What's The Matter With What's The Matter With Kansas
What's The Matter With What's The Matter With Kansas: "In a fascinating paper called 'What's the Matter With What's the Matter with Kansas?', Princeton professor Larry Bartels uses data from National Election Study (NES) surveys to test Frank's thesis. He examines class-related patterns of issue preferences, partisanship, and voting over the past half-century. Bartels concludes that the white working class hasn't moved right and that 'moral values' are not pushing them to vote Republican."
posted by Victor Laszlo @ 10/12/2005
4 comments
4 Comments:
Couldn't follow the link. Can you try to fix it?
Welcome back!!!
Meta - thanks for the pics; but what's with the socks and sandals!!??
He got pics? Where's my pics?
Try the link now.
Really interesting study. I haven't yet read it in detail, but will; and I think it would be a good topic for another meeting - if not a good excuse to see if Ms. Meta has improved her dumpling-making skills as a result of having traveled back to the home country.
But here's my quick take. Let's assume that the main findings of the study are correct: (1) The Dems didn't lose the election on "social issues" because working class whites vote based on economic issues more than on social issues, and (2) the gains by the Republicans can be directly attributed to increased support among middle and upper-class whites.
Well, that could pretty much blow the logic of almost all my posts on this site out of the water; the conclusion could be that Dems should not focus on differentiating their policies along economic lines - doing so would only excacerbate the trends that have already created a Republican stranglehold on the executive and legislative branches by driving even more middle and upper-class whites into the Republican "base."
On the other hand, maybe it leads to the opposite conclusion: Perhaps the only way to fight against those existing trends is to move to the left on economic issues - in order to gain more support from those "disenfranchised" working class voters who would be inclined to vote along economic lines but don't currently vote (and that those gains wouldn't be cancelled out by a corresponding increasing the number of middle and upper-class whites who vote).
The way to choose between those conclusions would be based on whether you believe that Dems can effectively increase votership among working class whites and working class non-whites through economic policy differentiation (more than they would lose wealthier voters who currently vote Democratic).
On one side you have hope, on the other side we're screwed either way.
Post a Comment
<< Home