I RECENTLY READ a book which theorizes why so many Americans vote against their own social and economic interests.
The premise of "What's the matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank is that values voters are lured to the polls to vote for Republicans by promises to stop abortion and gay marriage, roll back taxes, and above all, stop those leftist elites. This is often delivered with a sensibility they believe will appeal to middle America, he writes.
"Today's Republicans are doing what the Whigs did in the 1840s: putting on backwoods accents, telling the world about their log-cabin upbringings, and raging against the overeducated elites," Frank writes.
Does Sarah Palin's debate performance come to mind here?
Yet, he writes, every single time we wake up the next morning after election day and realize we didn't get what we asked for. "It's a French Revolution in reverse -- one in which the sans-culottes pour down the streets demanding more power for the aristocracy."
There are some truths within these pages. Four years ago after the election we were greeted by George Bush's plan to spend his new political capital by privatizing Social Security, much to the glee of Wall Street. Can you imagine right now where your money would be if it had all been invested in the stock market? Right down there with your 401K plan.
Religious leaders did indeed find themselves let down and that saddens me. Karl Rove, who courted the religious vote for Bush, was recently shredded in a book by conservative Christian author David Kuo. "National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control' and just plain 'goofy,'" Kuo wrote. He was the number-two person in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. His boss also quit and leveled similar charges.
INSTEAD, FRANK WRITES, the rich got richer. Estate taxes for the wealthy were repealed, big corporations received tax breaks, workplace safety programs were attacked, and labor unions -- who really represent middle America -- were demonized.
Author Christopher Lasch, no lover of liberal causes, once pointed out that "Reagan made himself the champion of 'traditional values' but there was no evidence he regarded their restoration as a high priority. What he really cared about was the revival of the unregulated capitalism of the '20s: the repeal of the New Deal."
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was grilled Thursday on Capitol Hill about that unregulated capitalism, which most experts agree significantly contributed to the economic meltdown. "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," Greenspan said.
I WRITE ALL THIS to preface a YouTube video which was made by our own Ventura City Councilman Carl Morehouse. I asked Morehouse right away if he'd read "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and indeed he had.
"I'm a fan of country music," Morehouse said. "but I have become extremely outraged at the bent some of the stations have taken with regard to political biases, particularly toward the 'right.' I'm also outraged that the Republicans in particular use language to manipulate the working man -- primarily blue collar -- and have them vote for emotional issues only to shaft them later with their pro-big business policies and simultaneous destruction of any social safety nets once the jobs are gone. So to that end, I decided to write my own country tune about that deception."
Carl's video can be viewed above.
This took guts. I imagine he'll get some ribbing for this, but it's clear his convictions are very strong here. Political expression comes in all forms and this is a healthy way to express it.
Better than blogging.
Wow! I thought I was watching Kris Kristofferson for a moment there.
I have to say, I'm more than a little stunned, Carl. Rumor had it that you had decided to end your musical career on a high note after the release of the chart-topping "Kinetic Sculpture Race" last year.
Seriously though, good job. I'll have to listen for it on K-HAY. :)
Marie
I read this book a few year's ago and I'm a little surprised you've been taken in by the famous "the other side has been tricked" thesis.
Certainly, people don't always vote their economic interests, but their vote or their concern is no less important to the public discussion.
Just because someone voted for a cultural issue other than economics doesn't mean their vote is any less significant or they've been duped.
I hear this in the rhetoric all the time.
"Republicans only put up prop 8 to turn out the religious vote." -- No, generally many Californians legitimately care about responding to the State Supreme Court decision telling them how it's going to be.
For many it conflicts with their religious views.
There are two strains of populism in this country best embodied by William Jennings Bryan. He is famous for going after wealthy tycoons in the cross of gold speech and also going after Darwinism in the scopes trial. He was a cultural and economic populist.
Now, Republicans generally have cultural populist issues on their side and Democrats subscribe to economic populism.
Neither side has been tricked, but have certain legitimate concerns they want addressed in the political process.
And generally wealth redistribution is unpopular in recent polls and has proven in other countries such as Venezuela not to work. So, Frank's thesis that it's in cultural conservatives economic interest to vote for left wing wealth redistribution is not necessarily true either.
I was very careful with my attributions. This is the author's theory I am postulating. I never subscribe to any thesis in its totality. I am always a questioning skeptic. But I do find some truth in what he writes.
This "elitism" charge is particularly irksome to me. I do feel like we are dumbing down politics.
Even Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country."
Obama, a man of simple roots, is called "elite" for a self-made Harvard education and McCain with his multiple mansions is not? This is contrary to all logic.
I also agree that red herring issues are thrown about to distract voters from matters which are of more importance. You are in denial if you think Prop. 4 wasn't put on the ballot once again to draw out conservative voters. How many times have we voted on this now?
And don't most historians agree that the New Deal rescued us from the Great Depression? It actually rescued capitalism.
Marie:
There is actually debate about the New Deal by economists and economic historians. It's actually one of my favorite topics, other than the Civil War and the Constitutional Convention.
Keep in mind, high unemployment changed little until the military draft.
Another example is FDR's Agricultural Secretary Henry Wallace ordered the destruction of meat, poultry, crops, and so on to "stabilize" agriculture prices. This was done while people were starving in the cities.
This is like saying, "let's burn down all the bank owned properties to reduce supply and stabilize prices."
The Wagner Act artificially "stabilized" labor prices, making businesses shrink their rolls further. (In fairness, Hoover also tried stabilizing high labor prices resulting in more unemployment and business contraction).
Another aspect that is causing a major problem now as it did then is what economist Robert Higgs calls "regime uncertainty" where each government action creates uncertainty of what will happen next. (Check out the link)
Just watch the Dow Jones since the "bailout". Following each government action, particularly in Fed Reserve interest rate changes and you'll see this phenomenon in action. Uncertainty of what the government will do next, motivates investors to sit on their cash.
In terms of the use of the term "elite", it generally has nothing to do with the simple roots of a person. It has everything to do with a predisposition for central planning of society from Washington.
That is, if one's plans are to go to Washington and social engineer society, it is little different from Roosevelt's Ivy League "brain trust" planning out society.
Prop 4 is hardly a red herring, nor do I think it's removal from the ballot would result in a decline in voter turnout from religious conservatives. This is speculation.
I don't view my friends as vulgar people as Tracy Noonan thinks of us. We are just trying to carve out a living, live by our values, and avoid the fickle trappings of popular opinion.
I think Carl should get national attention with his unique media approach to free speech. Maybe he will get an invitation to a TV talk show or a feature interview on KCLU radio this week.
Carl is quite good on the guitar but I think he is mistaken about who manipulates the voters the most.
John Edwards and John Kerry and George Soros and Nancy Pelosi and the Clintons many of the Hollywood stars and even Jesse Jackson are all examples of people who are very, very rich and exploit the concerns of the poor.
Both sides are quick to say what ever it takes to get votes. The voters are stupid for falling for it.
OK, Scott, I'm going to leave the link to Peggy's entire article here. Her point was that some conservative politicians think you have to talk down to voters to get them to pay attention. Obama ended up sounding far more presidential than McCain in the debates as a result.
Peggy Noonan:
"...This is Mr. Bush's former communications adviser Karen Hughes's contribution to our democratic life, that you cannot speak like an adult in politics now, that's too austere and detached, snobby. No one can say mothers and fathers, it's all now the faux down-home, patronizing — and infantilizing — moms and dads. Do politicians ever remember that in a nation obsessed with politics, our children — sorry, our kids — look to political figures for a model as to how adults sound?..."
Peggy was Reagan's speech writer.
I think the consensus of most historians is that the New Deal helped pull us out of the Great Depression. I know there are a few contrarians out here, you being one of them.
Except for a downturn in 1938 (historians still debate its origin), the economy and unemployment did improve after the onset of the New Deal. The country's real gross domestic product fell from $865 billion in 1929 to $635 billion in 1933 but rebounded to $1 trillion by 1940.
The WPA was a tremendous program which helped build our nation's infrastructure. Social Security was born during this time. And regulation of our banking industry began then.
The entire world is counting on regime change here. Our neighbors in other countries think we are lunatics to have re-elected George Bush.
I think you will see a big bump in the stock tickers if Obama is elected. I will put money on it.
Marie--Carl's great music and your comments express thoughts that need to be made. In this morning's Star(Saturday, October 25th) there is a poignant article about the efforts of a 58 year old man who lost his job after 15years. He and his wife are struggling to survive while raising a granddaughter. He noted that they have to keep up with their car payments because they may end up having to live in their car when they can no longer afford the cheap motel they have been forced to move into. He is actively looking for work, but so are many others and jobs are scarce. Meanwhile, the very rich enjoy their Bush tax cuts,the middle class fights for survival, and the poor remain largely invisible.
Marie:
An effective demonstration of GDP to prove the New Deal worked is a pretty standard response.
Now, let me introduce a couple other points that hopefully will intrigue you to look below the numbers.
First, have you ever wondered why a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth? Yet, we have not seen this today. Of course, if you polled the public, you'd hear different. Wouldn't you?
Why?
A major component today as it was in the 30's of GDP (although I think back then it was GNP) growth is government expenditures. Would you say that the federal government's 1 trillion in bailout and other stimulus spending might impact GDP staying positive today? I think so, yet most people like Ed Lacey's comment demonstrates, don't feel much better about the economy.
Government can spend until the cows come home, but it doesn't mean we are better off.
GDP can mask what is going on in the economy because if government were to spend more money it would remain positive.
So, if the government is at war and produces millions of tanks, airplanes, ships, and bombs, does it result in strong GDP numbers? Yes. Does it create individual wealth? Not necessarily.
So, when Katrina wiped out New Orleans the government came in to spend a bunch of money to rebuild things, this produced higher GDP numbers? Yes. But were the residents of New Orleans better off? No.
Would you conclude then that the best method of improving GDP numbers, would be for government to spend money to level cities and towns, then hire people to rebuild them as a form of GDP growth?
Of course not. That's absurd.
“What’s the matter with Kansas?�
The author’s answer is pretty clear: Kansans are ''deranged'' and ''lunatic,'' living in a ''dysfunctional'' state. While clinging to guns and religion, they ''revel in fantasies of their own marginality and persecution.''
Apparently because Kansans do not vote the way Mr. Franks and Mr. Morehouse think they should, they are all idiot bumpkins easily duped by other conservatives. This is the definition of elitism.
The WPA put people to work building infrastructure that we still have today. People with jobs are better off. Your example of leveling and then building again is sort of silly. I would like to stay in the present, for now. I often think of what the billions we have wasted in Iraq could have done for our own people.
I don't think we are one bit safer because of Iraq. True, the war created jobs -- in the death and destruction industry. But what if we had invested the billions in teachers or renewable energy or health care?
Does it trouble you that we have spent $500 billion there?
If you want a good read, check out "What's the Matter with California?" by Jack Cashill.
I'm only on pg. 127, but the back sums it up.
"Jack Cashill - shows how the media moguls, multiculturalists, union bosses, and eco-warriors who run California have abandoned liberalism for total insanity, transforming what was once America's future into America's Rome."
My favorite concept is the ABETTO factor.
It describes Californians affinity for "A Blind eye to the Obvious."
Way to change the subject, Scott. I'm happy to debate the state budget next.
You didn't answer my question. Are you OK with the $500 billion we have spent in Iraq? Has it made us safer? Has it been a good value for our taxpayers? Did the values voters find good value in electing George W. Bush?
And, BTW, I am a values voter on some issues, not all.
Jeff, did you read the "Kansas" book? The author grew up there. He has enormous respect for his home state. I'm not sure where you came up with all that.
Pithy comments from Carl on "big business" , especially after a personal career spent at the public trough ( funded by the taxpayers and "big business" he eschews ); his thinking that country music is too "right" for his outraged taste; that it "manipulates" the "blue collar" working man is leftist hubris - Carl, the blue collar man doesn't need to be pointed in the "right" direction - the best country music has evolved from an evangelical Christian perspective; ones possibly with more sense in these matters than might occur to others. One cannot but wonder whether Carl lives outside the real world of guitar-playing and channelling Kristofferson ?
On the subject of Kansas: Kansas has the most heinous abortionist in the land - the only one in the US who will perform a third-term procedure literally up and until an actual birth - and its governor supports this guy - that pretty much covers Kansas for most people.
The Noonan comments were roundly discounted by literally every respondent to her piece in the WSJ - totally out of touch with her own readership. I submit she is washed up along with fellow "conservative" columnist Kathleen Parker, both of whom trashed Palin for imaginary weaknesses.
The "mistake" by Greenspan is framed in the parallel universe of MSM journalists as Greenspan "admitting having made mistakes" - his only "mistake" was in trusting the banking industry to honor its stockholders - a novel concept.
Suggest reading Amity Schlaes' "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression", which argues the government made the Depression worse - not better.
The day after Obama wins, Israel commences plans to bomb Iran ( because Obama has no clue ), China commences plans to invade Taiwan and the entire continent of Africa - where it currently enslaves Congolese - see Peter Hitchens ( because Obama has no clue ), Russia's only aircraft carrier and its three nuclear vessels arrive in Venezuela (they are on their way now from Murmansk ) along with the 40 Russian cutting-edge fighter jets and 30 Russian helicopter gunships Venezuela has just purchased ( Obama cares ? ), Iran receives nuclear warheads from North Korea ( ditto ), the stock market tanks ( the market hates uncertainty ). Obama will be the Jimmy Carter of this decade only intentionally much worse.
I submit that George W. Bush has more moxie in his little finger and more guts on more issues with more concern for the American people than Mr. O. will ever come close to. Hope I'm incorrect.
Another singer with a similar view. Way to go Carl!
Oops. http://www.sallyanthony.com/newsite/sallyanthony/site_flash/index.php
Marie- I have not read the book as the clinging to guns and religion thesis has been presented many times. Scott Blough's book rec sounds interesting though.
My source for the quotes is the New York Times review of the book which I have attached.
I grew up in the Midwest and I didn't find the book particularly derogatory at all toward Kansans. Here's a quote from the author:
"Yeah! When I had my colleagues here in Chicago read it, that was something they picked up on right away. Instead of really lambasting these people, who I obviously disagree with, I'm, you know, attracted to them. I think that's really obvious...."
------
I found it an interesting study in political manipulation, something that Katie pointed out quite correctly that both parties do. And I found some interesting parallels between what the author wrote and what is going on right now in the current presidential election and locally as well. Did I buy it hook, line and sinker? No. But it's a good read. And there are certainly parallels between the book and the video Carl did.
I left you a link as well with another point of view and the interview with the author. He has written another book, "The Wrecking Crew," which is also interesting.
I try to get people discussing topics on a higher level with this blog, something I am not always successful with.
Marie:
On your questions, I think we need more time on some of these things before saying it's bad or good.
So far, a lot of these issues are still active and not over, so it's tough to make a final verdict one way or the other on whether we got a good return.
Plus, on issues of national security, we don't have all the information as it's classified.
You never asked how well your new tires wear when you leave the tire shop. You'll know down the road and over time.
On the domestic side, I was pretty disgusted with the Abramoff scandal, the earmarking and lobbyist problems, and big spender bills on energy and farms.
I opposed the Washington bailout.
I believe Washington is sending mixed messages to the credit and equity markets that is slowing the recovery. More people are sitting on the sidelines because they don't know what is coming next.
I'm also very concerned with inflation (increase in money supply) resulting from these Washington decisions over the next few years.
Amity Shlaes book on the Depression is a wonderful read. My favorite part is about the Schechters who dealt a blow against Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration that had banned price cutting.
You can read about it in the link above from the New York Times.
Spoken like a true Republican, Scott. The car has left the garage, the tires blew out and it has gone over the cliff.
What do you think about Bush's plan to privatize Social Security? Would that have been a good idea?
Hi Marie:
The Bush plan? No.
One of the big goals of the Club for Growth is to replace Social Security with private accounts a la the Bush plan.
Tony Strickland was the founder of the California Club for Growth. He thought it was a good idea too.
Marie:
I wish I would have bet you money, but I just let your belief go... How much would you have bet?
Marie wrote, "I think you will see a big bump in the stock tickers if Obama is elected. I will put money on it."
11/5/08 - First day of trading since Obama has been elected:
Dow: -486.01
Nasdaq: -98.48
S & P 500: -52.98
It was just a reaction to yesterday's jump. Today people took profits.
I stayed up nearly all night. Let a tired lady rest. :-)
Marie:
I was just teasing you a bit.
Apparently, there was more, uh what'd you call it, "profit-taking" today.
Dow: -443.48
Nasdaq -72.98
S & P 500: -47.89
First two days since election.
Dow: -929.49
Nasdaq: -171.46
S& P 500: -100.87
Maybe, the uncertainty is being driven by Obama not announcing his economic team, so money is heading for the hills.
I imagine if he announces his team the market may or may not improve just on speculation about the future.