What Are You Reading?

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

What I think he would say is that nothing ever actually happens of substance in the culture wars; abortion isn't overturned, etc. That is, the conservative politicians who use cultural issues as wedge issues never actually deliver on the promises of any substantive cultural change. The only real substance that the working class foot soldiers of the conservative movement get is decreases in capital gains taxes and other economic outcomes that actually do them harm while benefiting the business class that makes up the durable historical constituency of the Republican party (the GOP has been about various things since the 1850s, but it has always been the party of business). He also would say that much of the cultural outrage directed at the 'decline' of American culture is misguided because what actually drives places like Hollywood (which so many cultural conservatives profess to loath) is not 'liberals' but profit margins. So by refusing to look at market capitalism with a critical eye and by de-coupling the language of economics from discussions of class, Conservatives have obscured one of the real targets that they should be aiming at.

Now, clearly Frank has a political horse to ride, but I'm not sure it in the name of the Democratic party that he writes. In the final chapter he says that the Democratic party has left itself open to cultural wedge issues because they have largely abandoned the language of class. The DLC of Clinton, McCullife, et al. attempted to move the party towards the right economically while holding onto issues like abortion. The hope, he says, was bringing more moderate Republicans into the fold while assuming that working class voters would stick with the party simply because they are slightly better (he would emphasize slightly) on economic issues for working class voters. But he says that by abandoning trade unions etc. in anything more than rhetorical flourishes the Democrats have abandoned the sort of economic justice issues that should really mark them as something distinct from Conservatives.

I think that might be something like what he would say. As I said, I think his historical analysis is lacking, I think he avoids talking about race (saying it doesn't play a role in Kansas politics, but I don't know how you can talk about modern political alignments and not discuss race), and I don't think he really takes religion as seriously as he should either. I'm kind of ambivalent about the book, but I think it is more complex (and much more personal ... partly his own memoir of growing up in Kansas) than just 250 pages saying 'culture trumps economics and therefore working class citizens who vote Republican are irrational'. If anyone else has read the book or would like to do so I'd be open to discussing further.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. It sems to re-affirm my suspicion that Franks is merely re-packaging the old Marxist argument about false consiousness. The primary failing of the argument, IMO, is that it contends that ordinary people really don't deserve to have an opinion about things like abortion. These are extremely complicated issues that the proles out in the country needn't worry their tiny, supesrtitious brains with. The intelligentsia has decided that abortion is nesecarry because it reduces the growth of the underclass and that should be good enough for the rubes. What they miss and what Marx couldn't even begn to comprehend is that equality as defined by the American Revolution means that Everyman gets to own his own moral compass. If you're going to put over abortion on demand you'd better bring a moral argument to bear. If you attempt to do it by beauracratic fiat, you may find that Everyman gets annoyed.

Now, no one could argue with the fact that the Republican Party has received more than it has given when it comes to the abortion issue. Perhaps this fact should give some pause to those on the Left who believe strongly in abortion as a social good. I wish it would. However, the failure to deliver on a specific social policy by a given party really does not do anything to discredit the arguments or the motives of those true believers who maintain the ideological faith. African Americans haven't gotten much from the Democrats in the last few years so I guess we could be asking "What's the Matter with Compton?" Both parties tend to give the shaft to their most ardent supporters. It doesn't mean the supporters are wrong.