Customer Reviews

What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America

5 star:		(32)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

It's amazing how many of the negative reviews posted here evidence exactly the kind of false populism Frank is writing against. "Isn't it typical of liberals to think they know what's good for the working class better than the working class does?" Well who's to say they don't? To so quickly accuse your oponent of gross elitist presumption without engaging the substance of the argument is typical ad hominem. And isn't it ironic, in light of this book's argument, that in typical pot-calling-out-kettle fashion the conservatives who write such reviews and the working class folks on whose behalf they claim to speak vote, often against their better economic interests and better prosperity, for moral issues that betray their own brand of know-betterism? Liberals and conservatives and politicians of every stripe are paternalistic one way or another. Those who deny it are the one's to be trusted least.

I've already reviewed this book, in a sense; my glowing blurb appears on the back cover. Here's a review of the conservative reviewers, from George Will and the New York Times Book Review essayist to the folks on Amazons.

They make an astonishing concession: they grant Tom Frank's main point. He argues that the Republicans have nothing to offer working people on ECONOMIC TERMS. The conservatives don't seem to disagree. They only argue that the Republicans are worth voting for on cultural terms alone, and seek to demonstrate that this is a legitimate way to vote.

This is new. Conservatives used to argue that they had the most to offer ordinary Americans ECONOMICALLY--and ALSO culturally. Now, on economics, they've simply given up. They've tacitly admitted that, for lower income folks at least, cultural conservatism is the party's sole appeal. A sad day for conservatism, and certainly evidence of its political decline.

And of course none of the conservative reviews can deal with the fact that the cultural battles the Republicans choose are bottomless unwinnable sinkholes. That's why I describe conservatives as having punk'd a nation: they offer their voters nothing in return but therapy.

Rick Perlstein
rperlstein@villagevoice.com

Frank's "Kansas" is a frightening but illuminating account of how radical Republicans have consolidated their agenda in that state. It contains a brief history lesson about the legacy of a largely left-wing radicalism in Kansas (a subject worthy of a book-length treatment), and some rather trivial examples of working-class right-wing radicalism in the 90s (e.g., people who mortgage their homes to campaign full-time for corporate deregulation and tax cuts for millionaires, and a female politician who campaigns in opposition to female suffrage), but also the larger economic and political machinations that have characterized the far right since the 80s. It is also entertaining, at least if you can keep your sense of horror at bay. Frank's "The Wrecking Crew" is almost as good.

Yes, but in time-honored pop-Marx fasion, Frank considers all non-economic moral concerns as mere epiphenomena riding lightly atop bedrock economic realities. Whereas the pro-life folks he so contemptuously dismisses as too stupid to know their own material interests consider abortion, in some perhaps inchoate way, as morally equivalent to murder. This point is obviously debatable, indeed the eternal debate, but the profound gulf between "you vote against your own well-being" and abortion as murder is, I think, somewhat more than a P.R. con job by the proverbial "Wall Street Bankers". And isn't it ironic that many dismiss any criticism of this text as automatic confirmation of its main thesis, without engaging the substance of the argument.

Most reviewers of political books seem to forget to review the book outside of their own politics. It seems ridiculous that all of you are either bashing the writer for his opinions or praising him for them. The important thing for open minded people is if he has stated his argument well and written a good book. I think he has, although not a great book. His argument seems accurate As for all the pro-this or that folks who jump into the fray here on Amazon I'll save my arguments for a more meaningful and valid forum than trying to get people to not read a book by posting a review. So to all you republicans in kansas, read this book with an open mind.

Yes, but in time-honored pop-Marx fasion, Frank considers all non-economic moral concerns as mere epiphenomena riding lightly utop bedrock economic realities. Whereas the pro-life folks he so contemptuously dismisses as too stupid to know their own material interests consider abortion, in some perhaps inchoate way, as morally equivalent to murder. This point is obviously debatable, indeed the eternal debate, but the profound gulf between "you vote against your own well-being" and abortion as murder is, I think, somewhat more than a P.R. con job by the proverbial "Wall Street Bankers". And isn't it ironic that many dismiss any criticism of this text as automatic confirmation of its main thesis, without engaging the substance of the argument.

What struck me when I read this book was a feature article the New York Times did a half dozen or so years ago where a writer equated Christians as being uneducated and backwards. Something that is so totally false its almost laughable for its obvious ignorance as a statement and exposure of the authors preconceived, non-researched bias.

Same with this book. He seems more upset that his fellow Kansasians (?)march to a different drummer, or are more patriotic and actually believe in a God and attend worship services. He completely ignores the fact Kansas has some well respected universities and that the standard of living and quality of life is far superior to the élitist areas he prefers.

I am a proud Californian whose family has been here since the 1860's so I am not reading What's the Matter with Kansas as a disgruntled Kansasian but as someone who has traveled the United States enough and love the mid west and its values which are a lot like here in the Mother Lode of California where American flags fly from home porches, where prayer before meals is a habit, and where proud to be an American comes easily off ones tongue. And he admits in interviews that "Kansas" is a metaphor for the U.S.A. He has noted that today Kansas is the sort of place where the angry, suspicious world view typified by Fox News or the books of Ann Coulter is a common part of everyday life. Seems he is mad that what he sells isn't being bought.

He also seems bent out of shape that the folks of Kansas (and in my opinion anyone who isn't of his ilk) don't consider FDR a God, and perhaps value eating dinner together, marriages that last, hot dogs, baseball and Moms apple pie. He seems to detest the free enterprise system and the fact that someone may want to make an honest living and GASP get wealthy doing so. To bad he doesn't look to a neighboring state where Warren Buffet one of the countries wealthiest members lives. He wants the reader to believe that Republicans almost never act in the economic interest of the working class, while completely ignoring the documented facts that small business make up the majority of market producing jobs and that it has been the conservatives and Republicans in general who have fought to help the small business owners. He obviously doesn't read the Chamber of Commerce publications.

He also wants the reader to believe that Republicans accomplish little on the cultural front. I suspect he hates Mel Gibson and loves Michael Moore. Well I'm a Republican and I have been on local library and cultural arts commissions and have fought like the other Republicans and conservative Democrats who served with me to better fund the library and arts programs and to great success, due in large part to local small businesses. So the author is full of hot air on this subject!

And talk about talking down to or being holier than thou, he uses words like lunatics and deranged to describe good honest middle Americans who don't happen to agree with what he preaches. Talk about needing to be pushed off his pedestal, the man is an egomaniac in my opinion. To full of himself as my mid-west in-laws would say.

The author also snivels at the fact that the folks of Kansas and most (in my opinion) all American towns and states, don't want his way of life or beliefs. Sorta reminds me of the ivory tower types who don't like the fact that 'we' outside their sheltered domains, don't agree that America is bad, marriage is bad, or that telling the truth is good, and being grateful for each new day is enough.

The book in my opinion is nothing more than sour grapes. Sour grapes that those who don't buy his faulty logic and theories are willing to say so and walk away. Oddly enough as he denounces middle American values and the good old American buck, yet he himself doesn't seem to turned off to hawk his book and make a hefty return himself. In my family his type is called a hypocrite.

What's the Matter With Kansas?, comes from a famous 1896 essay by William Allen White.

First off, I ask readers who claim genuine objectivity to check out the excellent review of this book in National Review's June 28, 2004 edition (p48). NR is definitely the conservative stalwart's publication, but I found the review to be a fair assessment (read the final paragraph as proof). Once I read Mr. Frank's book, I had a better understanding of the angle he was coming from (bent considerably to the left). When finished, I came away with this: he's ticked off that the dumb masses of Kansas have been duped into having the nerve to hold values (God, Pro-Life, Gun Protection) that are diametrically opposed to the Democrats, and even though the Republican Party appeals to a Kansan's values, the fact that poor people could vote Republican is ridiculous, and strange at best. And so someone like Mr. Frank, who is canted towards the Marxist ideal, will never understand why Americans with lower incomes would ever vote Republican. Because, how economically useless are 'values?'

I think the voting trend makes sense, for this one simple reason: Marxists/Leftists/Socialists/Liberals/Democrats - WHATEVER their current disguise du jour - thrive on the poor and disaffected, and utterly depend on their vote. This despite the fact that most of the Donkey Party politicos were born, bought into, or stole fabulous wealth (Kerry+Edwards = over $1 bil in personal wealth; what an emotional tie they must have to their constituents!). Yet, c'mon people, poor folk DON'T WANT TO BE POOR!! The American demand for independence transcends one's yearly net income. Yet even Mr. Frank's book title hints at his impatience with independent thought ("Don't you all get it? Are you that stupid?" - what a compelling technique for unity!) Rather than lament, as he does, the question of why in hell would the poor vote overwhelmingly Republican, a better question might be to ask which party's polices will help one the most in the long run.

Without the poor and dependent, the Democrat's days of influence would end abruptly, since once a voter has gained economic independence (read: freedom) through private wealth, Republican policies traditionally are more attractive (granted, their record here is weakening with each new Fiscal Year). Democrat policies are by far a greater drain on the middle and upper class than Republican. Mr. Frank spends hundreds of pages denying this truism, yet voting records don't lie (but fat bearded 'documentarists' do). Without the poor, Dems would be homeless. So why would they ever support policies that help people create wealth and independence? Such policies would be political suicide for leftists.

Human nature will always seek freedom, it's in our genetic and spiritual makeup; therefor the policies (fiscal, educational, even spiritual) Mr. Frank evidently holds dear in his compelling yet flawed "What's The Matter With Kansas" will always, ultimately, fail.

Still a worthy book to peruse if you can get it for free.

An interesting exploration of a troubling phenomenon - the shameful fraud that has been perpetrated upon the culturally conservative working class by the Republican Party.

For a glimpse into some of the insidious and unethical ways this has been accomplished, I (strongly) recommend "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock.

Tom Frank was born and bred in America's heartland, growing up in the prairie state of Kansas. He ventured off to Chicago in pursuit of an education in political science and secured a doctorate from the University of Chicago, one of the land's leading academic institutions.

Something puzzled Frank greatly about the state where he grew up and the prairie land of his roots in general, and once he had the knowledge under his belt from all that hard work securing his doctorate in Chicago he returned home in an attempt to resolve the doubt in his mind. What puzzled the bright young guy from America's prairie land was the rigidly inflexible voting pattern of support for Republican conservatives.

The reason for Frank's puzzlement was that this was an area where the economy had gone into the tank, where farmers were losing their properties as swiftly and frequently as the wind blew, and scarcely anybody else appeared to be doing much if any better. Frank discovered the reason was that the Republicans had taken control of the social issues, which assumed preeminence in the minds of the voters as opposed to bread and butter economic issues. The irony, according to Frank, is that the issues successfully backed by cultural conservatives to sway prairie voters do not figure to ever secure adoption. Frank does not expect prayer in the schools to become a reality. He feels the same about former Alabama Justice Moore's effort to place a Christian religious statue on the public property of the state capitol. In Franks's view, it is the effort that counts with voters, just as long as the cultural conservatives properly showcase their efforts, making it appear they are giving their all on behalf of their causes.

Another irony cited by Frank is that on one issue where Democrats could possibly have established potentially successful separation from Republicans was in the area of international trade, one that is a sore point what with many Kansans losing jobs as a result of such trade policies. Instead, he ruefully notes, the Clinton administration took a pro-NAFTA stance, losing a golden opportunity to make headway in Republican prairie states.

Frank states that the sole area of his current political focus is with economic issues. He urges progressive Democrats to tailor them more to the home spun folks of the nation's heartland, as well as to make a case pointing out the importance of bread and butter issues as opposed to focusing on cultural matters that will never be implemented into law.