Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Here, here!

The book is not a work of economics, nor is it about the similarity of Clinton and Reagan. It's about conservative political drift founded in cultural concerns and spurious arguments. Kind of like welfare reform.

Agreed. Tom knows little about politics or class or economics or even Kansas.

1) He's from Kansas, but he's not of Kansas by any means. Indeed, he went to Shawnee Mission High, which is in an affluent suburb of Kansas City Missouri. If you ever meet him, you'll note that he's a bit of a pompous fop.

2) He's trained as a cultural historian, and he's at his best talking about culture.

3) He greatly overstates the radicalism of past Kansas politics. Only four Democrats have won in Kansas since 1900 (Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and Clinton). Nor have populist candidates done especially well. William Jennings Bryan lost the state in 1900. FDR lost it in 1940 and 1944. It's a conservative place.

4) The demographics of the state have changed markedly since the period when KS politics were progressive.

In the end, we're basically debating about how to appeal to _whites_ with some college or less. Tom thinks the best way is to move left. Clinton -- a man from the white working class who actually won the state of Kansas in 1992-- thought it better to balance the budget and wait for realignment. Only time will tell who's right, but Tom doesn't have much evidence.

Point taken but Brad you may want to look at Frank's article a month or two ago in Harper's which sums up his thesis. He's right that the Republicans are winning through "cultural" issues the same people they victimize on economic issues. It's pretty chilling to hear people struggling to stay in the middle class, with no health insurance or access to college education and shaky job prospects, say they'll vote for Bush because he'll fight against abortion and gay marriage.

"It's pretty chilling to hear people struggling to stay in the middle class, with no health insurance or access to college education and shaky job prospects, say they'll vote for Bush because he'll fight against abortion and gay marriage."

Why is that a suprise? Kerry has yet to offer any solutions other than saying "I'm not Bush" But he has pandered to the gay-rights and pro-abortion interest groups. I guess he could try to win the votes of the average American by executing one of his classic flip-flops.

Actually Kerry is unleashing a raft of solutions, study them as you will.

It is disconcerting to hear of Frank’s plunge into the deep end, considering that “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” rather scrupulously avoids any discussion of economics proper, so one might have hoped he knew his good and bad subjects. The book is politics with a little pop sociology about the alliance at the heart of the Republican Party between (A) socially conservative, anti-abortion, lower-class displaced workers and farmers who hate government imposition whether good or bad, and (B) the country-club Republicans, who laugh-along when gays tell jokes, want to preserve abortion choice, move on and out into offshore assets, and take the fat tax cuts voted on by those below. If history is any evidence, this guarantee of worker displacement will finally be a fault for realignment. However, the book fails to examine the felonious premises of the pseudo-economics promulgated by the uppers for swallowing by the lowers. Would that book were written! Has anybody yet pointed out that you could generate as much capital investment when poor and middle-class people can save? It might be time to initiate a pop crash course in economics--curious that none really exists--to get folks like Frank, Michael Moore, Ehrenreich, up to speed about the science of their art, thereby to help enlighten us with solutions that work.

Mock Frank all you want, but he's right. Rural Americans are ignoring financial matters and voting their cultural concerns. But what they're failing to take into account is that government has very little power to alter culture, because of free speech and separation of church and state. The wall-street Republicans are therefore taking advantage of the rural Republicans - promising them that the Republican party will roll back culture to the 1940's, when in fact, government have no power to do that. This gets the rural Americans to hand power over to the wall-street Republicans, and the rural Republicans get nothing in return. This keeps the rural Republicans angry, and under the delusion that if they just vote Republican one more time, the 1940s will return.

"The book fails to examine the felonious premises of the pseudo-economics promulgated by the uppers for swallowing by the lowers."

I think his premise, that Kansans aren't voting Republican for economic reasons, is sound. There's really no need to go any further - if culture trumps economics, then there's no point arguing economics.

"A little pop sociology about the alliance at the heart of the Republican Party"

I think his beef is that people keep calling it an alliance, as if it were for the common good of both parties (the Kansans and the Wall-street conservatives), when in fact, it's entirely a one-sided contract. The wall-street conservatives get lower taxes, lower regulation, etc, and the Kansans get a stone tablet with the ten commandments in a courthouse, but they only get it for about a week. Because the government simply doesn't have the power to give the Kansans what they want, which is leave-it-to-beaver culture, the whole "alliance" is a sham designed to trick the Kansans.

We've had quite a row about this over at The Bellman.

I've been roundly criticized there for arguing that good Democratic strategy in the culture wars would be to compromise with cultural conservatives. This is predicated on my belief that the culture war is basically won, despite whatever "backlash" Frank sees happening on the Right.

But whatever. I'm getting nowhere with this because it strikes so many on the Left as defeatist, pandering, unprincipled and ridiculous. Basically the cost is too high. But it galls me to be called a GOP apologist for suggesting that these folks aren't necessarily crazy for voting values in a time when they see an overall coarsening of the culture. You can't just blame Fox news for everything.

DeLong's post here seems to suffer from the same jerked knee. That most of rural America thinks Dubya's a decent, good ol'd boy is not a talking point. It's rather more like a fact. I saw Frank on Now with Bill Moyers and he hardly came off as a GOP mole.

Perhaps middle america is not as worried as the leadership of the great and the good on the Left about falling out of the middle class. Hard as it is to give them credit for having some knowledge that the ecomony moves in cycles and that we are just coming out of a recession. Perhaps they are not as sure as Terry Mcaulif that we are just around the corner from a dickensian nightmare. They might just also detect a wiff of hypocrisy when the Democrats pummel the Republicans for passing a perscription drug benefit for Granny because it is too expensive. Maybe the whole price control argument for perscription drugs is over their heads or maybe its not.

From a Republican perspective, the New Deal of the thirties was an irrevocable disaster. 70 years, it is still there. If you think the current Republican party can put the country in a similar long term position, maybe it would be better not just to criticize Frank for his clothes and actually offer the white working-class male an economic alternative.

Franks is exactly right. I live in the conservative West, and came to believe this theory on my own about 6 months ago. Wish that I had written a book about it. The Dems need to get back to being the party of the workers and leave cultural issues alone. I think that Citizens (or consumers -that is what we have been turned into in this country by bad policies that treat cheap consumer goods as the be all of existence) who are economically secure don't need wedge issues to be angry about. The people know that things are getting worse, they just don't know whom to blame or what to do about it. Mr. Franks' book is a cautionary tale warning us that the actions of corporate and academic elites speak louder than words.

From the attacks on Mr. Franks, I would say that he has pushed some buttons. Good for him.

Heh. Not to belabor the obvious, but it can always be considered to be in my direct interest to get stuff paid for by some filthy rich guy.

You are missing the point. Many people have voting tendencies that are 100% hereditary. In the south, you will often hear, "My daddy is a Democrat, his daddy was a Democrat, so I'm a Democrat." The remaining voters have One Issue that motivates them to get out and vote. For some, it is abortion, for others it is guns. Building a coalition is not about everybody getting what they want, it is about hanging together One Issues that won't explode when they come in contact with each other, and providing a narrative that loosely connects the dots. The narrative doesn't matter, and there isn't much point in analyzing it, because it is just something useful to hang your One Issues on. The meat is the Issues, and they may very well have nothing to do with each other.

The Dems have a relatively simple narrative for a coalition hung together very simply. Go to each group and ask, "Would you like money or stuff funded by someone else?" Don't go to people you are going to take the money from, because it is better to have them around as Selfish Bastards. The narrative that hangs all this together is either "This stuff is a human right." or "You work hard and DESERVE this stuff." As long as there is plentiful money to hand out, and you have a group outside your coalition to extract funds from, you have a VERY compelling coalition machine.

The Repub's coalition is all over the place. Broadly, you have the 'leave me alone' crowd. Leave me alone with my guns. Leave me alone with my religion. (Aside: I think most Dems read this one incorrectly. Many Religious conservatives may wish the world were more Christian, but they vote because they feel squeezed out of public life. Norquist and others have been successful in connecting this feeling with the current public school system into a kind of 'leave me alone to educate my child as I see fit.') Leave my paycheck alone. The narrative is something like: "intrusive bureaucrats want to tell you how to live your life, and if you take the offering from them, they own you. Oh, by the way, they laugh openly at your moral code."

Yeah,I'd never read a book by a guy wearing a pink shirt either.

Interesting arguements. I have lived in Wichita, Kansas since 1985. I worked for Boeing from 1988-2002. So I have watched this play unfold. In Wichita we used to be after New York City in terms of wages and standard of living. Not now, In 1988 content of US based parts in a typical boeing aircraft was about 70% now it runs 35% employment then was 24800 now 12500.Same with the other aircraft companies here. Secondary production also moving overseas. Replacement jobs non existant. The only thing that has been keeping us above water was a large school bond issue. Clinton voted for nafta and gatt wto ect which removed economic incentives from my union brethen.I am a former production worker,
what technolgy has done for me was to reduce and simplify tasks to the point where they are easily outsourced. Corporate would rather pay 25 cents per hour versus 25 dollars an hour. Not to mention related expenses of toxic wastes pensions worksman comp ect. I have read T. Franks book hes right.I feel like we are returning to the Victorian era. Please excuse all spelling errors.

"There's really no need to go any further - if culture trumps economics, then there's no point arguing economics." But this culture BASES itself partly upon “economics.” These people believe that following God's commandments, whatever the other merits of so excellent a course, will also bring material good fortune. This private moral initiative is married to individualism and thence, by scientistic arguments, to the efficiency of the market system, and thence (currently) to the supply-side theory of investment downtrickle. It is in therefore in God's eyes to privatize federal wildlands and transfer money to the ultra-rich, because of the laws of economics. Trouble is, those aren't the laws of economics, so they cannot be in God's eyes. This little fact may eventually drive a stake through the heart of the Republican Party.

What the Democrats should do for now, is save the wildlands, and put social security in the lockbox. Then shave a half-nickel off of every other government item including defense, and shave a nickel off the tax cuts at the same time, and do it every year until the budget looks under control.

Anybody who can't live at their margin gets help, or sees a shrink.

Meanwhile, on fundamental social issues, Frank's book could be construed to argue that fewer social conservatives would be politically alarmed if government “experts” didn’t push social mandates. It might be good Democratic strategy to compromise there, because so much has already been won--not least, as so many before Frank have pointed out, because it is in the nature of mass consumer culture to allow it.

Have I missed out on massive sales of federal "wildlands" in the last few years?

I think you are describing the much maligned protestant work ethic, God loves those who help themselves. In contrast to wait for some higher power (God or Government) to take care of you.

There will always be tension as social mores change between those in the vanguard and those bringing up the rear. The Democrats would be wise to be tolerant of those who move a little more slowly and not treat them like some sort of primitive sub-species.

Error by Conrad: Clinton didn't take Kansas, either. (He came, I believe, within 5 points -- closer than any other Democrat has come since LBJ.) But he's entirely right on his main point: it's a conservative place. It hasn't elected a Democratic Senator since 1936, for God's sake.

There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of very well-off people who consistently vote for Democrats. It would be in their best interests economically to vote for Republicans - their taxes would be lower, the businesses that they own would be less regulated, etc. But they don't vote for Republicans because they are fervently pro-choice. Or because they believe strongly in gay rights. Or because they came of age in the social justice movements of the 1960s.

Are these people ignorant, deluded rubes? Are they sheep, led around by Democratic party overlords who are just using them to win elections? People so stupid they'd betray their own interests because of delusions about wedge issues?

If you answered "no," then why exactly do you think scorn should be heaped upon poor Kansans who vote Republican because they think abortion should be illegal?

The Thomas Frank worldview is comforting to some childish liberals because it lets them believe that anyone who leans left does so because they have soberly and lucidly weighed all of the issues, and anyone who leans right does so because they're either stupid or the victim of a massive fraud.

The Thomas Frank disciple never has to engage honestly with adults who hold different opinions about the world. Because surely no adult really holds different opinions. They may "say" they believe that life begins at conception, and that its a moral horror to allow fetuses to be aborted, but surely its "really" because they're just expressing the blind impotent rage of the small town blue collar worker who has been victimized by Republicans and who never had the good sense to move to Hyde Park.

Adults don't let themselves think this way. Adults make their peace with the sometimes uncomfortable truth that there are people in the world who are just as smart as they are (in some cases smarter), who are just as good-hearted as they are (sometimes even more mind and benevolent), and just as well-informed as they as (sometimes even more educated about the world), who nonetheless look at the great ambiguities of life and draw different conclusions from them.

I realize that people on the left are angry right now. They have reason to be - they honestly believe the party in power is wrong on the merits, and perhaps at times acting in bad faith as well. Fine. But retreating to the comfortable delusion that the party in power wins elections because the people who vote for them are rubes is foolish and self-defeating.

I know. I lean rightward myself, and I can assure you that throughout the 1990s it was the Freerepublic.com crowd, blind with anti-Clinton rage, bitching about how the people were sheep.

P.S. Hang out on right-wing blogs these days and you'll frequently see the meme that its a mystery and a travesty that more blacks don't vote Republican. After all, opinion surveys show conclusively that Blacks are solidly pro-life, support school choice, and are against gay marriage. Think that's a silly, paternalistic argument?

As hunters and fishermen are well aware, U.S. wildlands are in peril, due to the massive sales of extraction rights, including much timber, on federal lands in the last few years, at continuing cost to the public purse, and with almost complete shielding from review by scientific and public oversight.

And with no real need for it to be so. The work ethic is not much maligned anywhere, except by well-connected corporate privateers!

Abortion is a central issue, maybe THE central issue, and it’s true that the Democrats don’t much acknowledge the feelings behind it. And could do a lot better. But I see no evidence that the left thinks anti-abortion people are being stupid in their belief. That is simply not the case. It is certainly not the opinion of Frank's book, wherein he talks to some pro-lifers who are very smart. In fact, I think most “liberals” eventually come to the position that abortion is a really bad thing, but still better left to the mother's choice.

We might find some common ground by working toward a better world where some mothers-to-be can make a happier decision.

However, most people ARE stupid victims of a massive fraud in current economic policy perpetrated by the Republicans--but THAT would be a very different subject.

I wish to report that I may have found an equitable solution to the abortion debate! I want you to know that I have been studying the issue for some time now, spilled coffee on charts, consulted panjandrums, peered into my soul! I am not particulary proud of all this, but shit happens!

To begin, I have observed that both sides suffer from remarkable HYPOCRISIES, or at least it should be said, INCONSISTENCIES of THOUGHT.

PRO-CHOICE. It’s a curious fact that pro-choice (or pro-abortion rights) people must seriously consider that it would be okay if they had never been born. In other words, if they had been aborted. It will be allowed that most people never sweat much about this! This appears to proceed from the fact that, although we all FEAR our death in the future, we do not REGRET or AGONIZE over that prior eternity in oblivion, which preceded our births. This emotion, at least, is time-asymmetrical. Besides, if you didn’t exist, you wouldn’t know anything, would you? (Solipcism.) Therefore, why think about it? (Nihilism.)

PRO-LIFE. On the other side, it’s another curious fact that pro-life (or anti-abortion) people hate the thought of a murdered fetus, but often don’t mind state-mandated deaths of other kinds, e.g. in war or capital punishment. Now of course, once you’re in the world, it’s THEN you get to make your moral choices! And war is often waged in self-defence (if, in the current case, more like oil-fear, dice-rolling and vainglory), and convicted murderers should see their just desserts. But what about the possiblity that a convict might find God and so, redemption? Or take another case almost no one ever thinks about: allowable risk for toxic pollutants. It may well total-up to the mandated murder of dozens per thousand yearly, and nobody in the pro-life movement bats an eye. Are probability and statistics too rationalistic?

I therefore reluctantly conclude that, proper to the failures of each side, there IS a solution to the policy dilemma: All Pro-Choice people should kill themselves! And all Pro-Life people should kill each other!

The real stupidity of the Frank's Kansans is that they fail to notice that the Rs are not delivering on any of their cultural issues, while screwing them on economic issues. In fact, cultural issues cannot be won in the government. They arise from the culture, and are changed when the culture changes. The biggest cultural influences come from the biggest corporations, and they do not respond to the cultural concerns of Kansans, even those aligned with them as republicans.

There was a thread here about bills that come close to passing, but do not, because politicians see them as a source of continued contributions. The Kansans are victims of the same game of three card monte.

"Anybody raving about the lack of difference between Clintonomics and Reaganomics doesn't deserve to blather--on TV or in print."

Yeah, alternative viewpoints sure do suck. I know I'd never read a book by someone who disagrees with me even slightly, even if his ultimate goals are the same as my own.

Meanwhile, the president of the largest AFL-CIO union made a worried statement about Kerry. Like it or not, he's expressing the worries of a lot of people who feel that the Democrats offer them little real alternative to the Republicans. I know that's frustrating, but it's reality. Of course the economy rose under Clinton, but the perception of the economy is that the gains of the nineties might have been due to circumstances (like the stock bubble) that aren't likely to happen again. The perception of the economy is that even when it gets better, the gains are vastly disproportionate, with the wealthy benefitting far more than the nation.

Read this book and I think you'll understand exactly where a lot of Nader supporters are coming from, and how to reach them.

You can ignore everyone who shares that perception. Or you can listen to them and learn how to help change it. Up to you.

There's nothing wrong with a pink shirt.

Now a button-down shirt, that's a different matter. No one should wear such a thing. Your tailor should refuse to supply one.

The general thesis of this uneasy and vulnerable alliance at the heart of the Republican Party is given analytical support and political consequence for Kerry strategy, by Kevin Phillips in The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040802&s=phillips

(found it via Cursor.org, which also points to transcript of Phillips interview by Moyers on NOW, informative and entertaining)

>anyone who talks about how the Democrats need to shed their cultural image as tofs while wearing

Christ on a bike. He is running for exactly what office? Is he even a Democrat- I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he isn't.

I think this post should get a year end nomination for "Logical Fallacy- People Who Should Know Better Division".

sd-

The wealthy can afford to vote cultural issues to the detriment of their pocketbooks. The poor cannot.

Is the math too hard?

Are you sure Frank managed to get his point across? When Garafalo and Seder interviewed Frank on the "Majority Report", he sounded eminently reasonable. It surprises me that he would repeat the Kerry/Yacht meme uncritically. During the interview I heard, Frank was making fun of that kind of dichotomy and complaining that the right wing was peddling "authenticity" over substance. He argued that "authenticity" in their twisted scheme means adopting the trappings of a a "regular guy." Somehow, a draft-dodging, oil-rich, horse fearing President is considered a regular guy because he speaks in a folksy drawl and drives a pickup truck.

Hello:
On this subject, I have read so much actual BS from other viewpoints - its is sad.

To SD:
(' It is a mystery and a travesty that more blacks don't vote Republican')

Gee willikers, I guess SD is not a African-American, or he would not have typed that comment. 1st off, people of that color persuasion have an inherent dislike for rich people. Did you know that when certain minorities keep hearing about the "abolishment of welfare state" (sort of like old talk of abolishment of slavery a few centuries ago...) that it scares them. Maybe if they could get better jobs, if the rich white people who own corporations, and large business, (i.e. "white" collar" jobs, just do not want to take a chance on a African American) and if they could get decent jobs and get out of the catch -22 of no jobs, no future, no dad, alcholism, street gangs, better streets and parks( meaning why does eastern cities in rust belt fix streets in white neighborhoods, but let the hispanic and black neighborhoods streets fall into cracks and pot-holes resembling a 3rd-world nation/ if you do not believe me, I will take you of a tour of "tale of 2 cities" in my town of several million); then maybe there would not be so much despair. It becomes a ghetto because the city goverment does not funnel in money to fix the streets & buildings, thus making self-esteem lower. And the bad physical streets and run down buildings are a result of their own folly? (seems to be the philosophy of the Republicans) Is it their fault, the good jobs are still going to white people- and only kitchen jobs and meter -maid readings are only jobs forthcoming without a college education. Why was there no college education, nmaybe because "Daddy" had no college education because in 1950's and 1960's- where would a African -American person get money or a good job to afford such a education - piece of paper- to get that "white Coller job". So, you see SD, you are the daily scarey thinker for even stating that African American people are mysterious for voting Democrat. There is more to daily survival than worrying about abortion or gay rights for some of the inner-city working poor. (Hmmm, should I worry about whether I have to feed my kids pancakes for 3rd evening in a row; or should I forget dinner problems and contact my city councilman to stop abortion) Maybe it is because the Democrats embraced them and keep an eye on their behalf, while Nixon, up to Bush have not even batted an eye on their behalf.
If you were African American and went to church and heard the sermons and saw the streets, and watched the news- you would vote Democrat. This is so because Republicans do not really care for poor people in its darwinistic thinking- it is the poor's fault they are poor, they should pick themselves up from the boot straps, get a 2nd moonlighting kitchen or clean office buildings after white people leave- so they can pay for their kids college education, so that kid can get a job shuffling insurance papers all day for a max of 31,000 annual with no raises or promotions elsewhere (and should I talk about life below the Mason-Dixon line for poor whites and blacks= it is even worse and more dreadful)
so give me a break
abolish the welfare state, then complain when they beg off the streets from you- lock them up for vagrancy. Lock them in jail for anything;
That is the world today; that is the world yesterday; what is the future with Republicans; what do they offer minorities or poor people except callous threats and false promises.
(these thoughts coming from a "white centrist"

Note: If Bush Jr. was a actually born an African American without his Daddy's connections- would he ever be part -owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, make millions off of oil, become governor or Supreme Court entrant president= or would he still be a Coke addict as he once was allegedly and be begging in the streets? You make the distinctions; do you know the score?

sd's analogy re well to do's voting against their economic interest is interesting, but is most likely applies to just a few of the very wealthy.

Also -- it's a narrow view of what's in the economic interest of the wealthy, or the upper middle class. For example, what benefitted these groups more -- the boom of the '90s or the tax cut of 2001-3?

Also, for someone in the upper middle class, an irresponsible tax cut policy might put a few bucks in his pocket (unless he's in a state that gets hit hard by the AMT), but he might very rationally believe that the terrible effects of the deficit created, or the terrible Bush environmental policies, will make the world very difficult for his children and grandchildren.

Your generosity for people whose opinions you don't share is underwhelming.

Unfortunately, the combination of that lack of generosity with your general take on how economics and politics should interact is precisely what brought us to the mess that Frank describes.

Hmm...no link or reference to consult for the source of Tom Frank's alleged transgressions. I suppose the risk that the Dem faithful might have their precious bodily fluids diluted by the gist of Frank's arguments is too great...

bob mcmamus -- you state that the new deal was a disaster.

I would argue that the new deal saved capitalism from itself. If there had been no new deal the system probably would have collapsed in to some form of pure socialism or something worse.
If you study the history of the 1930s it is somthing of a miracle that capitalism survived.

The evidence that the modern mixed economy is far superior in almost every way you can imagine than the primitive capitalism of earlier eras.

What evidence do you suggest I look at to find evidence for you argument?

Brad,

Let's have a reference for his transgression.

I read the book and have lived in Kansas all my life...my parents were born in Kansas. I found the book dead on.

Over the last decade Kansas has drifted from moderate Republicans -- like Eisenhower, Kassebaum, Dole -- toward the conservative Christians. Frank points out that Kansas has become MORE Republican as traditional Dem voters have switched parties...largely over cultural issues.

Kansas did elect a couple of Populist governors in the the 1890s.

Frank's point is that the Republicans have won because class issues have become cultural issues, so that George Bush can complain about elites because he's just culturally one of the guys, the kind of guy you can have a beer with. Good to see that the latte swilling liberal professors at Berkeley have bought into the conservative revolution, and agree that pink shirts are a problem. Even better to see that the Clintonites freak out at any hint of criticism. That really bodes well for the future.

I haven't read Frank's book yet; so I can offer no evaluation of it. But I give him some credit for taking a stab at answering the question: "Why are so many lower-income Americans voting against their economic interests by supporting the Republican party?" I've wondered about this question myself for some time and have been puzzled that no one has even tried to offer an explanation for it.

So far, no commenters on this thread have put forth a good answer either. Or do all of you think this question is just a strawman and doesn't exist in reality? Or if it is real, do you think it's just irrelevant? I think it is real and relevant but, hey, I'm used to swimming upstream against the conventional wisdom.

Otto wrote:

>Now a button-down shirt, that's a different matter. No one should wear such a thing. Your tailor should refuse to supply one.

I think this is a bit harsh; I would agree that it is about seven years too late to be wearing a button-down collar in public, but it is a valid shirt and I would hate to see it disappear from the annals of American tailoring. In ten years time, when fashions have changed, I suspect that future versions of ourselves will look rather harshly upon French cuffs.

"bob mcmamus -- you state that the new deal was a disaster." I did not

"From a Republican perspective, the New Deal of the thirties was an irrevocable disaster. 70 years, it is still there" is what I said

I have across a quote recently, can't remember the source, about America being too strong to destroy in a single Presidential term. Perhaps so, but certainly policies can be put in place that are hard to reverse.

I take Paul Krugman very very seriously

St. Laurent of the famus "silver spoon in my mouth" Yves St. Laurent family writes:

"Your generosity for people whose opinions you don't share is underwhelming"

Comment: How do you know! Up on your high hill you live on...these "people" as you say- I am sure they are just a nuisance to you...maybe you think they should just go away and hide and stay in the ghetto. Speaking of generosity, how much do you give to charities, and what charities are they? How dare I speak for the poor. To be a true Republican as St. Laurent sounds to be perfectly exemplies the parody of the Christian right:
To be a true Christian one has to fully comprehend Christ's message: "COMPASSION"
That is central message. One of the main reasons I have no respect for Christian right & its Republicans tent is that they are excat opposite of the word: compassion
They have the exact opposite philosphy and it practices what it preaches every day. So the Christian right is a big joke, they are the non-compassionate killers as usual.

"How Economics & politics interact"

well, I guess I have no comprehension; but I see the Republican track record is to use politics to reward its big money donars with contracts (Halliburton et cetera, military industrial contracts): logging rights sold under table; tear up Alaska for oil
The white house is for sale.
So when you say how do economics and politics interact- we can print money out of thin air to take Iraq out the stone age we bombed them into; but we have no money to print to fix the streets and buildings, and help create lasting jobs. (and you know the Big Goverment under Bush has mushroomed out of control, but that would only be for the $$$$ donations in the form of rewards, like Enron's matrix wheel...how to get white house to shape its policies to meet our goals
is the song of the day.

Look at the big winners of white house policy; and who are the big losers: The poor!!!

I wear a button collar (white) shirt all the time. And I don't think there is anything wrong with it. People expect it from me in my job (politics).

last comment:

When the Klu Klux Klan came non accepted when America modernized itself...the new cover when the hoods came off is:

The Christian right

It practices the same philosphy as KKK except it drapes itself under patriotism of the American flag. Ever wonder why so much of the Christian right is down south.

Just a metamorphises, a chameleon that now knows it cannot ride under a hood and lynch people. Now it is just as venal, somewhat less dangerous at nighttime, but creates super damage during the day light hours- at this epoch

You'll have to pry my button-down shirts out of my cold, dead hands.

Anyone claiming to be "left" who spends his slice of TV time not critiquing but expressing Republican talking points--George W. Bush a regular guy, Kerry a "patrician," Kerry a "yachtsman," Kerry having a "mansion," Kerry speaking French--should not be let out without a keeper.

You completely misunderstood his point.

I'd have to give the Upper-class Twit of the Year award to Brad Delong.

From CNN

CAFFERTY: All right, for a look how Middle America votes and whether it's voting smart, Thomas Frank joins us from Washington, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America."

Tom, nice to have you with us. Thanks for joining us.

TOM FRANK, AUTHOR, "WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS?": Thank you very much for having me.

CAFFERTY: So, take John Edwards, put him into the equation, we kind of laid out there in the introductions, and read the tea leaves for me. What does he bring to that part of the country? Some of which is critical to this election.

FRANK: Yeah, I think it was really wise choice by Kerry, I mean, if you want my opinion, I have no idea why you would want my opinion, but...

CAFFERTY: Well, that's why we invited you on the show, Tom.

(LAUGHTER)

FRANK: I know. I mean, it's very kind of you, and I'm -- you know, it's wonderful.

CAFFERTY: Well, we're a nice bunch of people on IN THE MONEY.

FRANK: And, I mean, nobody's ever asked for it before and so, it's a -- you know, it's great honor. But listen...

CAFFERTY: Well, you have something to tell your kids about.

FRANK: I think -- yeah, exactly. I think it's an excellent choice because it -- because Edwards does have the ability to disrupt the conservative narrative of-- you know, the red state/blue state narrative, where people in the heartland in the red states are automatically this sort of "salt of the earth," middle Americans, republicans represent real Americans, where as democrats speak for this devitalized talllized -- you know, coastal elite with their lattes and their -- you know, their chardonnays and this sort of thing...

LISOVICZ: And that's...

FRANK: And that's -- I'm sorry.

LISOVICZ: And that's what I wanted to ask you about, that whole elitist thing is coming out in this election in a big way, the senator from Massachusetts, the most liberal senator in the Senate and on and on, does Edwards soften that with the general population, in your view?

FRANK: I -- there's no question about it. He's definitely -- he definitely does. And it's funny that you say that the -- you know, the elitism thing is coming out, it comes out in every election year and it's been doing that ever since the late 1960s, when this is basically the republicans discovered that speaking to this particular kind of class anger was a way of turning the tables on the democrats and speaking to the traditional constituency of the democrats which is -- you know, blue collar voters and what's and it's -- they've done a particularly good job of pinning this label to John Kerry and that's what's great about Edwards is, you can't attach it to him.

CAFFERTY: Well, doesn't...

FRANK: In fact...

CAFFERTY: Doesn't Kerry's voting record sort of attach the label to him without anybody making much of an effort?

FRANK: Well, he's liberal but -- you know, so what? So are factory workers in Detroit, that's -- you know. The problem is "liberal elite." This is -- this is the question and -- you know, Kerry is obviously a member of the upper class in America. But, Edwards speaks the old language of populism, he understands where...

CAFFERTY: I get it.

FRANK: ...where it's not people in -- you know, Kansas versus liberal elites in New York drinking chardonnay, but it's workers in management, it's the upper class and working class. It...

SERWER: That's what I want to talk about that, Thomas and sometimes they drink merlot, too. We've been taking -- oh, I'm on my own again.

CAFFERTY: Yeah.

SERWER: Listen, republicans talk about this liberal elite, yet, to me, the biggest elite in this country are CEO's and top corporate officers, and if you want to talk about and elite, I mean these are the wealthiest people in the United States and they are overwhelmingly republican. Why haven't the democrats been able to make hay out of that?

FRANK: You know, that's a -- that's an excellent question and if had my way, if they were -- if -- you know, if they were asking me my opinion, like you guys are, they would have been doing this for a long time. Because that's -- you know, it would be very -- that's the -- that's the way democrats used to do it and they used to be the majority party in this country, remember, they used to win elections all the time. And they, in my opinion, they certainly, they obviously should be doing that, especially in the environment that we're in. With -- you know, Ken Lay being indicted just today, I mean, or yesterday, whatever it was. This is a -- you know, this is -- this is, to me, this seems obvious. The reason they haven't done it for so long is because, well, because of the money. If you talk that old language of economic populism, the problems is that you -- you know, the campaign contributions from business dry up pretty quickly.

CAFFERTY: What about a guy like Ralph Nader, and to what degree does he get into the constituencies of these parties to the degree that he's able, perhaps if he stays in, to do what he did a last time, which is to affect the outcome of the election.

FRANK: I don't know. You know, I'll confess I voted for Nader last time. Hell, I even in '96

SERWER: You've being very honest today, Tom.

FRANK: Yeah. I'm not voting for him this time.

CAFFERTY: Are you sure you want to admit that stuff on national TV, Tom? I'm mean, you know.

FRANK: It is embarrassing, isn't it?

CAFFERTY: Yeah, a little bit, yeah.

FRANK: Yeah.

SERWER: You tell us.

FRANK: But, if I -- look, and I'm not voting for him this time, so that should tell you something.

CAFFERTY: Why not?

FRANK: Well I - -you know, I wasn't a big fan of President Clinton and didn't like Al Gore, either. And Ralph Nader was -- you know, he spoke to my concerns and he talked about the things that I could see and he made sense.

CAFFERTY: Why won't you vote for him this time?

FRANk: I'm happy with Kerry.

CAFFERTY: Oh, you like Kerry.

FRANK: Yeah, I like Kerry, and I like Edwards even more, I think they're -- I think they're great.

CAFFERTY: Yeah, we've learned a lot of your opinions here, Tom, and it's been an interesting exercise for us.

SERWER: You're too honest for TV.

CAFFERTY: And I really appreciate you being so forthcoming. It's nice to have you with us.

FRANK: Hey, anytime.

CAFFERTY: All right. Tom Frank, whose the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,"

'St. Laurent of the famus "silver spoon in my mouth" Yves St. Laurent family writes:'

Sorry, no relationship. And I'm far from a Republican - I think DeLong is too far to the right on a regular basis.

Perhaps my two-sentence reply was short enough that you could read whatever lunacy you wanted into it, but I think Frank has taken the time to evaluate a situation that DeLong would rather brush under the carpet.

From Bill's post:

"that old language of economic populism..."

I love that old language. Populism is swell.

"Okay, who here wants as much money as that guy over there?"

Re: the inversion of economic interests and cultural identifications and the stygmatizing of the left as "elitist":

Didn't Huey Long say it a long time ago:" If fascism ever comes to America, it will be in the guise of anti-fascism."

I have been wondering about the problem of the working class voting against their economic interests for some time. I have heard several people in that group say that increased incomes for the rich trickle down to the working class; the last time was a caller on the NPR Dick Gordon call in show. The people of Alabama voted down tax reform led by a Republican Governor, motivated by a book written by a Methodist on fair taxation in a Christian environment. The apparent reason was that they were afraid that taxes would just go up and they would be screwed in the future.

This kind of thing leads me to think that many people have a simple view of the economy, and believe republican nostrums about it. They tend to explain things very simply, and in what seems to be a common sense way. Liberals fail to present things simply enough. Part of that is thatmany things lose all coherence when simplified. Part is that explanatory theories become more complex as complexity is added to the theory. Part is that the math required to follow many economic models confuses people. Part is that much of what people think of as common sense is just wrong, and explaining why is hard to do in thirty second spots, even though it is easy when people sit down with a blackboard and chalk and work their way through things. Part of it is that for many years, people thought of Republicans as the party that understood economics, and the Democrats as the party of the people trying to make up new theories that were nearly socialistic.
Part of it is class fore-lock tugging: they are rich, so they must know better.

I also think that the cultural issues resonate so strongly, and the Kansans think that if you do not agree on things that come from the Almighty, why should I listen to you about other things?

Has anyone tried to calculate what the culture wars themselves have cost so called "Red" state america economically. For example, if what I have read is correct the true savings of some outsourced jobs once all factors are included is maybe only 20 to 30% at best(discounting travels, communications, high turnover, quality of work force costs) and once tax loopholes encourging outsourcing are eliminated. While there are some jobs that will be lost to outsourcing regardless, why has Corporate America not considered transfering some jobs from say Chicago, to if not Kansas, then to lets say Indianapolis. And yet the contrast is not that great, I asume that Chicago is not as liberal as New York or Berkley and Indianapolis is not as socially conservative as Wichita

A computer programming making $80,000 thousand in Chicago could materially at least do quite as well in Indianapolis on $65,000 salary. I know, I grew in Indianapolis yet have lived and worked in Chicago for the last 17 years. And yes I am a currently unemployed computer programmer. The answer I suspect I would get if I could ask a CEO why they no longer consider transfering jobs from "BLUE" to "RED" state America is "Because everyone knows that you can not get top notch talent to move to a hick town like Indianapolis". This is inspite of the fact that Indianapolis is home to at least a single top notch international corporation Eli Lilly(of course founded there). I am sure if I asked several fellow programers I know they would say the samething.

And to be honest there is some truth to this opinion. Ten years ago, after death in the family, I briefly took a job with what was considered to be one of the better places to work in Indy(Not Lilly). I was shocked to be in a work environment, where racist, homophobic and sexist jokes not to mention open religious anti-abortion proselysting was tolerated on a level, I could not have imagined in any place I have worked in Chicago. I saw one closeted gay contractor quit after a month. I was glad to move back to Chicago. Since then in my travels between both towns I have become increasing aware of the cultural differences between both towns.

Last, night there were fireworks on Chicago's Lakefront. I was doing my delivery job trying to make ends meet until I find a steady computer job. I saw people of all colors, mixed race couples with childern, lesbians holding hands, even gay male couples if not holding hands at least openly together. That atmosphere of open tolerance and respect is what makes a Chicago different from an Indianapolis or Wichita and in my mind also more economically vibrant.

Currently, the Republican running for Indiana Governor is that lying scumbag former White House budget Director Mitch Daniels. In one of his tv ads, joined by fellow idiot Rep. Dan Burton, Daniels morns Indiana's loss of its top graduates from I.U., Purdue etc to the Coasts and Chicago. He makes the pitch that the Republican want to keep Indiana families together. His solution of coarse is drastic budget & tax cuts to lure Corporate America. IMHO however, tax cuts alone are never going to get Corporations to invest heavily in "RED" state America. Corporations may be largely lead by Republican executives but they depend on tolerant liberal values inorder to attract the best talent regardless of sex, religion and gender preference. While Chicagoland may have notoriously conservative areas like Du Page county, the Republicans here at least to downplay the wingnuts and try to nominate both socially and economically "Corporate friendly" guys like senate candidate Jack Ryan, who was undone in part by the culture warriors in his own party.

The right-wing uses the culture wars to convince those frightened by cultural progress/change to vote against their own economic interest, in the phantom hope of luring of good paying jobs, yet it is their own cultural backwardness that helps to ensure that the good paying jobs are never going to come. Of course nobody on the right-wing is going to tell "RED" state America that, it is about time that Liberals are not afraid or ashamed to. Likewise, it would be nice if the tradional "Eisenhower" Republicans who dominate the upper ladders of Corporate America would speak up as well.

Has anyone tried to calculate what the culture wars themselves have cost so called "Red" state america economically. For example, if what I have read is correct the true savings of some outsourced jobs once all factors are included is maybe only 20 to 30% at best(discounting travels, communications, high turnover, quality of work force costs) and once tax loopholes encourging outsourcing are eliminated. While there are some jobs that will be lost to outsourcing regardless, why has Corporate America not considered transfering some jobs from say Chicago, to if not Kansas, then to lets say Indianapolis. And yet the contrast is not that great, I asume that Chicago is not as liberal as New York or Berkley and Indianapolis is not as socially conservative as Wichita

A computer programming making $80,000 thousand in Chicago could materially at least do quite as well in Indianapolis on $65,000 salary. I know, I grew in Indianapolis yet have lived and worked in Chicago for the last 17 years. And yes I am a currently unemployed computer programmer. The answer I suspect I would get if I could ask a CEO why they no longer consider transfering jobs from "BLUE" to "RED" state America is "Because everyone knows that you can not get top notch talent to move to a hick town like Indianapolis". This is inspite of the fact that Indianapolis is home to at least a single top notch international corporation Eli Lilly(of course founded there). I am sure if I asked several fellow programers I know they would say the samething.

And to be honest there is some truth to this opinion. Ten years ago, after death in the family, I briefly took a job with what was considered to be one of the better places to work in Indy(Not Lilly). I was shocked to be in a work environment, where racist, homophobic and sexist jokes not to mention open religious anti-abortion proselysting was tolerated on a level, I could not have imagined in any place I have worked in Chicago. I saw one closeted gay contractor quit after a month. I was glad to move back to Chicago. Since then in my travels between both towns I have become increasing aware of the cultural differences between both towns.

Last, night there were fireworks on Chicago's Lakefront. I was doing my delivery job trying to make ends meet until I find a steady computer job. I saw people of all colors, mixed race couples with childern, lesbians holding hands, even gay male couples if not holding hands at least openly together. That atmosphere of open tolerance and respect is what makes a Chicago different from an Indianapolis or Wichita and in my mind also more economically vibrant.

Currently, the Republican running for Indiana Governor is that lying scumbag former White House budget Director Mitch Daniels. In one of his tv ads, joined by fellow idiot Rep. Dan Burton, Daniels morns Indiana's loss of its top graduates from I.U., Purdue etc to the Coasts and Chicago. He makes the pitch that the Republican want to keep Indiana families together. His solution of coarse is drastic budget & tax cuts to lure Corporate America. IMHO however, tax cuts alone are never going to get Corporations to invest heavily in "RED" state America. Corporations may be largely lead by Republican executives but they depend on tolerant liberal values inorder to attract the best talent regardless of sex, religion and gender preference. While Chicagoland may have notoriously conservative areas like Du Page county, the Republicans here at least to downplay the wingnuts and try to nominate both socially and economically "Corporate friendly" guys like senate candidate Jack Ryan, who was undone in part by the culture warriors in his own party.

The right-wing uses the culture wars to convince those frightened by cultural progress/change to vote against their own economic interest, in the phantom hope of luring of good paying jobs, yet it is their own cultural backwardness that helps to ensure that the good paying jobs are never going to come. Of course nobody on the right-wing is going to tell "RED" state America that, it is about time that Liberals are not afraid or ashamed to. Likewise, it would be nice if the tradional "Eisenhower" Republicans who dominate the upper ladders of Corporate America would speak up as well.