What's The Matter With Kansas?

By Thomas Frank

Conservatives probably won't enjoy this book as much as liberals.

Frank argues many middle and lower class Americans are dupes, voting against their own economic best interests. Rather, they vote based upon cultural issues, such as their views about abortion, gun rights, etc.

Frank argues Republican politicians play to these cultural themes, while only truly embracing a policy aimed at helping the ultra-rich.

Frank writes: "…Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining."

Frank dismisses the intelligence of Americans voting on non-economic issues for the good of the country, implying that they should be voting on economic issues that affect them personally and, of course, he says they should be voting Democrat. To me that, of itself, seems just a bit elitist.

But a question comes to mind: What's The Matter With Warren Buffett? (or Andrew Tobias for that matter?) Warren Buffett is the second richest man in the world who stands to benefit greatly from the dividend tax cut, for example. Yet, he has publicly spoken against such a tax cut, arguing that it isn't good for America and that it's unfair to tax dividends at a lower rate than wages. What's the matter with him? He clearly is speaking out against his own best economic interest. How would Frank respond to Buffett's view? Would he call him foolish? Or, more likely, call him good for supporting America above his own short-term economic interests?

Similarly, financial writer Andrew Tobias strongly opposes the Bush tax cuts (andrewtobias.com/bkoldcolumns/030525.html). It's reasonable to assume that Tobias is also voting against his own best economic interests. How would Frank classify Tobias? Tobias clearly knows the issues at stake and is making a decision he feels is morally fair and best for the country, over his own short-term economic interests.

In fact, every affluent Democrat reader of this book could conclude that he's/she's voting incorrectly by Frank's standard of voting for personal economic interest. They should be voting Republican to cut their own taxes, not Democrat on cultural issues like gun control and abortion rights!

Noting that Kansas has an unlimited homestead bankruptcy exemption, Frank writes: "…Naturally, people preparing to go under wanted the priciest houses available, and thus Mission Hills became a magnet for the legally challenged from all across the region. That, plus the borderline criminality of capitalism itself, a condition that has rudely impressed itself on much of the world in the last few years."

Wow! I'm not sure what's meant by the "borderline criminality of capitalism itself" but it seems to me that there isn't a viable alternative to capitalism. Socialism, in practice, turns into a dictatorship where a small group controls the wealth, the police and the army, and jails people at will. And, good-hearted liberals shouldn't be deluded into believing they would control such a socialist system. The control almost always goes to the most ruthless.

But, let's follow up the bankruptcy theme. The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke by Elizabeth Warren has a great discussion of proposed recent changes in the bankruptcy laws. In summary, the banks and credit card companies have lobbied to make filing for bankruptcy more difficult. They want to get more money from struggling families who file for bankruptcy.

When Hillary Clinton heard Warren speak, she immediately wanted to meet her and talk with her. Hillary was outraged at how credit card companies and banks wanted to hurt families, and while Bill was president, they fought such legislation.

But, in the book, Warren describes how Hillary's position changed after she ran for office. Not wanting to face senate opponents backed by the credit card companies, Hillary voted to support the legislation. Supporting the interests of wealthy contributors isn't something only Republican politicians do. The Democrat politicians do it also.

Similarly, in his book, Perfectly Legal, David Kay Johnson argues that support for the wealthiest is truly bipartisan. Don't forget that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, if he had won the election, would have been the richest president ever. (His wife did apparently make him sign a prenup though.)

However, the bankruptcy legislation failed to pass, despite the banks having lobbied all the politicians, Democrats and Republicans. How? Somebody asked the question: If somebody destroys an abortion clinic and is liable for damages, will the new bill affect their ability to file for bankruptcy? Suddenly, the legislation became a debate over abortion. Just goes to show that you can spend millions lobbying and get nearly all the politician votes and yet fail to get the legislation you want, because voters are voting on cultural issues and politicians know they need to take that into consideration.