What's the Matter with Thomas Franks?

After reading Lie Down for America by Thomas Frank, I had to seriously question my own voting behavior and motives. Had I been duped into voting against my own economic interest by cleverly packaged "social issues"? In a way I have to admit yes. I am a Christian. Abortion and gender issues are important to what I think the America I live in represents. But in analyzing rhetoric of this magnitude, its important to maintain an objective stance. So I digress... In all, Frank presents a convincing argument filled with enough anecdotes of those poor stupid Americans I nearly wanted to cry... Seriously! Without question, he is indeed an eloquent writer painting a stark picture of what he perceives to be the crumbling democratic base of the Great Plains. But what's most important in factual analysis is, well.... facts! In this regard Larry Bartels, in his essay titled What's the Matter with What's the Matter with Kansas, presents a much clearer picture of the voting trends of the stupid poor Americans. Backed by solid empirical statistical analysis, he clearly demonstrates that Frank's argument is more or less "engaged storytelling (Bartels Pg. 225)."

Lets first begin with Frank's assessment of what he terms "the Great Backlash". He describes the movements basic thrust as a social movement opposed to the greater economic interests of traditionally Blue-America: "...culture outweighs economics as a matter of public concern (Frank Pg. 34)." In all, what's really important to America's blue-collar voters according to Frank is not the ever present economic issues, but rather the social issues such as abortion, gender issues, gun-control, etc. A main staple of his argument is based on the demographics of certain voting regions of Kansas- his microcosm of America- where he argues that America's poorest county ironically voted Republican. The question that has to asked at this point, seeing as so much of Frank's argument rests on this notion, is this really an accurate microcosm of America's lower income voting trends? The answer is no.

Before I go any further with this argument, I must first debase my own notions of bias towards empirical statistical analysis. If you go back and read my post titled The Rocket Science of Empirical Statistical Analysis, you'll see that my argument mirrors Frank's quite eerily, minus Kansas of course. Part of that was based on my lack of comprehension of the material being studied. Statistics take time to understand and are tedious to compile. In all, I'm stained by the torture I endured when was required by the University to take a statistics class and I still maintain that anybody that thinks its fun is simply and purely sadistic! But in reality, numbers don't lie. In this, facts can be drawn and yes, Frank's anecdotes can be debased for what they are- anomalies.

Thomas uses NES statistics to paint an altogether different picture than that of Frank. According to his analysis, "Democratic vote shares from the lower [third] of the white electorate... [are] 51% (Bartels Pg. 208)." This data essentially debunks Frank's assessment as a whole. If the poorest third of the country as a whole still votes Democrat, then what of Frank's "Great Backlash"? Is that poor rural Kansas county a flash in the pan or a true microcosm of America as a whole? In this lies the main weakness of Franks argument. One in which Bartels clearly explains. There was indeed a shift in voting patterns, but if anything the shift didn't take place in Kansas, but rather in the South. In the last 14 elections, Bartels shows through NES data that the "Democratic presidential vote share... declined by almost 20 percentage points among southern whites... (Bartels Pg. 210)." Bartels also goes on to state "[This trend casts] considerable doubt on the plausibility of accounts positing broad national shifts in working-class political behavior (211)."

The problem then with Frank's argument is not in its accuracy regarding that poor Kansas county, but on his assumption that that county represents the voting interests of America as a whole. Bartels has clearly shown that is just not the case and the recent landslide election and rise of the Democratic party to majority control of congress further proves the validity of his data. If social issues such as the ones briefly mentioned above are the driving force behind the "Great Backlash", well then what of that backlash? If Frank was right in his assessment of the shifting voting patterns wouldn't the recent election have reflected that sentiment? But it didn't. What were left with then is the fact that as a whole, consistent with Bartels argument, the working class still and always has voted Democrat.