Status
Available
Genres
Collection
Publication
New York : Metropolitan Books, 2004.
Description
Politics. Nonfiction. HTML:
One of "our most insightful social observers"* cracks the great political mystery of our time: how conservatism, once a marker of class privilege, became the creed of millions of ordinary Americans
With his acclaimed wit and acuity, Thomas Frank turns his eye on what he calls the "thirty-year backlash"�??the populist revolt against a supposedly liberal establishment. The high point of that backlash is the Republican Party's success in building the most unnatural of alliances: between blue-collar Midwesterners and Wall Street business interests, workers and bosses, populists and right-wingers.
In asking "what 's the matter with Kansas?"�??how a place famous for its radicalism became one of the most conservative states in the union�??Frank, a native Kansan and onetime Republican, seeks to answer some broader American riddles: Why do so many of us vote against our economic interests? Where's the outrage at corporate manipulators? And whatever happened to middle-American progressivism? The questions are urgent as well as provocative. Frank answers them by examining pop conservatism�??the bestsellers, the radio talk shows, the vicious political combat�??and showing how our long culture wars have left us with an electorate far more concerned with their leaders' "values" and down-home qualities than with their stands on hard questions of policy.
A brilliant analysis�??and funny to boot�??What's the Matter with Kansas? presents a critical assessment of who we are, while telling a remarkable story of how a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs came to convince a nation that they spoke on behalf of the People.
*Los A… (more)
Media reviews
Frank's book is remarkable as an anthropological artifact. Although not terribly successful at explaining the cultural divide, it manages to exemplify it perfectly in its condescension toward people who don't vote as Frank thinks they should.
User reviews
LibraryThing member lxydis
very unsatisfying. I'd be glad to understand why Kansas-type conservatives think the way they do, but I found this book long on judgement and anecdote and short on analysis. As a liberal, I really hate reading liberal writing that just assumes we're right and our opponents are idiots; I want
Show More
level-headed, sociological analysis. So that I can conclude on my own that, well, we're right and our opponents are idiots. Show Less
LibraryThing member LorenIpsum
Thomas Franks argues that modern conservatism is essentially a bait-and-switch: the social grievances of the many are used to produce immense wealth for the few. Republican politicians campaign on social issues, but their legislative agenda is mainly economic. Their lack of progress in the culture
All of this is able to happen because Democrats have either fallen silent about, or moved to the right on, economic issues. The relatively small (or at least muted) differences between the parties mean that many voters aren’t able to draw an informed distinction between them. Thus, they cast their ballots in the areas where they *can* see a difference: social and cultural issues.
I try to read almost everything with a critical eye, but I ended up finding very little here with which to quarrel. That in itself would be reason enough for me to recommend this book; as an added bonus, Franks is witty, direct, and sympathetic to the complaints—if not the choices—of the people he’s describing. The writing is solid; the anecdotes are well-chosen; the tone is exactly right. And because the subject here is a long-term trend, I think the book holds up pretty well today—even though our politics in 2011 are of course very different from our politics in 2004.
I’m not sure how well Franks’ theory explains the Tea Party—they talk about fiscal issues a lot more than most of the people in this book—but then, I think they’re mostly framing the debt as a cultural rather than economic issue. (Real Americans don’t spend money they don’t have, etc.) More importantly, it may be that they’re a little more white-collar than the men and women he’s considering here.
Show More
wars means that voters’ social complaints grow and grow, which of course makes them more and more conservative; meanwhile, the Party’s very substantial progress on the economic front keeps the businessmen loyal (and the money flowing). All of this is able to happen because Democrats have either fallen silent about, or moved to the right on, economic issues. The relatively small (or at least muted) differences between the parties mean that many voters aren’t able to draw an informed distinction between them. Thus, they cast their ballots in the areas where they *can* see a difference: social and cultural issues.
I try to read almost everything with a critical eye, but I ended up finding very little here with which to quarrel. That in itself would be reason enough for me to recommend this book; as an added bonus, Franks is witty, direct, and sympathetic to the complaints—if not the choices—of the people he’s describing. The writing is solid; the anecdotes are well-chosen; the tone is exactly right. And because the subject here is a long-term trend, I think the book holds up pretty well today—even though our politics in 2011 are of course very different from our politics in 2004.
I’m not sure how well Franks’ theory explains the Tea Party—they talk about fiscal issues a lot more than most of the people in this book—but then, I think they’re mostly framing the debt as a cultural rather than economic issue. (Real Americans don’t spend money they don’t have, etc.) More importantly, it may be that they’re a little more white-collar than the men and women he’s considering here.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bragan
This was originally published in 2004, so it's definitely dated, but I'd say it's still relevant. Perhaps depressingly relevant.
Thomas Frank ponders the fact that, once upon a time, it was considered almost self-evident that the Democratic party was the party of the ordinary working stiff. But
I am weirdly torn, here, between finding this thesis oversimplistic and perhaps just a little too cynical (although we are talking about politicians, here, so maybe not all that overly cynical) and thinking it's obvious enough to almost not require spelling out. I do think some of his commentary and opinions are more lucid than others (not to mention more sensitively expressed), but overall, I'd say he does have some things to say about the origins of America's current Red vs. Blue conflict that are worth listening to.
Thomas Frank ponders the fact that, once upon a time, it was considered almost self-evident that the Democratic party was the party of the ordinary working stiff. But
Show More
that's changed fairly dramatically, especially in places like Frank's former home state of Kansas, where there has been a great and passionate upsurge in right-wing sentiment among people whose economic self-interest would not seem to be in alignment with the Republican's policies of tax breaks for the rich and minimal support for the rest of us. What gives? Frank claims that it's largely down to the far right's politicians who, capitalizing on backlash against the social upheavals of the 1960s, have reframed the conservative vs. liberal dichotomy as a cultural one -- beer-drinking, NASCAR-loving, churchgoing salt-of-the-earth Plain Folks vs. latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, morally permissive, snootily superior elites -- while sidelining the economic issues almost entirely, deliberately focusing attention on such issues as abortion or the teaching of evolution in schools, and away from questions of material benefit.I am weirdly torn, here, between finding this thesis oversimplistic and perhaps just a little too cynical (although we are talking about politicians, here, so maybe not all that overly cynical) and thinking it's obvious enough to almost not require spelling out. I do think some of his commentary and opinions are more lucid than others (not to mention more sensitively expressed), but overall, I'd say he does have some things to say about the origins of America's current Red vs. Blue conflict that are worth listening to.
Show Less
LibraryThing member nbmars
What's the Matter with Kansas, by Thomas Frank, is an entertaining analysis of how conservatives won the heart of Americans, particularly its middle and lower-middle classes, despite following economic policies contrary to the interests of those whose hearts were won.
A defect in the book is that
The trick used by conservatives is to create a bete noir in the form of the effete, intellectual liberal elite that is at the heart of all the nation's problems. Conservative pols rail against the corrupting influence of the liberal media, and then lower taxes and deregulate, all to the benefit of the already rich and to economic detriment of the uncorrupted poor and lower middle class.
Frank believes that the conservative politicians do not actually expect or even want to pass socially conservative legislation. He believes that allowing public school prayer and prohibiting abortion would be unconstitutional. Being able to complain about such matters, however, gives them a permanent set of issues on which to run and be elected by galvanizing a distinct portion of the electorate.
Frank is particularly entertaining when he writes about the movement in Kansas to allow the teaching of creationism in the public schools and about extremely conservative "traditionalist" Catholics.
Frank concludes that "American conservatism depends for its continued dominance and even for its very existence on people never making certain [obvious]mental connections about the world....For example, the connection between mass culture, most of which conservatives hate, and laissez-faire capitalism, which they adore without reservation." The feeling of martyrdom or oppression fuels the conservatives' passion. "Kansas is ready to lead us singing into the apocalypse. It invites us all to join in, to lay down our lives so that others might cash out at the top; to renounce forever our middle-American prosperity in pursuit of a crimson fantasy of middle-American righteousness."
[JAB]
A defect in the book is that
Show More
Frank is woefully inexpert at economics. He is a Roosevelt regulator at heart, who honestly thinks that unions are good for the country rather than just the union members. He also has never seen a government regulation he doesn't like. Nevertheless, he writes well and seldom ceases to be entertaining.The trick used by conservatives is to create a bete noir in the form of the effete, intellectual liberal elite that is at the heart of all the nation's problems. Conservative pols rail against the corrupting influence of the liberal media, and then lower taxes and deregulate, all to the benefit of the already rich and to economic detriment of the uncorrupted poor and lower middle class.
Frank believes that the conservative politicians do not actually expect or even want to pass socially conservative legislation. He believes that allowing public school prayer and prohibiting abortion would be unconstitutional. Being able to complain about such matters, however, gives them a permanent set of issues on which to run and be elected by galvanizing a distinct portion of the electorate.
Frank is particularly entertaining when he writes about the movement in Kansas to allow the teaching of creationism in the public schools and about extremely conservative "traditionalist" Catholics.
Frank concludes that "American conservatism depends for its continued dominance and even for its very existence on people never making certain [obvious]mental connections about the world....For example, the connection between mass culture, most of which conservatives hate, and laissez-faire capitalism, which they adore without reservation." The feeling of martyrdom or oppression fuels the conservatives' passion. "Kansas is ready to lead us singing into the apocalypse. It invites us all to join in, to lay down our lives so that others might cash out at the top; to renounce forever our middle-American prosperity in pursuit of a crimson fantasy of middle-American righteousness."
[JAB]
Show Less
LibraryThing member cmc
Fascinating but depressing.
Thomas Frank, born and raised in Kansas, goes home and takes a long hard look at the self-destructive wholesale adoption of hard-right, fundamentalist-christian, conservative politics by the plain ol’ folks of the state.
He fills in Kansas’s historical background of
Frank also takes the Democratic party to task for creating the vacuum conservative Republicans rushed to fill when they completely abandoned their traditional supporters in pursuit of wealthy business owners whose politics were somewhat liberal, thereby taking economic issues off the table and making themselves over into a “Republican-lite” party where moderate Republicans may feel more comfortable as their party continues to become more and more radicalized.
Well worth reading if you want a clear, well-written description how American politics has moved dramatically rightwards. Frank offers no solution, but for most people not high up in the political party hierarchies, there may be no solution save waiting until the parties burn themselves out or wreck the country to the point that revolution becomes a viable and desirable option.
Thomas Frank, born and raised in Kansas, goes home and takes a long hard look at the self-destructive wholesale adoption of hard-right, fundamentalist-christian, conservative politics by the plain ol’ folks of the state.
He fills in Kansas’s historical background of
Show More
Populism and anti-slavery (Republican in the Lincolnesque sense), and shows how today’s politics represent a complete about-face. Through interviews and anecdotes, he vividly illustrates how the “culture war” works, and how in their eagerness to sign up and fight in that war, farmers and working-class people destroy their own way of life.Frank also takes the Democratic party to task for creating the vacuum conservative Republicans rushed to fill when they completely abandoned their traditional supporters in pursuit of wealthy business owners whose politics were somewhat liberal, thereby taking economic issues off the table and making themselves over into a “Republican-lite” party where moderate Republicans may feel more comfortable as their party continues to become more and more radicalized.
Well worth reading if you want a clear, well-written description how American politics has moved dramatically rightwards. Frank offers no solution, but for most people not high up in the political party hierarchies, there may be no solution save waiting until the parties burn themselves out or wreck the country to the point that revolution becomes a viable and desirable option.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jcbrunner
The first part of the book is good stuff and presents an excellent survey of the state of Kansas. Frank presents a good picture of the different parts of Kansas (although he neglects the large influence of the military). The power shifts from local, agricultural community-based organizations to
The crazy has always been strong in Kansas from its early battles against slavery (John Brown, bloody Kansas and civil war turmoil), prohibition and anti-abortion. In its defense, Kansas has been a pioneer in women's suffrage. In contrast to Frank's presentation, Kansas has always been a heavily Republican state. The Democrats mostly served as a safety valve to Republican total control.
Frank notes the declining labor influence on its core constituency. In contrast to the beginning of the 20th century, labor (and the Democrats) have lost the aspirational battle. The poor and the uneducated are neither willing nor able to rise by small self-improvement to middle class status. Instead, they chase the snake oii salesman's dream of fame and fortune - in an American version of Slum Dog Millionaire. In truth, Kansas has accepted a Third World social structure (which is never openly discussed in "all created equal" America), with a tiny elite in segregated suburbia (the Mod Republicans and the well off Democrats) and a struggling lower class, offered a peculiar American version of "panem et circenses". This time, however, the so called Christians do the hunting (their latest victim, Dr. Tiller makes a cameo appearance in the book).
The odd alliance between capitalists, who run the show, and the incited religious, lower class, which provide the votes, puzzles Frank. If Frank had looked beyond Kansas, he would have noticed that this combination is rather common in many broken democracies from Spain's Franco to Italy's Berlusconi to any number of Latin American countries - and even in the Antebellum South. The difference is that the US had a middle class which has been slowly destroyed by this odd coalition. The dismemberment started much earlier than Frank assumes (see Paul Krugman or Elizabeth Warren). Since the early Seventies, more and more risk (education, healthcare, social security) shifted to the individual, while the benefit accrued only to the ultra-rich (such as the Kansan Koch family with its pernicious doublethink tanks). Like many other books, Frank does offer description and analysis but no solutions. The necessary multi-pronged approach is politically not feasible. Kansas, the US and the world suffer the consequences.
Show More
crony corporations. The second part, alas, is weak, arbitrary and unstructured. In sum, still a valuable quick read. Frank's message is the surprising rise of the American Taliban in Kansas which came to the attention of the world when the local nuts tried to ban the teaching of evolution in 1999.The crazy has always been strong in Kansas from its early battles against slavery (John Brown, bloody Kansas and civil war turmoil), prohibition and anti-abortion. In its defense, Kansas has been a pioneer in women's suffrage. In contrast to Frank's presentation, Kansas has always been a heavily Republican state. The Democrats mostly served as a safety valve to Republican total control.
Frank notes the declining labor influence on its core constituency. In contrast to the beginning of the 20th century, labor (and the Democrats) have lost the aspirational battle. The poor and the uneducated are neither willing nor able to rise by small self-improvement to middle class status. Instead, they chase the snake oii salesman's dream of fame and fortune - in an American version of Slum Dog Millionaire. In truth, Kansas has accepted a Third World social structure (which is never openly discussed in "all created equal" America), with a tiny elite in segregated suburbia (the Mod Republicans and the well off Democrats) and a struggling lower class, offered a peculiar American version of "panem et circenses". This time, however, the so called Christians do the hunting (their latest victim, Dr. Tiller makes a cameo appearance in the book).
The odd alliance between capitalists, who run the show, and the incited religious, lower class, which provide the votes, puzzles Frank. If Frank had looked beyond Kansas, he would have noticed that this combination is rather common in many broken democracies from Spain's Franco to Italy's Berlusconi to any number of Latin American countries - and even in the Antebellum South. The difference is that the US had a middle class which has been slowly destroyed by this odd coalition. The dismemberment started much earlier than Frank assumes (see Paul Krugman or Elizabeth Warren). Since the early Seventies, more and more risk (education, healthcare, social security) shifted to the individual, while the benefit accrued only to the ultra-rich (such as the Kansan Koch family with its pernicious doublethink tanks). Like many other books, Frank does offer description and analysis but no solutions. The necessary multi-pronged approach is politically not feasible. Kansas, the US and the world suffer the consequences.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jcvogan1
Frank argues that the working class has been conned into a constant role of victim of the liberal elite in exchange supporting an agenda that undermines their economic interests. He's an economic determinist. Book lacks the sort of sociological and economic data that would make it rigorous and
Show More
worthwhile. Show Less
LibraryThing member mattrutherford
I wanted to like it, but it was boring and repetitive. I got the central point in the preface.
LibraryThing member d.homsher
Nonfiction, political analysis following reelection of George Bush. The author tries to explain why disadvantaged residents of Kansas vote Republican.
Using stories from his own experience, along with interviews and research, Frank tries to understand why so many relatively poor voters in Kansas are
Using stories from his own experience, along with interviews and research, Frank tries to understand why so many relatively poor voters in Kansas are
Show More
willing to stand behind the Republican Party, a party which, in the author's opinion, has never offered them any real economic benefits or support. To explain the transformation of working-class Kansans from progressives (late nineteenth century) to conservatives (1990s), he discusses the key social issues that have turned Kansans against the more liberal Democratic party (abortion in particular) and the organizational efforts that have made these social issues so politically influential. Show Less
LibraryThing member skooks
Tom Frank is, for my money, perhaps the most clear eyed political observer and social critic going these days. The basic thesis of Kansas is pretty standard stuff. The current mode of populist politics often leads working class Americans to organize and vote for candidates who implement programs
Frank, a native Kansan, takes great pains to trace the rich populist impulse in his home state back to the socially Christian, but economically progressive movements of the Abolitionists and Bryanists. Some of the more colorful characters he speaks with in the book include a female politician famous for lamenting the extension of the franchise to women and a schismatic Catholic who regards the post Vatican II Church as a heresy and has consequently declared himself the true Pope. While I am, of course, pleased to see this subject matter analyzed, what I really liked about this book was Frank's ability to treat his "red" and often nutty Kansans with an empathy and affection that contains not even the slightest hint of condescension.
Show More
which are contrary to the economic interests of these voters.Frank, a native Kansan, takes great pains to trace the rich populist impulse in his home state back to the socially Christian, but economically progressive movements of the Abolitionists and Bryanists. Some of the more colorful characters he speaks with in the book include a female politician famous for lamenting the extension of the franchise to women and a schismatic Catholic who regards the post Vatican II Church as a heresy and has consequently declared himself the true Pope. While I am, of course, pleased to see this subject matter analyzed, what I really liked about this book was Frank's ability to treat his "red" and often nutty Kansans with an empathy and affection that contains not even the slightest hint of condescension.
Show Less
LibraryThing member DCArchitect
An indispensable tool for understanding why politics in the United States are the way they are.
LibraryThing member midlevelbureaucrat
A wonderful look at the hypocricy of the American Taliban. Nicely written...it teases out, I think, the real motivation behind modern American politics which is (no surprise) money. Money for the rich, for the corporations, for the haves.
LibraryThing member myfanwy
This is one of those books (like Don't think of an elephant) that has a thesis. Frank's is this: We can look at the history of Kansas, once full of old school populist Democrats and now thronging with the religious right, as an example of what is happening with the whole country: the
Now, this is all interesting, but there was a little too much bashing (of both Coulter and the frolics of Hollywood, and of snooty folks everywhere) and a little too little in the way of suggestions for changing the state of affairs. There's a place for personal experience, but I was much happier when he was writing about actual politics than the lessons he drew about snooty folks from not being accepted into a fraternity. That's all well and good for you, sir, but what do we do now? How do you reconcile the activist minority (ultra-religious) with the vast majority of passive voters who go along with the tide of the moment? And once again, I'm a little incensed everyone treats it as a clear-cut red-state blue-state issue. I mean, even if a state went 70/30 for Bush, are we just going to ignore the 30%? We live in a plurality democracy, yes, but even if the majority wins that doesn't mean you just write off the minority and say "well, they're all kooks out there. What can you do?" I have relatives in Wisconsin and Kansas and Oklahoma and other parts mid-westerly. I can tell you they are good folks and just as reasoning as you or me!
*ahem* sorry for the outburst! But the point of it is, this book is a quick read and rather interesting if somewhat flawed. If you read one 2004 political book, read Don't Think of an Elephant, but if you read two, What's the Matter With Kansas is a good second course. Let the righteous indignation begin!
Show More
disenfranchisement and hoodwinking of the poor by the wealthy conservatives who manage to campaign on value issues and vote on pro-business economic issues. He denounces the politics that have led to the economic disembowelment of smalltown U.S.A. He has innumerable points about the irony of poor folks getting riled up about the loss of Norman Rockwell America and rising up to vote in candidates who proceed to rape and pillage Norman Rockwell America. With the economy no longer the focus of campaigns we are stuck with two parties trying to be pro-business and nobody looking out for the little guy.Now, this is all interesting, but there was a little too much bashing (of both Coulter and the frolics of Hollywood, and of snooty folks everywhere) and a little too little in the way of suggestions for changing the state of affairs. There's a place for personal experience, but I was much happier when he was writing about actual politics than the lessons he drew about snooty folks from not being accepted into a fraternity. That's all well and good for you, sir, but what do we do now? How do you reconcile the activist minority (ultra-religious) with the vast majority of passive voters who go along with the tide of the moment? And once again, I'm a little incensed everyone treats it as a clear-cut red-state blue-state issue. I mean, even if a state went 70/30 for Bush, are we just going to ignore the 30%? We live in a plurality democracy, yes, but even if the majority wins that doesn't mean you just write off the minority and say "well, they're all kooks out there. What can you do?" I have relatives in Wisconsin and Kansas and Oklahoma and other parts mid-westerly. I can tell you they are good folks and just as reasoning as you or me!
*ahem* sorry for the outburst! But the point of it is, this book is a quick read and rather interesting if somewhat flawed. If you read one 2004 political book, read Don't Think of an Elephant, but if you read two, What's the Matter With Kansas is a good second course. Let the righteous indignation begin!
Show Less
LibraryThing member carterchristian1
A state in "free fall", A book about the end of the American dream. Junk stores.Corn fell from 6 a bushel in 1996 to 2.25 in 1999.
LibraryThing member joemillerjd
The end notes make it a bit labor-intensive but it is an excellent, concise explanation of why working-class people voted with the establishment.
LibraryThing member SLuce
About the red states vs the blue states. Worth reading.
LibraryThing member Devil_llama
Although this book has been criticized for not understanding the people of Kansas better, much of that criticism has come from people outside the Kansas region. For those of us who live and work in this region, the characters he paints are all too familiar, and the themes register painfully. The
Show More
author, a former Kansan himself, seems to have caught the "soul" of Kansas nicely. Show Less
LibraryThing member jocraddock
A must read for anyone trying to understand what's happened to the Republican (and Democratic) parties. How the "backlash" of the boomers has led Middle Americans to the far right, resulting in "lower wages, more dangerous jobs, dirtier air, a new overlord class that comports itself like King
Frank lays out the self-destructive policies that have pushed the backlashers, as he calls them, in Kansas, and the effect is felt (and threatened) nationwide.
Show More
Farouk . . . without significant interference from the grandstanding Christers whom they send triumphantly back to Washington every couple of years."Frank lays out the self-destructive policies that have pushed the backlashers, as he calls them, in Kansas, and the effect is felt (and threatened) nationwide.
Show Less
LibraryThing member yfngoh
Socialize the risk, privatize the profits.
Deracinate
Deracinate
LibraryThing member Othemts
Nothing. They’re just being used. That’s the conclusion Frank reaches when he investigates why the status quo-busting citizens of his home state – once the nation’s pioneering progressive populists – now are the epicenter of right-wing Republican reactionaries. Frank writes of how groups
“Cupcake Land is a metropolis built entirely according to the developer’s plan, without the interference of angry proles or ethnic pols as in nearby Kansas City. Cupcake Land encourages no culture but that which increases property values; supports no learning but that which burnishes the brand; hears no opinions but those that will fatten the cupcake elite; tolerates no rebellion but that expressed in haircuts and piercings and alternative rock. You know what it’s like even though you haven’t been there. Smooth jazz. Hallmark cards. Applebees. Corporate Woods. “ – p. 49
“Ironically, the farm is where Americans learned their first lessons in the pitfalls of laissez-faire economics a hundred years ago. Farming is a field uniquely unsuited to the freewheeling whirl of the open market. There are millions of farmers, and they are naturally disorganized; they can’t coordinate their plans with one another. Not only are they easily victimized by powerful middlemen (as they were by the railroads in the Populists’ day), but when they find themselves in a tough situation – when, say, the price they are getting for wheat is low – farmers do not have an option of cutting back production, as every other industry does. Instead, each of those millions of farmers works harder, competes better, becomes more efficient, cranks out more of the commodity in question … and thus makes the glut even worse and pushes the prices still lower. This is called an ‘overproduction trap,’ and it can only be overcome by a suspension of competition through government intervention. Such intervention is what the Populists and the farmers’ unions fought for decades to secure; it finally came with the New Deal, which brought price supports and acreage set-asides and loan guarantees. For agribusiness, however, farm overproduction is the ideal situation. From their perspective, lower farm prices means higher profits and even greater power in the marketplace. Overproduction and all-out competition between farmers are thus to be encouraged by all available political means.” – 64
“…to believe that liberalism is all-powerful gets conservative lawmakers off the hook for their flagrant failure to make headway in the culture wars, but it also makes for a singularly negative and depressing movement culture. To be a populist conservative is to be a fatalist; to believe in a world where your side will never win; indeed, where your side almost by definition cannot win. Where even the most shattering electoral victories turn out to be hollow, and the liberal stranglehold on life can never be broken.” – 125
“Understanding themselves as victims besieged by a hateful world absolves conservatives of responsibility for what goes on around them. It excuses them for their failures; it justifies the most irresponsible rages; and it allows them, both in politics and in private life, to resolve disputes by pointing their fingers at the outside world and blaming it all on depraved liberal elite.” -159
“When markets flex their muscles, it is productive, organic, democratic; when government know-it-alls take the wheel, power becomes destructive, top-down, arbitrary, and tyrannical.” - 165
“The deafness of the conservative rank and file to the patent insincerity of their leaders is one of the true cultural marvels of the Great Backlash. It extends from the local level to the highest heights, from clear-eyed city council aspirant to George W. Bush, a man so ham-handed in his invocations of the Lord that he occasionally slips into blasphemy. Indeed, even as conservatives routinely mock Democrats for faking their religious sentiment, they themselves plainly feel so exempt from such criticism that they wander blithely in and out of the land of hypocrisy, never pausing to wonder if their followers are paying attention.”
“American conservatism depends for its continued dominance and even for its very existence on people never making certain mental connections about the world, connections that until recently were treated as obvious or self-evident everywhere on the planet. For example, the connection between mass culture, most of which conservatives hate, and laissez-faire capitalism, which they adore without reservation. Or between the small towns they profess to love and the market forces that are slowly grinding those small towns back into red-state dust – which forces they praise in the most exalted terms.” -248
Show More
of Kansans in their quest for moral values are basically being used to advance the cause of corporate power. There’s a lot in this book I’m uncomfortable with in it’s stereotypical depictions and not well justified conclusions, but for the most part Frank does solid investigation and puts a lot of compassion into the story of Kansas. “Cupcake Land is a metropolis built entirely according to the developer’s plan, without the interference of angry proles or ethnic pols as in nearby Kansas City. Cupcake Land encourages no culture but that which increases property values; supports no learning but that which burnishes the brand; hears no opinions but those that will fatten the cupcake elite; tolerates no rebellion but that expressed in haircuts and piercings and alternative rock. You know what it’s like even though you haven’t been there. Smooth jazz. Hallmark cards. Applebees. Corporate Woods. “ – p. 49
“Ironically, the farm is where Americans learned their first lessons in the pitfalls of laissez-faire economics a hundred years ago. Farming is a field uniquely unsuited to the freewheeling whirl of the open market. There are millions of farmers, and they are naturally disorganized; they can’t coordinate their plans with one another. Not only are they easily victimized by powerful middlemen (as they were by the railroads in the Populists’ day), but when they find themselves in a tough situation – when, say, the price they are getting for wheat is low – farmers do not have an option of cutting back production, as every other industry does. Instead, each of those millions of farmers works harder, competes better, becomes more efficient, cranks out more of the commodity in question … and thus makes the glut even worse and pushes the prices still lower. This is called an ‘overproduction trap,’ and it can only be overcome by a suspension of competition through government intervention. Such intervention is what the Populists and the farmers’ unions fought for decades to secure; it finally came with the New Deal, which brought price supports and acreage set-asides and loan guarantees. For agribusiness, however, farm overproduction is the ideal situation. From their perspective, lower farm prices means higher profits and even greater power in the marketplace. Overproduction and all-out competition between farmers are thus to be encouraged by all available political means.” – 64
“…to believe that liberalism is all-powerful gets conservative lawmakers off the hook for their flagrant failure to make headway in the culture wars, but it also makes for a singularly negative and depressing movement culture. To be a populist conservative is to be a fatalist; to believe in a world where your side will never win; indeed, where your side almost by definition cannot win. Where even the most shattering electoral victories turn out to be hollow, and the liberal stranglehold on life can never be broken.” – 125
“Understanding themselves as victims besieged by a hateful world absolves conservatives of responsibility for what goes on around them. It excuses them for their failures; it justifies the most irresponsible rages; and it allows them, both in politics and in private life, to resolve disputes by pointing their fingers at the outside world and blaming it all on depraved liberal elite.” -159
“When markets flex their muscles, it is productive, organic, democratic; when government know-it-alls take the wheel, power becomes destructive, top-down, arbitrary, and tyrannical.” - 165
“The deafness of the conservative rank and file to the patent insincerity of their leaders is one of the true cultural marvels of the Great Backlash. It extends from the local level to the highest heights, from clear-eyed city council aspirant to George W. Bush, a man so ham-handed in his invocations of the Lord that he occasionally slips into blasphemy. Indeed, even as conservatives routinely mock Democrats for faking their religious sentiment, they themselves plainly feel so exempt from such criticism that they wander blithely in and out of the land of hypocrisy, never pausing to wonder if their followers are paying attention.”
“American conservatism depends for its continued dominance and even for its very existence on people never making certain mental connections about the world, connections that until recently were treated as obvious or self-evident everywhere on the planet. For example, the connection between mass culture, most of which conservatives hate, and laissez-faire capitalism, which they adore without reservation. Or between the small towns they profess to love and the market forces that are slowly grinding those small towns back into red-state dust – which forces they praise in the most exalted terms.” -248
Show Less
LibraryThing member featherbear
Toto, aren't you glad we're not in Kansas anymore?! I'm not sure Frank delivers on the subtitle, hence the low rating. May take another look and reconsider. Meanwhile, hope to get around to Rick Perlstein's Before the storm. Maybe take another look at Richard Hofstadter's books read oh so long ago.
LibraryThing member iowabooker
I live in the midwest so this hits very close to home. The historical standpoint in this book really weaves together current events on why our political system is the way it is today.
LibraryThing member Christina_E_Mitchell
That explains a lot, and absolutely nothing all at the same time. Right-wing arguments do not make sense to me -- morals are one thing, complete detrimental ignorance is another (of course, that comment is coming from a Liberal Elitist).
LibraryThing member vive_livre
He's a really entertaining and smart writer.
LibraryThing member Charon07
No particularly original or stunning insights to offer on the paradox of the right-wing backlash. Most of the book was simply prologue to the last chapter, which in my opinion contained the meat of the book and could have stood alone as an article. Nevertheless, I'm glad someone wrote this book.