Good Advice
The other thing the Democrats might do is to acquire a copy of Thomas Frank's book What's the Matter With Kansas? and then ignore everything he says. Frank seems to be saying that voters are ignorant to vote on social issues. The book is an argument for a return to the same old-time liberalism that has paralyzed the Democratic Party. Frank has no understanding of why cultural issues are important to so many Americans. The fact is that the Democrats are unlikely to win the presidency again until they do something about the cultural divide.
Another book that deserves to be ridiculed and mocked, Thomas Frank's book is an instant classic among the "they just don't get it" crowd on the left.
Comments
I agree that Frank says many silly things in WMWK. But I don't think his views are inconsistent with yours. I imagine he'd support Evan Bayh. Tom's a modernist, and his book is not a call for the liberalism of the 1960s. It's a call for the liberalism of the 1930s: economic populism and cultural conservatism.
Tom's main brief is with Clinton, whom he sees as alienating the "heartland" with liberal cultural attitudes and his support for NAFTA. And this is true if we ignore one thing: Clinton was very popular in middle America. He was a unique individual, who was able to balance the old Democratic constituencies (workers, farmers, seniors, people of color) with the new Democrats in the suburbs. His successors haven't been able to maintain that balance.
Incidentally, did you know that Tom, like David Brooks, was a Neil Harris student at the University of Chicago? They're mirror images of one another. Both are cultural critics who rely on gross exaggerations about regional character. Both fetishize the rural conservative. But they come to very different conclusions.
Posted by: AWC | November 8, 2004 02:46 PM
Oh, and by the way, Leo's dissembling. Casey wasn't denied a gig at the convention because of his stance on abortion. He was barred because he refused to endorse Clinton. I'm from Pennsylvania, and I can state this for an absolute certainty.
Posted by: AWC | November 8, 2004 02:52 PM
Yeah, I thought that was the weakest point in Leo's case since that's long since been dispelled as a myth of 1992. Interesting take on Frank, though. My initial glance at the book didn't quite uncover all of that, but I have to admit to being quick to dismiss a book premised on the alleged notion that anyone who votes their values over their pocketbook is somehow misguided.
Posted by: Greg Wythe | November 8, 2004 02:55 PM
Oh, I have many complaints. He's a pompous a--. I think KS is a terrible state to use as an example (it's never been Wisconsin). I think his attacks on Clinton are terribly misguided, especially since future growth will be the suburbs not in rural Kansas. I could go on.
But I think Frank is best when he explains how Republicans manipulate evangelicals by exploiting their sense of victimization. This may sound condescending, but it's true, and the Christians know it themselves. The next two years will test both whether the Republicans really want to undo Roe and whether the fundies can handle victory.
Tom doesn't convince me that Harkin-style politics will prompt working-class evangelicals to vote blue. But it's not a book I'd dismiss out of hand.
Posted by: AWC | November 8, 2004 03:13 PM