Posted on 09/28/2014 8:12:06 AM PDT by centurion316
What’s the matter with Kansas? It’s a decade since Thomas Frank launched a thousand headlines with his book of that title, itself a reference to a famous 1896 essay by Kansas journalist William Allen White. Frank’s thesis was simple: Kansans, and by extension the rest of the red states, vote against their economic interests. Or as he puts it in the first page of his book: “People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about.”
Is he right? Do voters in the great middle of the country ignore their economic interests to vote for the cultural populism that so offends Frank? Do they sacrifice their pocketbooks to issues like abortion and gay marriage? Frank’s quarrel is not with populism, of course, but rather the right’s use of populist rhetoric about social issues.
At the same time, Frank is no fan of the Obama administration, finding its response to our present predicaments far short of the full-throated class war that he would recommend. But for those of us who reside where Republicans are successful in politics and government, the Obama administration’s performance is the only metric available against which to measure the consequences of not voting Republican.
By that standard, then, how have red state voters fared? How are we doing, now that President Obama and his allies have carried the day?
There is no doubt that this has been the slowest recovery in modern history, and it has been particularly bad for the kind of investors who populate flyover country. While low interest rates are good for Wall Street and a government that is $18 trillion in debt, they are ravaging Midwesterners, whose idea of a retirement plan is a certificate of deposit or two at the local bank...
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
In the Midwest, very few places outside of big cities do vote Democrat. Those smaller Democrat counties are usually home to college towns or union jobs.
I think once more voters in KS realize the statewide Democrat candidates (this includes “independent” Orman in the Senate race) are nothing but Obama as*wipes, there will be a clean Republican sweep in the gubernatorial, senate, and SOS races. Obama is *deeply* unpopular in Kansas (and no, it has nothing to do with race).
If people actually knew what was going on, the political landscape would be totally different. However, people turn on their TV and they see that the economy is booming, our foreign affairs are going great, evil Republicans are trying to lynch blacks and destroy the environment, but -- so far -- Democrats have been able to block these terrible things. And then the well-informed people go to the polls and vote accordingly.
Dont forget, Obama went to Osawatomie, Kansas...for a reason.
Disloyal RINOs who back Obama democrats Orman and Davis in the Senate and Gubernatorial races are what’s wrong.
Go Roberts and Brownback!!
I’ve thought that this whole notion of “What’s the matter with Kansas” is an insult to Kansas.
I object to the premise of this in the first place, that somehow Kansans don’t vote Democrat or liberal because they don’t know what is best for them.
So, are they saying that anyone who doesn’t vote according to liberal criteria is voting against their own best interests? Based on what criteria? Liberal criteria?
Can’t we say that Kansans are smart enough to know who they are voting for, and what criteria they are using when they vote? Why is it somehow up to liberals to decide what the voting criteria should be? Why is it somehow up to elitists on the upper west side to decide how people elsewhere should vote????
And go Sec of State Kobach!!! Defeat the scumsuckers!
‘the rest of the red states, vote against their economic interests’
Higher taxes, more regulations, forced collectivism, crony-capitalism, etc ARE against my economic interests and THEY are typical Democrat Party platforms.
Very interesting subject.
I’ve been thinking lately that people who live in rural locations traditionally have a larger dependency on their neighbors and community. So they vote more “theoretically,” for the good of their own community, leaning toward individual responsibility and freedom. Survival depends on responsibility, relationships, and trust.
Those that live in urban environments are more dependent on the “machine” than they are their neighbors. So they tend to vote more for their own individual advantage than the community. This, in MHO, is a shallower view of “their own interests” than the rural vote.
Interestingly, this reality seems the opposite of the all the political chatter about “the greater good” and socialist ideas in general, which place trust in the machine before individuals.
For those who question Kentucky’s bipolar political psyche, spend time in Jefferson County and read the Louisville Courier. Count the number of “coexist” bumper stickers.
Well said.
But there is a real problem. The mindset represented by 'Kansas' wants the benefits of Big Government (ag subsidies, Social Security, money from Washington for roads) without it's baggage (ultimate totalitarianism). It is this contradiction that gives rise to the RINO.
Democrats believe they are being rational, that totalitarianism would be more 'rational' and less wasteful.
He imagines that looting your neighbors is a "fundamental interest", in the same way that John Dillinger and Al Capone did.
“There is no doubt that this has been the slowest recovery in modern history,”
Didn’t economists used to have an actual performance driven definition of a “recovery”? We used to hear it all the time and now? Not so much.
Well, this article isn’t about Kansas, it’s about Missouri, but I agree with you and I see signs that Kansas voters are turning against Orman and Davis and back to Roberts and Brownback. This weekend, both Roberts and Brownback had significant ad presence on all the regional football games. Roberts in particular has been absent on the airways since the Primary.
This article isn’t even about Kansas, it’s about Missouri and the entire Midwest. I also reject the premise as it applies to all of the great plains states.
I think that you make a very good point. The fundamental political argument in this country is big government vs. small government. The big government types right now have the power and the media, but they don’t have the votes. The majority are still small government, but they often don’t vote that way.
For that matter, the left is hypocritical. Because when they aren’t calling us greedy for wanting to keep the fruit of our own labor, they are calling us stupid for not being more greedy when we put principle above pocketbook.
So this standard issue leftist thinks that someone other than voters on the right, is best suited to decide for us just what our “fundamental interests” are. Nothing new here. And those interests are not always economic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.