As somebody who grew up in Kansas and then subsequently moved to New York, I can honestly say that Thomas Frank accurately captures the ideology prevalent in Kansas when it comes to national politics, the narrow minded scope of political understanding there, and the reasons why folks in midwestern states like Kansas are easily misled by the Republican party into literally voting against their own economic interests in the name of "values."

I'm very disappointed! After paying for it to be sent from a seller in the marketplace (bordee books), I have not received it and the seller is (in my opinion) giving me a hard time about getting me a copy of it. Their solution was to "wait and see if it comes. Get back to us in a week or so." If it was possible, I would give ZERO stars! Think twice about using this seller!

This is a must read for political junkies, especially Democrats and liberals who can't comprehend why rural middle class Americans continue to vote Republican when doing so is clearly not in their best economic interests. Using Kansas as perhaps the best example of this phenomenon, the author does an excellent job of analyzing the cultural, political, and economic forces that have caused middle America to shift strongly to the right over the past 40 years. From this book, I came away with a deeper understanding of American politics, especially the Reagan conservative revolution that forged an unlikey but successful alliance of Wall Street capitalists and social conservative evangelicals to form the modern Republican machine.

I read this book a little over a year ago in response to a suggestion
from a left wing blogger. I suppose to be fair, I should go back and
reread the book in order to do a better review. But I'll try to "wing
it" by memory, which may be a real challenge because the book is
quite forgetable.

Basically the entire premise revolves around the idea that you morons out
there don't know what's good for you. So, the thing to do is to vote for
the left because they know best.

Whoever you are, left or right, liberal or conservative- you probably
deserve a little more credit than that. You'll vote for who you think is
best; best for you or for your country. I'll make a deal with liberals:
don't call me stupid for voting conservative, and I won't call you stupid.
I may think you're pretty stupid, but I'll keep that to myself.

I just want to say that this book is completely on target and right about the political mindset of Kansas citizens in addition to almost every other right-winged American. I should know -- I used to live in Kansas. Luckily, I spent most of my life growing up in NY because after realizing many of the same conclusions of Thomas Frank, my mom knew we had to leave. The book was very well written and kept me smiling throughout because his descriptions ring true to my personal experience living there - they brought back so many memories of the extreme conservative mindset of all of my family and friends in KS. Anyone who lives in the midwest, has an open mind and understands politics can learn a great deal from this book; and anyone who disagrees is clearly ignorant of the truth.

The book demonstrates with eloquence and grace how "values voters" are duped into voting for an economy they probably disagree with. The book points out how abortion, gay rights, family values, tv violence, rap lyrics and the rest are all tools that are used to "fire up the base" but they are NEVER acted upon, and they never WILL be acted upon in anything but the most lip-servicey ways....

This is why, with control over all three branches of government, nothing has been done to appease the values voters-because keeping those value voters ANGRY about "damn liberals" is the only way to pass the republican economic agenda-which is the ONLY thing the republicans are interested in.

[I wanted to add- any one who claims to be a Kansan offended by the title **CLEARLY** did not read the book, as the title references another work altogether.]

You see them every day. People who vote on contrived issues while missing those that matter. For reference I'm a retired Air Force Officer, make well over $100K and tend to be a fiscal conservative and socially liberal. I benefit from low taxes and don't care who marries who. So how do I vote? Certainly not for a free spending interventionist. Anyone who engages in wars of choice serves no worthy purpose. Now see how people are politically manipulated with the "values" issues. You could be some poor guy now making 1/2 what you did 6 years ago but what's the problem? You are part of our "full employment society. But when it comes to 2 guys kissing... now that's a problem. Well maybe it's changing with Bush down to 33% and Congress lower. Maybe, just maybe people will finally realize what's important and what Govenment can reasonably do.

Frank's book reminds me a lot as to why most of us in WY and other red states and red areas of blue states just don't take the Democrats seriously anymore. So the Democrats say, "We'll help the poor" by doing what? They go along with the looney conservatives by letting half the party vote to cut taxes for the already well to do, deregulate business especially in agriculture and media, vote for tort restrictions to prevent holding bad companies accountable, vote for bankruptcy restrictions against the lower/middle class while letting corrupt business leaders get all the bankruptcy protections they want, etc ... The Democrats seem all too hell bent on raising money and less intent on raising their own morale against the conservatives or for that matter their once heroic status for a stable economy in America. I might add that the Democrats are no better on Iraq when the party tries to say the war was a bad idea but still keep voting to fund it at the expense of critical cuts against the American people. Meanwhile, the GOP knows that voters would never accept their economically destructive agenda so they making it sound so sweet by bragging about tax "cuts" even when rising costs and critical budget costs against the public eat away what little tax cuts were given to them to begin with. To add to it, they bring up "wedge" issues like guns, abortion, flag-burning, school prayer, patriotism, god, gays, and other hot-button issues to distract voters from the real issues. Great book but I would hate to see the rest of America suffer the same fate us Wyomingites and Kansans suffered as a result of the conservative backlash.

My major problem with this book is that we have an author holding forth on the supposed ignorance of white working class red staters without ever discussing the flip-side to this: aren't rich latte sipping types in Democratic strongholds like New York and San Francisco also guilty of naivety when it comes to voting? The unspoken assumption seems to be that these rich Democrat voters are "correct" in their political views, so any discussion of this anomaly is inappropriate.

Why not write a book called 'What's the matter with New York?' In cases of voters everywhere, it should be apparent that cultural or sociological factors are of equal - or greater - importance than economic factors. It's just that whereas certain people prioritise gun control others don't. It's not patronising to suggest that most people - including a lot of academics - don't really understand economics; they will vote on issues that are clear-cut and of straightforward importance. This is the reality of Democracy everywhere.

In any event, the contention of the book is in part correct; just in reverse of the author's position. According To David McKay's book showcasing analysis of the 2004 election, the wealthier you are the more, not less, likely you are on average to vote Republican (the statistically perfect average being a white, southern, married male, over 50, earning over 100 grand a year).

Ever see the Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on the back of a beat up 1990 Geo and wonder about the sanity of the occupants?

This book describes how the Republicans have systematically over the last 35 years removed economic issues from political debate and substituted culture war issues, which Frank calles the "backlash", in order to win over the vast American heartland. The backlash is blamed on the so-called liberal media and elitist liberal academics, and the good hard-working Kansans and other Red Staters are powerless against the tyranny of the elite.

What Frank points out is that Kansans and others don't realize is that the Cons use the backlash to get elected and then once in power, vote for issues that are pro-business and detrimental to the supporting hordes of blue collar workers. The real elites are the corporations and pro-business organizations that bankroll the republican war machine and anti-labor, anti-environment, representatives in government. It will ensure that your job will go to India or China where the labor is cheaper and environmental regulations are lax. If that didn't ruin you, they will look the other way as hordes of cheap labor will come to your hometown to take your job away, and bankrupt your local hospital and school district.

Whats truly troubling, as Frank points out, is that the Democrats have also abandoned the economic issues in politics in order to court the money that gushes from corporations. Because more money will always go to Republicans, this will ensure their continuing defeat by the backlash.

Very well written, if repetative. Should be read by all!!

The book "What's the Matter with Kansas? : How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" by Thomas Frank is very revealing and more educational than any government school.

The largely blue collar citizens of Kansas can be counted upon to be a "red" state in any election, voting solidly Republican and possessing a deep animosity toward what Frank calls the "left." Tom Frank is stuck in silly left-right political analysis, as taught in government schools. He is still unaware of the Nolan chart or Diamond chart.

According to Frank, the conservative establishment has tricked Kansans, playing up the emotional touchstones of conservatism and perpetuating a sense of a vast "liberal" empire out to crush traditional values. Franks overlooks the real trick. Republican-socialists are outsocializing Clinton by double (in social spending alone). Republicans said that Clinton was a socialist, so what is someone who outspends Clinton by double? The Republican "red" color is exposing them. Apparently, Frank doesn't think that the USA's police-state is big enough yet.

Franks uses the word "liberal" unprofessionally to mean "left." His habit forgets the etymology of "liberal" for "liberty" (against government and for laissez-faire capitalism). That bad habit explains why republicans and democrats are the same: socialists. Tom Frank is an example of why government schools are unconstitutional and must end.

It would be a mistake to say that Frank is "liberal" as that is misleading. Afterall, he is attacking a party (republicans) who outsocialize Clinton by double (in social spending alone). no republican president had ever cut the size and scope of government. The only way that Frank can be called biased is that he drones on about socialists (Democrats and Republicans) and ignores anyone who wants to cut government (Libertarians). Frank shows why the Republican Party and Democrat Party are lost causes for liberty.

Frank, a native Kansan, tells the state's socio-political history from its early days as a hotbed of leftist activism. It is amazing that Franks overlooks so much even though his own history was as a young conservative idealist turned disenchanted college Republican-socialist. Those old times included a self-proclaimed socialist who wrote the pledge of allegiance (that republican-socialists now "love") in 1892 for government's schools.

Frank is not libertarian and he uses the misnomer "public schools" to mean "government schools." No one would trust the government to tell the truth if it published books like Frank's or Harper's. Why would the government tell the truth in government schools?

Frank book suggests that he doesn't know that the pledge was written by a socialist (Francis Bellamy) in the USA and that the original salute was a straight-arm salute (as shown in web image searches for "original socialist salute"). Frank doesn't know of the news-breaking discovery in the book "The Pledge of Allegiance and the Bellamys" (by the historian Rex Curry) that the straight-arm salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis) came from the USA's pledge of allegiance and military salute, and not from ancient Rome. Frank seems unaware that Bellamy put flags in every school to promote a government takeover of education for widespread nationalization and socialism.

Frank has another bad habit: overuse of the hackneyed word "Nazi" so much that it might cause one to wonder if he knows what the abbreviation abbreviates. Many people forget that "Nazi" means "National Socialist German Workers' Party," and one reason people forget is because the word "Nazi" is overused by politicians like Frank who rarely or never say the actual name of the horrid party. A good mnemonic device is that the sick socialist swastika represented two overlapping "S" letters for "socialism" under the National Socialist German Workers' Party as exposed in the book "Swastika Secrets.".

In 1892, Francis Bellamy began the pledge of allegiance with a military salute for the phrase "I pledge allegiance" and then the rest of the pledge was chanted with the arm outstretched toward the flag. The military salute became the Nazi salute. The hand was supposed to be turned upward for the main gesture, however it changed in time to the Nazi-style because of casual extension of the initial military salute straight toward the flag. Even when the palm was turned upward, people would see the relationship to the later Nazi salute, and the USA's salute changed to the hand-over-the-heart.

It is a wonder why Frank is not laughing at republican-socialists who have been duped into supporting socialism and who are ignorant of the pledge's socialist past.

Edward and Francis Bellamy were national socialists who idolized the military and wanted to nationalize the entire US economy, including all schools. It was a philosophy that led to the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part) where millions were murdered (62 million by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 35 million by the Peoples' Republic of China, 21 million by the National Socialist German Workers' Party) in the worst slaughter in history. That is why the Bellamys are known as American Nazis. All Holocaust Museums could expand four-fold with Wholecaust Museums.

Bellamy believed that government schools with pledges and flags were needed to brainwash children to embrace nationalism, militarism, and socialism. Bellamy wanted the government to takeover everything and impose the military's "efficiency," as he said. It is the origin of the modern military-socialist complex.

Bellamy wanted a flag over every school because he wanted to nationalize and militarize everything, including all schools, and eliminate all of the better alternatives. During Bellamy's time the government was taking over education. Bellamy wanted government schools to ape the military. Government schools were intended to create an "industrial army" (another Bellamy phrase, and the word "army" was not metaphorical) and to help nationalize everything else.

Because of the Bellamy way of thinking, government-schools spread and they mandated segregation by law and taught racism as official policy and did so even after the National Socialists were defeated, and well beyond.

Thereafter, the government's segregation legacy caused more police-state racism of forced busing that destroyed communities and neighborhoods and deepened hostilities.

Because of the Bellamy way of thinking, government-schools spread and they mandated the Nazi-style salute by law, flags in every classroom, and daily robotic chanting of the pledge of allegiance in military formation like Pavlov's lapdogs of the state.

The bizarre practices served as an example for three decades before they were adopted by the National Socialist German Workers' Party. When Jesse Owens competed in the 1936 Olympics in Germany, his neighbors attended segregated government schools where they saluted the flag with the Nazi salute.

As under Nazism, children in the USA (including Jehovah's Witnesses and blacks and the Jewish and others) attended government schools where segregation was imposed by law, where racism was taught as official policy, and where they were required by law to perform the Nazi salute and robotically chant a pledge to a flag. If they refused, then they were persecuted and expelled from government schools and had to use the many better alternatives. There were also acts of physical violence.

The hypnotic "Sieg Heil" salute to a flag symbol mesmerized Americans long before it brainwashed Germans.

Jehovah's Witnesses were among the first people to publicly fight the government and its pledge ritual in the USA, during the same time that they fought it in Nazi Germany. They eventually achieved total victory over Nazi socialism. They achieved only partial victory over similar socialism in the USA. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they could not be forced to perform the pledge. Laws still make teachers lead children in robotic chants of the socialist's pledge daily, on cue from the government. Jehovah's Witnesses and other children in government schools must watch the ritual performed by others.

The pledge gesture was altered and explicit school segregation by government ended. The Government's schools still exist, the federal flag brands government schools, and government's teachers must chant the pledge daily. Students are kept ignorant of the pledge's original salute and history. That is why the pledge still exists.

The USA also continued its Nazi numbering (social security from 1935) and its robotic pledge, with no stopping.

Today, the USA numbers babies, and government schools demand the numbers for enrollment, and the numbers track homes, workplaces, incomes, finances, and more, for life. School laws still tout the daily pledge, a bizarre ritual shunned by every other country.

Frank has discussed plans for "reform" of social security that would invest social security taxes in private businesses. At the height of Nazi power, the USA's government deliberately stepped onto the same path with national numbering imposed in 1935 with the social security system. The federal government was growing massively and attempting to nationalize the economy in many ways. The US Supreme Court struck down much of the new legislation as unconstitutional until the craven FDR pressured the Court into the "switch in time that socialized nine."

New social security reform ideas are so-called "privatization" plans that would nationalize all businesses, in addition to schools. It would impress the Bellamys. Frank does not have the ethics to discuss the other side of the issue (the proper side): ending government involvement in education, and ending the social security scam, its taxes and its Nazi numbering. If the antidisestablishmentarianism does not end, then the USA's police state will grow.

Overall, Frank's book was very revealing and educational and worth the time to review. Let's hope for a more enlightened sequel in the future.

This book should be required reading for all conservatives. It explains what a vote for the Rep party really means. Advantages for big business, making the rich richer, and never realizing the social solutions you seek. Republicans have convinced many socially conservative people that they are the compassionate party towards abortion, religion, and crime. If you truly vote with your heart then you should never vote for such a corrupt, evil group.

Frank is a brilliant guy and a good writer. That's why this book is a little hard to take. It's very superficial and seems like it was written not as a deep analysis of heartland America, but more as a way to let the elites feel that they are morally superior...they're just getting out-huslted by a bunch of redneck snake-oil salesmen.

He could have done a much more thoughful look at why blue-collar America has abandoned the party of Roosevelt/Kennedy/et al.

For a much more balanced look at the American electorate, I'd recommend 'The Right Nation' by two Britons, Micklewait and Woolridge.






.

If you've ever wondered about the rise of the "backlash" conservative movement in the U.S., look no further. If you've ever wondered why so many people support an ideology that, in the end, doesn't benefit them, it is explained perfectly here.

The author uses Kansas--his homestate and a historically politically charged area--as the microcosm for what could be the total U.S. If it hasn't made sense to you thus far how this happened, it will after reading this book.

Bonus: he also nails head-on why the Democrats have completely lost touch with/abandoned the very people they were supposed to represent. In the present, we either have these "backlash" conservatives posing as populists or the Democrats, who appear totally impotent and lost.

Yet the book never slids into mere partisan villain-making, with one side completely exonerated and the other taken to task. Impressive that he was able to sum all this up in one 250 page book. A must-read for people who are interested in modern U.S. politics.

This is an excellent book which considers the factors which lead people to vote their social views rather than their economic interests. This is not uncommon but a really interesting point that Frank makes is the conflict between Republicans of different statuses. This class conflict clearly is more serious than even that between the Republicans and Democrats.

- and this is the answer.

If Frank and his friends will have their way, everything will be like it is in Europe, taxes up, public spending up, unemployment will be up 10 fold (from 4.5% to 10% it is 10 fold, becase 4% is the level when we have full employment here), and the hardest hit will be working poor.

So, people do vote their economic interests.

Outstanding book. As one who has always been amazed that the working class conservatives over and over again vote against their economic interests, I found the book incissive, and a very enoyable read.

It is well written and has a nice streak of humor running throuhout. Frank hits the nail on the head when he states that all too many of the Cons see no connection whatsoever between economics and politics. They seem to believe as they are constantly encouraged to believe by corporate interests that politics is only about gay marriage, school prayer, abortion, etc. In the meantime, the wealthy class in general and the corporations in particular are the ecnomic beneficiaries of their continued voting for what " God wants them to do".

What he says about Kansas is all too true for other states as well, like my home state of Mississippi.

To me the book is deficient in that he proposes no solution to the problem. He even lumps Clinton in with the corporate interests, kind of neglecting the fact that Clinton, middle of the roader that he may be, is the only Democrat elected recently.
Also, the book ends very abruptly. I definitely wanted a bit more of "so what do we do next"

I fear for the Republic.

That quote (from Bill Clinton and directed at the policies of the elder Bush, IIRC) sums up Frank's point, and his point is that the Democrats don't get it. According to Frank, the "New Democrats" have abandoned their base, labor, and are reaping the consequences. The New Deal, John Kenneth Galbraith, and the plight of the American worker have all been abandoned. The Democrats helped engineer the collapse of the American labor unions. Is it then any suprise that the no-longer-unionized blue-collar work force is engineering the collapse of the Democratic party? If American workers are voting against their own best interests, it is partly because the Democrats have done a very poor job of defending those interests. (That passion for conservative social issues which is the province of the nuttier segment of the Republican party comes, Frank suggests, in the wake of the loss of economic power.)
It's a strong premise, and Frank supports it with an extensive examination of contemporary social, economic, and political Kansas. There is no lack of good reporting, as evidenced by the extensive range of footnotes.
Still, the book falls short. Something is missing. I'm not seeing deep analysis; I'm not seeing the numbers or the clear
description of the economic consequences of the current political pattern. And I'm not sure that Frank's explanation is enough, not when I recall the years the British electorate spent voting against their own interests and returning Maggie Thatcher to power.
Frank is correct but -- and it's a big 'but' -- he's only found part of the story. It is the economy, but I wonder if Harry Truman, Hubert Humphrey and LBJ all put together could sell Kansas (or any of the rest of America) on Roosevelt's New Deal today. And I suspect that residual memories of an American economic failure -- the inflationary surge that Nixon, Ford, and Carter all found themselves powerless to control -- provides another chunk of the story.

I was interested to read this book because I thought it offered a chance for a liberalish guy to take a look at so-called "heartland" conservatives. As a fairly liberal guy myself, and someone who hates Bush and the modern American Republicanism, I was shocked to be impressed as follows. What I found was an torpid, stupefying repetition of the theme of the first sentence of the book. It was all very bare despcription of events and caricatured people. There is no analysis, only a string of assumptions and smirking, museum-like observations. He gives no serious thought to confronting the ethics of the modern Republicanism versus its opponents. He doesn't make clear in a probative way just why his version of politics is ultimately desirable. No discussion of what makes modern Republicanism wrong, but just more presumption that it is. Specifically, he ignores that his "Two Americas" have fundamentally different conceptions of what is good and how that affects their affiliations. For instance, he acts like the religious right is simply being hoodwinked with baiting social policy promises, not fully appreciating that economic prosperity is not a primary concern for many of these people. Likewise, he refuses to consider that many may prefer the negative freedom (noninterference) of low taxation and regulation to a more publically-run state oriented economy. In keeping with the absurdity theme, there is effectively no addressing of national security influences. And finally, he ignores that the "red/blue" split is ultimately, in popular terms, more clearly a rural/urban split. Bigger cities are more common on the coasts, making the region "blue," but the big cities in the midwest and south are still "blue."

But again, the most terrible part of this book is the poor writing and the ceaseless repetition of its simple, hackneyed theme. You would do better to watch Fox News, the Christian Broadcast Network, listen to talk radio, watch church services on TV, read the very popular modern Christian inspiriational books like "The Purpose Driven Life," read the "Left Behind" series of books, etc.

A previous poster states this is an analysis and this is more of a cultural study than your standard liberal academic examination.
It is easy to read and one should pay attention to the footnotes at the end which reveal a lot of interesting tidbits of the cultural movement that has taken place in Kansas.
Frank does an excellent job in describing the conservative backlash around the nation. The Democrats still have yet to figure out how to win the votes of midwestern blue collar folks who see Bush as more "authentic" than the Kerrys and Deans of the world who cavort with Hollywood stars and appear more sophisticated.
This "authenticity" theme has helped the GOP sway voters when it comes to issues surrounding abortion, religion, etc. Frank also points out that the Democrats have abandoned voters on economic issues and often vote the same way the Republicans do.
The only area I see missing in Frank's book is the effect of 9-11 and the war on terror on voters who see the war in Iraq as a battle to prevent future terrorist attacks on US soil.
Otherwise, he does a superb job in describing the rise of conservativism through the 1990s to the 2004 election through numerous interviews and observations of prominent Kansas cons. Anyone who is concerned about the future (ala survival) of the Democratic party should read this book.

The mining tragedy that happened in Sago,WV, not far from where I live, is no accident. This is the conservative backlash that voters in 2004 asked for. This book was written in 2004 and updated in 2005 where Frank adds his description of the conservative backlash that has taken place not only in Kansas but also in conservative red states in that same middle region where Kansas falls into and even once liberal strongholds such as my state of West Virginia which even Michael Dukakis had no trouble rallying support on. The worst thing about this tragedy that has killed America for 35+ years is the way conservatives successfully pitted the working class against themselves. I can remember back in 2004 when the local and regional media would brainwash voters into believing that workplace safety rules is somehow to blame for the bad economy even when the culprits were the same conservatives who built the very tax structure since 1981 that promotes and heavily rewards outsourcing and deregulation. And I can't forget both in 2000 and 2004 how the NRA which falsely claims to stand for freedom brainwashed voters into giving up their economic needs just to buy guns if they're angry. The interesting thing about this book is Frank ultimately poses the question for both the voters and the Democrats who are continuously losing their status "What good is the conservative backlash when you have nothing to gain from it?" Surely, having a gun with you isn't going to help you get back the job you lost. This is no way implies that Frank is anti-gun or pro-abortion all the way. In fact, he doesn't give a hoot about guns and abortion but rightfully shows that voters are only distracting themselves with these idiotic and frivolous concerns about guns and abortion when their real attention should be paid to defend their economic security and fighting for economic justice just like the 1930s. Give this book a chance and next time ask yourself what have the conservatives really given you and taken away from you. The answers might be surprising.

P.S.: Back in 2002, Bush pretended to be caring for the miners in western PA who lucky to be rescued. Now, after another mining accident turn tragic, we find out that since the last accident in 2002, not only did the President ignore calls by Democrats to address the situation seriously, but he actually enacted more cuts to mine safety programs and weakened mine safety regulations with more to come. This is what America will be forced to reckon with the more voters vote against their own economic and critical interests with Democrats to cave in because of some silly fear.

This book is one of the most discussed in recent years, particularly among liberals bothered by a trend towards elitism and forgetfulness regarding the rural and working-class. It's been generally praised, though like anything thought-provoking it has also received its fair share of critics. Overall, I think the book does a solid job of crafting a new and worthwhile debate over the state of liberal politics in this country. It is important, though, to remember what it is and, especially, what it is not.

I've read some interesting articles critiquing Frank on numerous points, often complaining that he overstates certain assumptions and makes some generalizations. Generally, these are from academic sources. Frank is an interesting figure. While his background is in academia (He received his Ph.D. from UChicago and his excellent book The Conquest of Cool was released by UChicago press), his current writing is directed at a broader audience. It's true that What's the Matter With Kansas? doesn't contain the thorough, point-by-point analysis loved by academics, but...do we really want it to have that? Frank's book is so successful, I think, because along with making a point, it is genuinely entertaining as well. And Frank's point isn't a specific one; indeed, it is quite broad.

Frank argues that Republicans have succeeded in nurturing a cultural class war by denying the economic basis of social class (p. 125). The new criteria for class is authenticity (p. 113). While many conservatives making populist appeals are rather well-to-do financially, this is not perceived as a bad thing. Using some sort of European, Marxist analysis of class conflict rarely works in an American setting, and for good reason. Americans firmly believe in the existence of meritocracy. Generally, Americans hold no grudge against someone who makes millions of dollars in business. Indeed it's even considered something admirable. And it is quite possible for this person to meet the test of "authenticity." Just look at Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom. Sure, he was a technically speaking part of the financial elite, but his folksy demeanor and attendance at a Baptist church (where he even taught Sunday school) didn't place him as a part of some vaguely defined "owning class." Indeed, for many working-class folks, Ebbers wasn't so far removed from them. He was without a doubt considered closer to their own ways than the liberals of an editorial board in NYC. Now, of course, after the scandal, things changed a bit. Americans don't like cheaters. But Ebbers serves as a good example of how the new American definition of social class has become more reliant upon authenticity than actual financial resources.

Of course, from Frank's perspective - and mine as well - this is a bad thing. A good deal of his book works at raising ideas on how to change it. The most important thing this book does is make people question their own assumptions about the current state of U.S. politics. Liberal cultural elitism, whether intentional or not, is the biggest problem facing political leftists today. Many people writing for The Nation, The Atlantic, and Mother Jones have no clue what it's like in a red state. But if they are to be successful, they must at least be sensitive to it, and should probably genuinely experience it for themselves.

Thomas Frank, with this book, delivers a wake-up call to anyone willing to listen. A lot of people need to listen.

2 out of 5 stars

FAULTY PREMISES

When you start out with faulty premises, you're never going to arrive at a sound conclusion. Frank's primary faulty premise is his world-view, a clichéd and anachronistic view of America, a throwback to a time when men wore Fedora hats, women wore petticoats and magazines could use terms like "the little guy" without irony.

The key error in Frank's reasoning is straightforward and obvious: he thinks a voter's "fundamental interests" are, and should only be, his or her economic interests (p 121). He thinks that political and economic life is all about screwing someone else so you can a bigger slice of the pie. If that were true, then Americans would be like some other peoples of the world, concerned only with attacking the neighboring tribe and carrying off their booty. Frank's normative view of America is essentially that of a giant, sophisticated Mongol Horde. His view is also simplistic, dumb and historically moronic. We've never been that kind of country and we won't be for the foreseeable future.

Question. If Frank's view of how Americans "should" vote were correct, then groups of people able to take advantage of the current system would vote to keep it that way, would they not? Why then does a certain very rich religious-ethnic group consistently vote Democrat, to the tune of 78% in the last election? Would Frank say there's something the "matter" with their vote? The question answers itself.

Question. If economic issues are what's really important, and Kansan voters are being given the bait-and-switch with social issues like guns, gay marriage and most importantly, abortion (pp 91-96, 106), then the path to electoral success for progressives is clear, is it not? Progressive-Democrat candidates should simply cede these supposedly irrelevant social issues, agree with them, and concentrate on the all-important economic issues that Kansans would otherwise vote for. Why hasn't that happened? Again, the question answers itself.

Question. Why doesn't Frank address the impact of 9-11 on voting patterns? Sure, his book was published before the 2004 election, but the effect of 9-11 on voting was obvious from the 2002 election. Isn't Frank's avoidance of this issue an admission that the G.O.P. holds the edge in the debate about national security?

POOR RESEARCH AND WRITING

Frank is sloppy. He makes many obvious mistakes that overall cast doubt on his data gathering and ultimately his analytical abilities.

* In the first paragraph of his book Frank marvels that a poor county in Kansas would vote heavily for Bush. He then uses this fact as an archetype of the "problem" of Kansas, and in general, Americans voting against their economic interest (p 1). Fair enough. But then he apparently forgets his book's thesis and notes that Wyandotte county, one of the poorer counties in Kansas, voted heavily for Gore (pp 19, 257). So which is it? Do poorer Kansans vote against their economic interests or don't they?

* Kansas is not the "reddest of red states" (p 28). That distinction belongs to Utah, the only state where Clinton came in third in 1992, behind Bush 41 and Perot. In 2004, Utah voted 72% for Bush, while Kansas voted only 62%.

* "A century ago" Kansas crawled with freaks like "the murderous abolitionist John Brown" (p 31). Wasn't John Brown hung in 1859? Isn't 1859 in fact 145 years prior to the year Frank's book was published? Isn't it odd and careless to be off by 45 years when writing about a span of only 100 years?

Similarly, the Intelligent Design movement can't very well attempt to "repeal[] the twentieth century" by "assailing Darwinian evolution" (p 254) because The Origin of Species was published in 1859, or 42 years before the twentieth century began.

* Frank discusses three supposedly unique Kansan business scandals: Westar, Utilicorp/Aquila and Sprint (pp 38-42), but Aquila is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Missouri. Frank can't even keep his scandals in-state.

* Frank states that the fortunes of the now-tony suburb of Mission Hills "rise and fall in inverse relation to the fortunes of working people" (p 45) but he also states that the suburb evidenced decay during the "troubled seventies" (p 44). OK, if Frank were correct in his conclusion about the fortunes of Mission Hills relative to the fortunes of "working people," then the suburb should have been rocking in the 1970s, because that definitely wasn't a great time for working people. Double-digit inflation, union decline, recessions, falling purchasing power, high unemployment. Frank contradicts his own theory about Mission Hills within one page. Is that some sort of record?

* Slaughterhouse work is not "statistically the most dangerous work in industrial America" (p 53). That distinction belongs to loggers, or if that's not "industrial" enough for you, then to structural metal workers. See "America's Most Dangerous Jobs," Les Christie, CNN/Money, Oct. 13, 2003. Slaughterhouse work doesn't even crack the top ten of the country's most dangerous jobs.

* "...but by far the greatest beneficiaries of the [estate] tax repeal have been the very rich" (p 72). The estate tax has been repealed? When did this happen? Get your facts straight Frank. The estate tax hasn't been repealed and in fact will return in full force in five years.

* Bush "occasionally slips into blasphemy" (p 235). That phrase caught my eye. What could possibly constitute blasphemy to a liberal? Apparently, it was Bush telling the Palestinian PM that God told him to kick al-Qaeda's rear (p 293). What Frank neglects to mention is that the sole source for this quote was the PM himself, Mahmoud Abbas, the same guy who denies the Holocaust and is in charge of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. What's more, in October 2005, Abbas denied making the remark.

* Now is not the moment that Americans need equality and economic security the "most" (p 244). Those moments would be 1789 and 1929 respectively.

DISTORTIONS, DENIALS OF REALITY, CONTRADICTIONS, SNOBBERY, AVOIDING INCONVENIENT TRUTHS, MISLABELING, BOGUS REASONING, STRAW MEN, HISTORICAL AMNESIA

Here are a few examples of many.

* The Democrats "are the party of workers, of the poor, of the weak and the victimized" (p 1). Even assuming that statement to be entirely true (and how could it be, when Frank's thesis is the workers, poor, weak and victimized go against their economic interest by voting Republican?), the Democrat Party is also the party of the effete, the lazy, the snobs, the thugs, the anti-American intellectuals, the moral relativists, the aggressively secular and the race hustlers.

* "The New Left, with its gleeful obscenities and contempt for the flag, is extinct altogether" (p 9). Oh? Does Mr. Frank watch any prime time T.V.? Does he read any websites like Daily Kos? Does he go to movies like "Syriana"? Did he read his own book, where he states "TV and movies are many times coarser than they were in 1968..." (p 121). Extinct, Mr. Frank? No Mr. Frank, not by a long shot.

* It's only in the Republicans' "backlash imagination" that there is a "state of quasi-civil war" (p 13) yet the Republican success in Kansas the "culture war that gets the goods" (p 10).

* Frank sneers at an upscale Kansas City suburb: "You know what it's like even though you haven't been there. Smooth jazz. Hallmark cards. Applebees...It's greatest civic holiday is the turning-on of the Christmas lights at a nearby shopping center..." (pp 49-50). And he wonders why Democrats are labeled snobs.

* Frank glosses over the role illegal immigration plays on the downward pressure on wages (p 52; note its absence in lists like that at the end of p 151, which describe the cause of working class decline). Care to guess why he doesn't give this issue the prominence it deserves? Wouldn't have anything to do with core Democrat constituencies would it? The guy is selling out the working class for pure partisanship. What a hack. What a phony. What a shill.

* The Democratic Leadership Council is a "hothouse of the right" (p 82). Amazing. Like Eric Alterman in "What Liberal Media?" Frank seems to think that redefining something into its near-opposite will somehow advance his argument. Along these same lines, Frank calls Andrew Sullivan a "conservative commentator" (p 114). What a joke.

* Movies, TV shows and advertisements don't reflect liberalism because they are produced by "commercial enterprises" (pp 129, 132-133). That's got to be the rock-bottom stupidest argument in a book with a surfeit of them. Using this logic, such as it is, could we likewise say that abortion clinics don't reflect liberalism because they are "commercial enterprises" too? What about the illegal drug manufacturers, transporters and sellers? Aren't they engaged in "commercial enterprises"?

* In the 1850s, pro-slavery Kansas settlers were similar to today's Republicans, while anti-slavery settlers were similar to liberals (pp 185-190). While the point in the paragraph above may be the book's stupidest argument, Frank's analogy of slavers to Republicans is its most historically moronic. The Republican Party was FORMED to oppose slavery, for cryin' out loud! It was the *Democrats* who were slavers. Frank is completely historically unhinged.

* Conservatives adore laissez-faire capitalism "without reservation" (p 248). Oh really? Name one of those conservatives. Another Frank straw man. He seems to think "The National Review" and "Reason" are different names for the same magazine.

* The "two Americas" rhetoric was generated by conservatives (p 255). In response, two words: John Edwards.

2 out of 5 stars

FAULTY PREMISES

When you start out with faulty premises, you're never going to arrive at a sound conclusion. Frank's primary faulty premise is his world-view, a clichéd and anachronistic view of America, a throwback to a time when men wore Fedora hats, women wore petticoats and magazines could use terms like "the little guy" without irony.

The key error in Frank's reasoning is straightforward and obvious: he thinks a voter's "fundamental interests" are, and should only be, his or her economic interests (p 121). He thinks that political and economic life is all about screwing someone else so you can a bigger slice of the pie. If that were true, then Americans would be like some other peoples of the world, concerned only with attacking the neighboring tribe and carrying off their booty. Frank's normative view of America is essentially that of a giant, sophisticated Mongol Horde. His view is also simplistic, dumb and historically moronic. We've never been that kind of country and we won't be for the foreseeable future.

Question. If Frank's view of how Americans "should" vote were correct, then groups of people able to take advantage of the current system would vote to keep it that way, would they not? Why then does a certain very rich religious-ethnic group consistently vote Democrat, to the tune of 78% in the last election? Would Frank say there's something the "matter" with their vote? The question answers itself.

Question. If economic issues are what's really important, and Kansan voters are being given the bait-and-switch with social issues like guns, gay marriage and most importantly, abortion (pp 91-96, 106), then the path to electoral success for progressives is clear, is it not? Progressive-Democrat candidates should simply cede these supposedly irrelevant social issues, agree with them, and concentrate on the all-important economic issues that Kansans would otherwise vote for. Why hasn't that happened? Again, the question answers itself.

POOR RESEARCH AND WRITING

Frank is sloppy. He makes many obvious mistakes that overall cast doubt on his data gathering and ultimately his analytical abilities.

* In the first paragraph of his book Frank marvels that a poor county in Kansas would vote heavily for Bush. He then uses this fact as an archetype of the "problem" of Kansas, and in general, Americans voting against their economic interest (p 1). Fair enough. But then he apparently forgets his book's thesis and notes that Wyandotte county, one of the poorer counties in Kansas, voted heavily for Gore (pp 19, 257). So which is it? Do poorer Kansans vote against their economic interests or don't they?

* Kansas is not the "reddest of red states" (p 28). That distinction belongs to Utah, the only state where Clinton came in third in 1992, behind Bush 41 and Perot. In 2004, Utah voted 72% for Bush, while Kansas voted only 62%.

* "A century ago" Kansas crawled with freaks like "the murderous abolitionist John Brown" (p 31). Wasn't John Brown hung in 1859? Isn't 1859 in fact 145 years prior to the year Frank's book was published? Isn't it odd and careless to be off by 45 years when writing about a span of only 100 years?

Similarly, the Intelligent Design movement can't very well attempt to "repeal[] the twentieth century" by "assailing Darwinian evolution" (p 254) because The Origin of Species was published in 1859, or 42 years before the twentieth century began.

* Frank discusses three supposedly unique Kansan business scandals: Westar, Utilicorp/Aquila and Sprint (pp 38-42), but Aquila is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Missouri. Frank can't even keep his scandals in-state.

* Frank states that the fortunes of the now-tony suburb of Mission Hills "rise and fall in inverse relation to the fortunes of working people" (p 45) but he also states that the suburb evidenced decay during the "troubled seventies" (p 44). OK, if Frank were correct in his conclusion about the fortunes of Mission Hills relative to the fortunes of "working people," then the suburb should have been rocking in the 1970s, because that definitely wasn't a great time for working people. Double-digit inflation, union decline, recessions, falling purchasing power, high unemployment. Frank contradicts his own theory about Mission Hills within one page. Is that some sort of record?

* Slaughterhouse work is not "statistically the most dangerous work in industrial America" (p 53). That distinction belongs to loggers, or if that's not "industrial" enough for you, then to structural metal workers. See "America's Most Dangerous Jobs," Les Christie, CNN/Money, Oct. 13, 2003. Slaughterhouse work doesn't even crack the top ten of the country's most dangerous jobs.

* "...but by far the greatest beneficiaries of the [estate] tax repeal have been the very rich" (p 72). The estate tax has been repealed? When did this happen? Get your facts straight Frank. The estate tax hasn't been repealed and in fact will return in full force in five years.

* Bush "occasionally slips into blasphemy" (p 235). That phrase caught my eye. What could possibly constitute blasphemy to a liberal? Apparently, it was Bush telling the Palestinian PM that God told him to kick al-Qaeda's rear (p 293). What Frank neglects to mention is that the sole source for this quote was the PM himself, Mahmoud Abbas, the same guy who denies the Holocaust and is in charge of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. What's more, in October 2005, Abbas denied making the remark.

* Now is not the moment that Americans need equality and economic security the "most" (p 244). Those moments would be 1789 and 1929 respectively.

DISTORTIONS, DENIALS OF REALITY, CONTRADICTIONS, SNOBBERY, AVOIDING INCONVENIENT TRUTHS, MISLABELING, BOGUS REASONING, STRAW MEN, HISTORICAL AMNESIA

Here are a few examples of many.

* The Democrats "are the party of workers, of the poor, of the weak and the victimized" (p 1). Even assuming that statement to be entirely true (and how could it be, when Frank's thesis is the workers, poor, weak and victimized go against their economic interest by voting Republican?), the Democrat Party is also the party of the effete, the lazy, the snobs, the thugs, the anti-American intellectuals, the moral relativists, the aggressively secular and the race hustlers.

* "The New Left, with its gleeful obscenities and contempt for the flag, is extinct altogether" (p 9). Oh? Does Mr. Frank watch any prime time T.V.? Does he read any websites like Daily Kos? Does he go to movies like "Syriana"? Did he read his own book, where he states "TV and movies are many times coarser than they were in 1968..." (p 121). Extinct, Mr. Frank? No Mr. Frank, not by a long shot.

* It's only in the Republicans' "backlash imagination" that there is a "state of quasi-civil war" (p 13) yet the Republican success in Kansas the "culture war that gets the goods" (p 10).

* Frank sneers at an upscale Kansas City suburb: "You know what it's like even though you haven't been there. Smooth jazz. Hallmark cards. Applebees...It's greatest civic holiday is the turning-on of the Christmas lights at a nearby shopping center..." (pp 49-50). And he wonders why Democrats are labeled snobs.

* Frank glosses over the role illegal immigration plays on the downward pressure on wages (p 52; note its absence in lists like that at the end of p 151, which describe the cause of working class decline). Care to guess why he doesn't give this issue the prominence it deserves? Wouldn't have anything to do with core Democrat constituencies would it? The guy is selling out the working class for pure partisanship. What a hack. What a phony. What a shill.

* The Democratic Leadership Council is a "hothouse of the right" (p 82). Amazing. Like Eric Alterman in "What Liberal Media?" Frank seems to think that redefining something into its near-opposite will somehow advance his argument. Along these same lines, Frank calls Andrew Sullivan a "conservative commentator" (p 114). What a joke.

* Movies, TV shows and advertisements don't reflect liberalism because they are produced by "commercial enterprises" (pp 129, 132-133). That's got to be the rock-bottom stupidest argument in a book with a surfeit of them. Using this logic, such as it is, could we likewise say that abortion clinics don't reflect liberalism because they are "commercial enterprises" too? What about the illegal drug manufacturers, transporters and sellers? Aren't they engaged in "commercial enterprises"?

* In the 1850s, pro-slavery Kansas settlers were similar to today's Republicans, while anti-slavery settlers were similar to liberals (pp 185-190). While the point in the paragraph above may be the book's stupidest argument, Frank's analogy of slavers to Republicans is its most historically moronic. The Republican Party was FORMED to oppose slavery, for cryin' out loud! It was the *Democrats* who were slavers. Frank is completely historically unhinged.

* Conservatives adore laissez-faire capitalism "without reservation" (p 248). Oh really? Name one of those conservatives. Another Frank straw man. He seems to think "The National Review" and "Reason" are different names for the same magazine.

* The "two Americas" rhetoric was generated by conservatives (p 255). In response, two words: John Edwards.

2 out of 5 stars

FAULTY PREMISES

When you start out with faulty premises, you're never going to arrive at a sound conclusion. Frank's primary faulty premise is his world-view, a clichéd and anachronistic view of America, a throwback to a time when men wore Fedora hats, women wore petticoats and magazines could use terms like "the little guy" without irony.

The key error in Frank's reasoning is straightforward and obvious: he thinks a voter's "fundamental interests" is, and should only be, his or her economic interests (p 121). He thinks that political and economic life is all about screwing someone else so you can a bigger slice of the pie. If that were true, then Americans would be like some other peoples of the world, concerned only with attacking the neighboring tribe and carrying off their booty. Frank's normative view of America is essentially that of a giant, sophisticated Mongol Horde. His view is also simplistic, dumb and historically moronic. We've never been that kind of country and we won't be for the foreseeable future.

Question. If Frank's view of how Americans "should" vote were correct, then groups of people able to take advantage of the current system would vote to keep it that way, would they not? Why then does a certain very rich religious-ethnic group consistently vote Democrat, to the tune of 78% in the last election? Would Frank say there's something the "matter" with their vote? The question answers itself.

Question. If economic issues are what's really important, and Kansan voters are being given the bait-and-switch with social issues like guns, gay marriage and most importantly, abortion (pp 91-96, 106), then the path to electoral success for progressives is clear, is it not? Progressive-Democrat candidates should simply cede these supposedly irrelevant social issues, agree with them, and concentrate on the all-important economic issues that Kansans would otherwise vote for. Why hasn't that happened? Again, the question answers itself.

POOR RESEARCH AND WRITING

Frank is sloppy. He makes many obvious mistakes that overall cast doubt on his data gathering and ultimately his analytical abilities.

* In the first paragraph of his book Frank marvels that a poor county in Kansas would vote heavily for Bush. He then uses this fact as an archetype of the "problem" of Kansas, and in general, Americans voting against their economic interest (p 1). Fair enough. But then he apparently forgets his book's thesis and notes that Wyandotte county, one of the poorer counties in Kansas, voted heavily for Gore (pp 19, 257). So which is it? Do poorer Kansans vote against their economic interests or don't they?

* Kansas is not the "reddest of red states" (p 28). That distinction belongs to Utah, the only state where Clinton came in third in 1992, behind Bush 41 and Perot. In 2004, Utah voted 72% for Bush, while Kansas voted only 62%.

* "A century ago" Kansas crawled with freaks like "the murderous abolitionist John Brown" (p 31). Wasn't John Brown hung in 1859? Isn't 1859 in fact 145 years prior to the year Frank's book was published? Isn't it odd and careless to be off by 45 years when writing about 100 years of history?

Similarly, the Intelligent Design movement can't very well attempt to "repeal[] the twentieth century" by "assailing Darwinian evolution" (p 254) because The Origin of Species was published in 1859, or 42 years before the twentieth century began.

* Frank discusses three supposedly unique Kansan business scandals: Westar, Utilicorp/Aquila and Sprint (pp 38-42), but Aquila is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Missouri. Frank can't even keep his scandals in-state.

* Frank states that the fortunes of the now-tony suburb of Mission Hills "rise and fall in inverse relation to the fortunes of working people" (p 45) but he also state that the suburb evidenced decay during the "troubled seventies" (p 44). OK, if Frank were correct in his conclusion about the fortunes of Mission Hills relative to the fortunes of "working people," then the suburb should have been rocking in the 1970s, because that definitely wasn't a great time for working people. Double-digit inflation, union decline, stagflation, falling purchasing power, high unemployment. Frank contradicts his own theory about Mission Hills within one page. Is that some sort of record?

* Slaughterhouse work is not "statistically the most dangerous work in industrial America" (p 53). That distinction belongs to loggers, or if that's not "industrial" enough for you, then to structural metal workers. See "America's Most Dangerous Jobs," Les Christie, CNN/Money, Oct. 13, 2003. Slaughterhouse work doesn't even crack the top ten of the country's most dangerous jobs.

* "...but by far the greatest beneficiaries of the [estate] tax repeal have been the very rich" (p 72). The estate tax has been repealed? When did this happen? Get your facts straight Frank. The estate tax hasn't been repealed and in fact will return in full force in five years.

* Bush "occasionally slips into blasphemy" (p 235). That phrase caught my eye. What could possibly constitute blasphemy to a liberal? Apparently, it was Bush telling the Palestinian PM that God told him to kick al-Qaeda's rear (p 293). What Frank neglects to mention is that the sole source for this quote was the PM himself, Mahmoud Abbas, the same guy who denies the Holocaust and is in charge of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. What's more, in October 2005, Abbas denied making the remark.

* Now is not the moment that Americans need equality and economic security the "most" (p 244). Those moments would be 1861 and 1929 respectively. Or perhaps 1789 and 1929.

DISTORTIONS, DENIALS OF REALITY, CONTRADICTIONS, SNOBBERY, AVOIDING INCONVENIENT TRUTHS, MISLABELING, BOGUS REASONING, STRAW MEN, HISTORICAL AMNESIA

Here are a few examples of many.

* The Democrats "are the party of workers, of the poor, of the weak and the victimized" (p 1). Even assuming that statement to be entirely true (and how could it be, when Frank's thesis is the poor, weak and victimized go against their economic interest by voting Republican?), the Democrat Party is also the party of the effete, the lazy, the snobs, the thugs, the anti-American intellectuals, the moral relativists, the aggressively secular and the race hustlers.

* "The New Left, with its gleeful obscenities and contempt for the flag, is extinct altogether" (p 9). Oh? Does Mr. Frank watch any prime time T.V.? Does he read any websites like Daily Kos? Does he go to movies like "Syriana"? Did he read his own book, where he states "TV and movies are many times coarser than they were in 1968..." (p 121). Extinct, Mr. Frank? No Mr. Frank, not by a long shot.

* It's only in the Republicans' "backlash imagination" that there is a "state of quasi-civil war" (p 13) yet the Republican success in Kansas the "culture war that gets the goods" (p 10).

* Frank sneers at an upscale Kansas City suburb: "You know what it's like even though you haven't been there. Smooth jazz. Hallmark cards. Applebees...It's greatest civic holiday is the turning-on of the Christmas lights at a nearby shopping center..." (pp 49-50). And he wonders why Democrats are labeled snobs.

* Frank glosses over the role illegal immigration plays on the downward pressure on wages (p 52; note its absence in lists like that at the end of p 151, which describe the cause of working class decline). Care to guess why he doesn't give this issue the prominence it deserves? Wouldn't have anything to do with core Democrat constituencies would it? The guy is selling out the working class for pure partisanship. What a sellout. What a phony. What a shill.

* The Democratic Leadership Council is a "hothouse of the right" (p 82) Amazing. Like Eric Alterman in "What Liberal Media?" Frank seems to think that redefining something into its near-opposite will somehow advance his argument. Along these same lines, Frank calls Andrew Sullivan a "conservative commentator" (p 114). What a joke.

* Movies, TV shows and advertisements don't reflect liberalism because they are produced by "commercial enterprises" (pp 129, 132-133). That's got to be the rock-bottom stupidest argument in a book with a surfeit of them. Using this logic, such as it is, could we likewise say that abortion clinics don't reflect liberalism because they are "commercial enterprises" too? What about the illegal drug manufacturers, transporters and sellers? Aren't they engaged in "commercial enterprises"?

* In the 1850s, pro-slavery settlers are similar to today's Republicans, while anti-slavery settlers as similar to liberals (pp 185-190). While the point in the paragraph above may be the book's stupidest argument, Frank's analogy of slavers to Republicans is its most historically moronic. The Republican Party was formed to oppose slavery, for cryin' out loud! It was the *Democrats* who were slavers. Frank is completely historically unhinged.

* Conservatives adore laissez-faire capitalism "without reservation" (p 248). Oh really? Name one. Another Frank straw man. He seems to think "The National Review" and "Reason" are differnt names for the same magazine.

* The "two Americas" rhetoric was generated by conservatives (p 255). In response, two words: John Edwards.

Initially I had a great deal of difficulty in reading this book. However, after I placed my 2500 page Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary under the right side of the cushion of my favorate chair and then sat down in the chair the forced tilt to the left made the book more understandable.

I am in the process of reading this book, and being 3/4 done with it, I have to say I was both surprised and not surprised. Its amazing how working class farmers and blue collar average Joe's vote for the very party that screws them. The republicans are a party of brainwashing, and will tell people anything to win an election, and amazingly enough, the people that vote for them are the ones being disadvantaged by the right wing nut jobs.

Not to get off track, but its no wonder Kansans vote republican, all extremeist conservatives should be shipped there because it fits them well..its arid, flat, and boring. The northeast is in great economically and socially because it votes democratic.

I found this book to be very helpful in understanding the current dominance of the Republican party. Frank's thesis is that the NeoCon's have aimed the working class' rage at their oppressors away from the "elite" who are actually responsible for their economic disempowerment (Big Business), towards the "liberal elite" (Hollywood, Academia, Science), who disagree with their cultural values (anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion, no separation between Church and State). As he points out, this redirection of their constituents' rage is often done with inflated rhetoric, name-calling, and few facts. If the inflamed responses of Conservative "reviewers" on this website are any indication, he's right on target.

Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas?" provides excellent insights into why conservatives have grabbed control of U.S. government - despite the fact that their policies undermine the interests of most citizens. Job and pension security, healthcare affordability, the environment, and incomes have all deteriorated under conservative policies - yet, the poorest county in America (MacPherson County, Nebraska) voted over 80% for Bush in 2000 - largely because of manufactured issues that Frank believes are simply used to keep the populace aroused!

Frank, a native Kansan, points out that by forgoing a class language focus, Democrats have allowed issues such as abortion, gun-rights, teaching evolution in schools, and school prayer, combined with Republican hucksterism, to give formerly strong liberal areas to the conservatives. He sees that in the last four decades liberalism ceased to be relevant to huge portions of its traditional constituency, and thus former members have trended over to conservatives - eg. Nixon's "hard hats," Reagan Democrats, etc.

Frank also asserts that the Democratic Leadership Council has long been pushing the party to forget blue-collar voters (Frank says they never liked the "Archie Bunker" types anyway) and concentrate instead on recruiting affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues. The larger interests that the DLC wants desperately to court are corporations, capable of generating campaign contributions far outweighing anything raised by organized labor. (Clinton's support of NAFTA and the WTO seem like incredible blunders.)

Frank sees today as "the French Revolution in reverse." Angry white men, upset over a culture that has passed them by (and this has to do with the Democratic Party essentially forfeiting its working-class base) and everywhere seeing signs of "latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, bi-coastal sushi eaters" ruining their way of life and undermining their economic lives and social (religious) values.

Incredibly cogent, and must reading!

Thomas Frank makes some excellent points that every Democratic politician should understand. The book is essential reading for
liberals who hope to get elected.

Politicians pressed for time should read the first several chapters and the last few chapters, skipping the somewhat-repetitive middle.

The Republican Party has hit on a winning formula mixing culture war and capitalism. In `What's the Matter With Kansas' Thomas Frank uses Kansas as a microcosm of this sociological phenomenon that has swept across and enraged many parts of the United States. The great irony is that the culture war is the façade while the meat of the movement is laissez-faire Capitalism. Mr. Frank writes, "[Kansas] Senator Brownback, for example, is best known for taking stands that are purely symbolic: against cloning, against the persecution of Christians in distant lands, against sex slaver in the third world." The symbolism enflames the middle and lower class voters fighting the `culture war' but actual legislation that impacts their lives always goes corporate. Of the people of Kansas the author writes, "Tear down the federal farm programs, they cry. Privatize the utilities. Repeal the progressive taxes. All that Kansas asks today is a little help nailing itself to that cross of gold." The problem is that all these laissez-faire solutions to economics enrich the wealthy at the expense of the less fortunate and the effect has already done great damage to the average Kansan. Instead of reacting negatively to the people who caused the erosion of small towns in Kansas the average blue collar Conservative becomes even angrier, more Republican, more Conservative and more religious.

"They are massing at the gates of Mission Hills", writes the author. "...hoisting the black flag, and while the millionaires tremble in their mansion, they are bellowing out their terrifying demands, `We are here,' they scream, `to cut your taxes.'" The Conservative branch of the Kansas Republican party is so extreme that that work harder and fight more fiercely for the abolishment of estate and dividend taxes than the very people who would benefit. It's the French revolution in reverse. Thomas Frank quotes a middle class Republican supporter saying, "'These people are tired of moral decay. They're tired of everything being wonderful on Wall Street and terrible on Main Street.' Let me repeat that: they're voting Republican in order to get even with Wall Street." What Thomas Frank is describing isn't a top down affair but a true grassroots effort. From my own experience I can remember driving through Shaker Heights, one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the United States, before the 2004 elections and seeing sign after sign supporting John Kerry. I would estimate a 90 to 95 percent slant towards Kerry. The five wealthiest cities in Ohio surround Cleveland yet North East Ohio leans heavily Democratic. What in the world is happening?

The interesting thing is that the Culture War is fought to be lost. In fact it is imperative that it lose in order to continue the backlash which is why the battles are generally chosen to be lost causes. The author writes, "Why shouldn't our culture just get worse and worse, if making it worse will only cause the people who worsen it to grow wealthier and wealthier?" The very forces of free market Capitalism that have driven down workers and encouraged the entertainment industry to continually push the envelope of decency are the ones supported by these same social conservatives who decry the results. "American conservativism depends for its continued dominance and even for its very existence on people never making certain mental connections about the world"

What makes Thomas Frank's writing so unique is that his words don't just explain they allow the reader to really feel and visualize the situation. Mr. Frank describes the landscape of Kansas with an eloquence that transcends the normal political or sociological fare. `What's The Matter With Kansas' is far more than just a Left wing polemic it's a powerful work of prose that makes an indelible impact on the reader. If I could recommend one book from all the list of books I have reviewed this would be the one.

The Republican Party has hit on a winning formula mixing culture war and capitalism. Thomas Frank uses Kansas as a microcosm of this sociological phenomenon that has swept across and enraged many parts of the United States. The great irony is that the culture war is the façade while the meat of the movement is laissez-faire Capitalism. Mr. Frank writes, "[Kansas] Senator Brownback, for example, is best known for taking stands that are purely symbolic: against cloning, against the persecution of Christians in distant lands, against sex slaver in the third world." The symbolism enflames the middle and lower class voters involved in the culture war but actual legislation that impacts their lives always goes corporate. Of the people of Kansas the author writes, "Tear down the federal farm programs, they cry. Privatize the utilities. Repeal the progressive taxes. All that Kansas asks today is a little help nailing itself to that cross of gold." The problem is that all these laissez-faire solutions to economics enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class and the effect has already done great damage to the average Kansan. Instead of reacting to the very people who caused the erosions of small towns in Kansas the average blue collar Conservative become even more Republican, more Conservative and more religious.

"They are massing at the gates of Mission Hills", writes the author. "...hoisting the black flag, and while the millionaires tremble in their mansion, they are bellowing out their terrifying demands, `We are here,' they scream, `to cut your taxes.'" The Conservative branch of the Kansas Republican party is so extreme that that work harder and fight more fiercely for the abolishment of estate and dividend taxes than the very people who would benefit. It's the French revolution in reverse. Thomas Frank quotes a middle class Republican supporter saying, "'These people are tired of moral decay. They're tired of everything being wonderful on Wall Street and terrible on Main Street.' Let me repeat that: they're voting Republican in order to get even with Wall Street" From my own experience I can remember driving through Shaker Heights, one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the United States, before the 2004 elections and seeing sign after sign supporting John Kerry. I would estimate a 90 to 95 percent slant towards Kerry. The five wealthiest cities in Ohio surround Cleveland yet North East Ohio leans heavily Democratic. What in the world is happening?

What makes Thomas Frank's writing so unique is that his words don't just explain they allow the reader to really feel and visualize the situation. Mr. Frank describes the landscape of Kansas with an eloquence that transcends the normal political or sociological fare. `What's The Matter With Kansas' is far more than just a Left wing polemic it's a powerful work of prose that makes an indelible impact on the reader. If I could recommend one book from all the list of books I have reviewed this would be the one.

Frank's take on the state of politics in Kansas, as well as nation wide is surprisingly well written and informative, especially for a devout marxist. He has accurately described the current uneasy Kansas coalition between social and economic conservatives, and to a lesser extent the coalition nationwide. The history of left wing populism in Kansas is also quite good at giving a wide perspective on what drove the late 19th century populists and how their movement developed.

With that said, Frank's own biases about politics leaves him with a monstrous blindspot. While accurately surmising late 19th century Kansas populism as a backlash against the interests of the "elites", Frank fails to see that what is happening with cultural conservatives is also a genuine backlash against elitism. The problem now is that the "new elitism" is a form of secular-leftist-humanism, and since Frank identifies with its philosophy he refuses to admit that it has pushed a widely unpopular agenda on "middle America" and that he is in fact part of the "new elitism".

While Frank claims that economic conservatives have thrown red meat to social conservatives knowing full well that the social issues will never be acted upon, Frank misses the fact that the economic conservatives have hardly created the "lassie faire" state he claims they have. In fact while deregulation, or more appropriately "re-regulation", has made headway nationwide, most of the initiatives spearheaded by free market types has failed to materialize. The welfare state has expanded, overall tax burden has remained fairly constant as a whole, business regulation has not decreased significantly as a whole (while a whole new area of regulation the EPA has grown exponentially) and governmen