Frank vs Bartels - who's right, and who's wrong...?

I was already familiar with the book What’s the Matter with Kansas before class, though I confess to never reading it. I was familiar with the ideology expressed in the book; that America had lost its liberal soul and that moral values were trumping the economic interests of so many Americans. As a European who is not used to the massive role religion plays in American politics, I was always confident that Thomas Frank was telling the truth. However, as Larry Bartels points out, closer analysis of the data shows Frank's argument(s) to be slightly skewed.

According to Frank, "Then, on the morning after the election, the country's liberals were astonished to hear that, according to exit polls, at least, "moral values" outranked all other issues in determining voters' choices.[16] Later on that same day, the reelected President Bush set out his legislative objectives for his second term. Making America a more moral country was not one of them. Instead, his goals were mainly economic, and they had precious little to do with helping out the working-class people who had stood by them: he would privatize Social Security once and for all and "reform" the federal tax code."

Now on the face of it, that seems a very convincing argument. However, Bartels decides to delve a little further into Frank's definition of "working class" in the review of Frank's book, sarcastically titled, What’s the Matter with What’s the Matter with Kansas?. Bartels states that, "While it seems fruitless to quibble about who is really in the working class, it is important to be clear about what we are talking about.The potential for confusion is illustrated in a 2005 New York Times column by David Brooks entitled “Meet the Poor Republicans.” Brooks writes that “we’ve seen poorer folks move over in astonishing numbers to the G.O.P.” In support of this assertion Brooks notes that “George W. Bush won the white working class by 23 percentage points in this past [2004] election.” The 23-point margin refers to white voters without college degrees – precisely the definition of the white working class now proposed by Frank. But are these really “poorer folks”? Poorer than Brooks and Frank, yes. Poor by the standards of ordinary Americans, not really."
(Bartels, 205).

I never thought about it this way. There is a common stereotype that all conservative voters are rich fat cats who make $500,000 per year, but as Bartels explains, "Even in 2004, after decades of increasingly widespread college education, the economic circumstances of whites without college degrees were not much different from those of America as a whole. Among those who voted, 40% had family incomes in excess of $60,000; and when offered the choice, more than half actually called themselves “middle class” rather than “working class.” (Bartels, 205).

As Bartels expertly explains, Frank's definition of "the poor" and "working class" is a slightly lopsided. I mean, let's put it this way, if $60,000 a year is poor - I wish I was "poor" - or at least Frank's definition of poor anyway! Sometimes, though not always, there is an accurate description by conservatives of "liberal elites" who looks through their lenses with rose tinted spectacles. Bartels lands a knock out blow here, in my view. He exposes the weaknesses in Frank's research and accurately describes that all these so called "working class" conservatives are not all on food stamps or living helplessly on paycheck to paycheck. In fact, according to data from the US Census Bureau, $60,000 a year is higher than the average yearly American household income of $50,000 (approx).



Bartels continues to tear Frank's 'culture war' argument to shreds, explaining that in actuality - the voting gap between lower and higher income voters is increasing dramatically, "The voting behavior of Frank’s white working class in the 2004 election suggests that, if anything, the partisan divergence between its richer and poorer segments is continuing to increase. John Kerry received 49% of the two-party vote in the poorest third of Frank’s white working class, virtually identical to the 50% received by previous Democratic candidates over the preceding three decades. However, his support fell to 40% among middle-income whites without college degrees, and to 30% among those in the top third of the income distribution. Thus, insofar as Kerry’s performance reflects a continuing erosion in Democratic support among Frank’s white working class, that erosion continues to be concentrated among people who are, in fact, relatively affluent." (Bartels, 209).

Bartels explains that, in 2004, Kerry held firm with low income voters, but lost some middle income voters without college degrees, and lost a significant portion of high income voters. I commend Bartels for his expert analysis here because I always thought the book, What's the Matter With Kansas, was symptomatic of the truth in the heart of this country. But Bartels has shown that clumping people into broadly defined groups such as the "working class" can be misleading, and deceptive.

Bartels uses facts and figures to stipulate his opinions, whereas on the other hand, Frank seems to attack the argument from a self-centered ideological approach; in other words - Frank personally believes it is cynical for the "working class" to vote conservative - so just because Frank thinks that it seems cynical - that means we all have to agree with him.... no, I much prefer Bartels' argument because he sticks to facts, figures, and statistics. In essence, I am not necessarily saying that Bartels is right and Frank is wrong (or visa versa) - but if it was a boxing match, I'd say Bartels would win on points...


On a final note, per the instructions in the notes, I think what happened in 2008 did not influence my views. In 2008, there was (and still is) an economic crisis not seen since the Great Depression. In 2005 there was still positive economic growth - so I don't think it would be 'fair and balanced' to compare the elections of 2004 and 2008 in this sense. However, if you did want to use 2008 as a reference point to back either Frank or Bartels, it would most likely strengthen Bartels' argument because the Republicans lost some of their traditional "values voters" in 2008 as the attentions centered primarily on the economy [I analyzed this extensively in my blog describing what changed between 2004 and 2008].



Works Cited [MLA Format] :


Bartels, Larry. "What’s the Matter with What’s the Matter with Kansas?!" Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2006: 201-226.