the government's highest priority, because I don't believe the government has a right to take up non-economic policies, such as gay marriage, in the first place. That Frum and Will, both self-acclaimed conservatives, believe that the government should make these high priorities, or that they should have any say in them at all, goes against the very definition of the word conservative. To again quote Will in his article: "The economic problem, as understood during two centuries of industrialization, has been solved. We can reliably produce economic growth and have moderated business cycles. Hence many people, emancipated from material concerns, can pour political passions into other -- some would say higher -- concerns. These include the condition of the culture, as measured by such indexes as the content of popular culture, the agendas of public education and the prevalence of abortion." He's right; we live in better times than before. Many people (certainly not the lower class) may be emancipated from material concerns. The government should not be. Take away the smokescreen of the "condition of the culture", and you see that the Republican party's economic policies are more apt to benefit the upper class than the middle and lower classes, and it's economics - not abortions - that determines the welfare of the people. This is not to say that values and character aren't important. But, in my opinion, the only way you can tell if a politician at the state or federal level has character is if you see him or her differ on key issues with the party to which they belong. Having "values" that are always in agreement with the party line only means that you have substituted your idealogy for your values. As such, when it comes to character, Bush and Kerry are a wash. I'm more apt to believe in the character of John McCain, who has at least shown the ability to have an original position within his party. Lastly, at the end of the segment, in a response to Frank's suggestion that the lower and middle class have been duped by the Republican party, Frum responded by asking how Frank or the Democrats can pretend to know what's best for the lower and middle classes? Why can't they decide for themselves? With this, I totally agree. No matter how misled I think lower or middle class Republican-minded voters may be, it's always our own responsibility to investigate an issue, to find out the facts, and to try to make an informed vote. My hometown newspaper used to have a quote in its Opinion section: "Freedom is self-responsibility; nothing less, nothing more." The older I get, the more sense this makes. edited to add - A key assumption of my argument is that Republican economic policies are less beneficial for the lower and middle classes. Many would disagree with this. Yet I didn't go into this, because Frum only briefly mentioned it to get to his other points, which I've already discussed, and Will didn't even mention it. Odd, or revealing?

29th October 2004, 12:09 PM	#4
Charlie Monoxide Wag Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 2,761	I saw the segment and read his condensed article in Harpers earlier this year. It's truly baffling how the mid-West backs Bush. According to From, the mid-West has been basically screwed by the Bush administration yet they support him very strongly (that big red streak up the middle of the electorial map). If (and I hope strongly) Bush loses this election, his marketing team could go out and sell ice to Eskimos. Charlie (thank-you sir, can I have another - mid-West) Monoxide
	__________________ Major General Wag of JREF

29th October 2004, 06:39 PM	#7
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Blanchester, OH Posts: 4,930	Never Quote: Originally posted by shecky It is interesting. I'm not familiar with the book, nor did I see the segment. But it sounds like Frum and Will don't really disagree with Frank very much. I'm wondering if the Republican party will steer away or toward the social/religious issues in the future. I'm thinking they're more and more toward a tettering point of one way or the other. But I can't figure out which way it'll go. Self righteousness and intolerance is the bread and butter of Republican right, they will never abandon it.

28th October 2004, 08:55 PM	#2
shecky Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Home of the Homeless Posts: 2,190	It is interesting. I'm not familiar with the book, nor did I see the segment. But it sounds like Frum and Will don't really disagree with Frank very much. I'm wondering if the Republican party will steer away or toward the social/religious issues in the future. I'm thinking they're more and more toward a tettering point of one way or the other. But I can't figure out which way it'll go.

28th October 2004, 09:32 PM	#3
ManfredVonRichthoffen Mook Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,513	I've always felt that if people didn't vote religion, the red states and blue states would switch.

29th October 2004, 01:17 PM	#5
toddjh Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,252	This is one reason why I think we should have four parties: one for each combination social and economic liberals and conservatives. Maybe throw in a fifth, centrist party to keep the others from going too far to any extreme. It does strike me as odd that there's no real political presence in the socially conservative, fiscally liberal corner, since all the other three are accounted for, and you'd think there'd be some demand in places like Kansas. I suppose the libertarian corner (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) is a bit small right now, too, but I think that's mainly because not many people think of it as an option, and there's a crackpot party currently sitting there. Jeremy

29th October 2004, 01:17 PM	#6
patnray Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,008	It has amazed and frustrated me for the past 30 years that the left lets the right steal the moral issues. The left has failed, again and again to expose the hypocracy of those using these issues to disguise their real agendas. They have lacked the courage to make stands that will claim the moral "high ground" and directly challenge the hypocracy. For example, they have tacitly accepted that "pro choice" and "Anti abortion" are opposites. They have failed to campaign against abortions by promoting aggressive campaigns to reduce the demand for abortions (real sex education, increased access to birth control, etc.) and exposing the right's real motivation on the issue, which comes down to forcing their own life style choices on everyone else. Spiro Agnew declared that the liberals were "an effete corps of impudent snobs." Sometimes it seems as if the left has spent the last 35 years trying to prove he was right...

29th October 2004, 08:14 PM	#8
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,654	Quote: Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide It's truly baffling how the mid-West backs Bush. According to From, the mid-West has been basically screwed by the Bush administration yet they support him very strongly (that big red streak up the middle of the electorial map). Actually, that Red streak corresponds very closely with huge farm subsidies and other handouts to rural and small-town America. So, while they claim "rugged individualism" that does not correspond to objective reality.