What's the Matter with Kansas?

quote:

Kansas is a reliable "red" state; President Bush carried it by nearly 21% in 2000 and padded his margin to nearly 26% this year. The state's rock-solid support of Mr. Bush and other conservative candidates has sent at least one of its native sons, political commentator Thomas Frank, into paroxysms of rage. In his new book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?," Mr. Frank argues that all those Jayhawk State rubes have got things backward: They've continued to vote Republican as the state goes through economic hardship, even though, by doing so, they're voting against their own economic interests. The book is a big hit with left-leaning commentators and has sold very well, making the author something of a celebrity on the talk-show circuit.

quote:

Regardless of Kansas' economic performance, Mr. Frank's main thesis--that people who are struggling economically should be voting as liberals, not conservatives--is dubious. As an editorial in the Wichita Eagle observed: "There's nothing wrong with many Kansans wanting to hold onto a little more of their paychecks . . . or preferring that when they need help it comes from their family, their church, their community--not an intrusive federal government." But what's really astounding is that Mr. Frank, who offers little in the way of economic data, would base his argument on such blatant falsehoods. To Mr. Frank's liberal prejudices, something may be the matter with Kansas, but it sure isn't its economy.

I saw this guy on a CSPAN book review segment, going on about his book and accepting calls. The Eagle reviewer nails it -- not much substance, and a lot of judgement, basically wondering how Kansans can be so stupid as to not want more money and services from the government. Very one-sided, and another example of how many liberals just don't really understand what conservatives really value and why.

- - -

A couple of days ago, Jerry Seinfeld did a show in Wichita for a packed house of 2,200.

His opening lines:

quote:

"Oh my God, Wichita! I can't take the excitement. How can you live here every day? Wow. I've only been here a few hours and I can't catch my breath.

"Wichita," he added, looking around the stage. "I've finally made it."

The appreciative crowd gave him a pass on this and seemed to enjoy the rest of his routine. But humor is humor because it plays off a certain attitude, and I think Seinfeld voiced the typical liberal snobbery re. Kansas and rural America (actually Wichita is not rural, with 350,000 residents). Personally, I don't find any humor in his remarks.

The appreciative crowd gave him a pass on this and seemed to enjoy the rest of his routine. But humor is humor because it plays off a certain attitude, and I think Seinfeld voiced the typical liberal snobbery re. Kansas and rural America�

Well, Seinfeld does have a long and distinguished record of poking holes in political correctness so one might assume he was trying to be funny rather than political, just to put this into perspective. But still, that seemed like such a cheap and clich�d shot that it seemed beneath his normal level of creativity and begs for an explanation other than that of a joke having flopped. This is also strange because Seinfeld always struck me as someone who, if he was prodding some sacred belief, was doing so primarily to get a laugh not to slide in a backhanded political message. Therefore to step into a packed crowd in rural America and say such a line means that he either was trying to take a political shot or that he's so out of touch with rural America that he just didn't know that the comment wouldn't be funny.

Believe me, I've seen the best and brightest of artists fall prey to liberal ideology (or more correctly, liberal peer pressure). My once-beloved author, Arthur C. Clarke, is one casualty among many. Mind you, when I pick up a book I'm not expecting it to be a fictionalized equivalent of Ann Coulter's Treason. But some of that stuff is slopped on so thick that not only does it ruin the story but one loses respect for the author. If I have to read another sci-fi book about environmental catastrophe�I mean, what every happened to space aliens, traveling to other planets or whatnot. But NOOOO. Once these liberal types get infected with the "I must show the world how damn compassionate I am" bug they are insufferable. And I might humbly say they've done very little to actually help the world, unless declining book sales is some sort of environment strategy to save trees.

This is really nothing new, either. Steve Taylor
addressed Seinfeld's attitude back in 1982, along time before anyone heard of Jerry. Should give you a chuckle and you can e-mail it to Mr. Stand-up 4 N.Y. hip and L.A. chick.

http://www.igs.net/~adt/qrstuv.../iwtbac/track05.html

midwesternboy.com

Steve Taylor

Oh man, I haven't thought of Steve Taylor in years. It must have been at least fifteen years ago that a fellow I worked with who was a devout Christian (and who was a budding song writer and recording artist) gave me one of his tapes. It was the one with Lifeboat on it. Oh, NOW I remember. It was a CD that was even autographed by Steve. I've got that 'round here somewhere. Somehow those two people knew each other and I was the beneficiary of a thoughtful act.

All have to find that, scan it, and prove my story. It would be a particular egregious thing to lie about.

http://www.townhall.com/column...ill/gw20040708.shtml

"Frank is a formidable controversialist- imagine Michael Moore with a trained brain and an intellectual conscience." ROFL

If you believe, as Frank does, that opposing abortion is inexplicably silly, and if you make no more attempt than Frank does to empathize with people who care deeply about it, then of course you, like Frank, will consider scores of millions of your fellow citizens lunatics.

George Will can be really fun sometimes.

Good link, Michael.

quote:

He says "the pre-eminent question of our times" is why people misunderstand "their fundamental interests." But Frank ignores this question: Why does the left disparage what everyday people consider their fundamental interests?

He says the left has been battered by "the Great Backlash" of people of modest means against their obvious benefactor and wise definer of their interests, the Democratic Party. The cultural backlash has been, he believes, craftily manufactured by rich people with the only motives the left understands -- money motives. The aim of the rich is to manipulate people of modest means, making them angry about abortion and other social issues so that they will vote for Republicans who will cut taxes on the rich.

The left is still in serious denial as further indicated by an article from the Tacoma News Tribune titled Democrats say party lacks clear agenda. I was shocked to read this quote from Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) who is no Michael Moore and definitely no Jim McDermott by any means. He�s been a staunch defender of the military. He�s a rough-and-tumble ex-football player. Yet his rhetoric sounds little different from that of Maxine Waters. It seems to suggest that even "bedrock" Democrats have been infected by this poisonous point of view:

quote:

Dicks said he doesn�t believe that Democrats have to change their fundamental message. Rather, they need to do a better job pointing out the Bush administration�s "pathetic" record on homeland security, Iraq and the deficit, Dicks said. Democrats also don�t have to take a back seat to Republicans when it comes to moral values and ethics.

Norm, yes the Democrats do have to take a back seat to Republicans when it comes to moral values and ethics. You may rightly pound the Bush administration for the deficits but why is Bush�s record on Homeland Security a joke, pray tell? That sounds like just more of the thoughtless Terry McCauliffe/MoveOn.org/Michael Moore knee-jerk nay-saying. One would expect more from a seasoned and presumably old-time and old-style Democrat. But it does truly seem that even that concept is dead. The influences here are perplexing and perhaps a bit ominous. Dicks is senior enough that he would generally be the string-puller and not the pullee. He is the one in a position to say what really needs to be said -- and one can, I think, safely assume that there are pent-up grievances and issues surely on his mind. Why he does not say them then? Why does even he feel cowed and intimidated? Perhaps it�s nothing more than an attempt to try and put on a good public face while these things are fought out in the background. But I seriously doubt it. I suspect Dicks feels the forces are too strongly arrayed against any kind of reform effort and thus to take the point on reform is to cut the branch off that one is sitting on.

The good news is that this all spells major trouble for Hillary. Despite what the Democrats say, there is no way to simply re-label their same crap and put it in another package. Hillary is a known quantity and nowhere near as charismatic as her unfaithful husband.

This one, from FrontPage, helped me figure out why
corporatism looks like fascism:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar...dArticle.asp?ID=3054

Seems as though we need a new name for the type of government we have today.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

This is an intellectual attempt to rise above the current liberal/conservative impasse. Also available
on audio (1 hour) He's a bright boy, alright.

http://www.abc.net.au/specials/saul/fulltext.htm

This is an intellectual attempt to rise above the current liberal/conservative impasse.

[Note: I haven't read that long article yet and so this isn't necessarily a commentary on it.]

An interesting thing to consider, MM, is that one of the sides of this impasse has made it a prime tactic to try and leach power from the other by furthering this notion that we are at some type of impasse that should, in theory, be pierced simply because it exists. That, of course, inevitably means, no matter the merits of one's argument and no matter the decision that the electorate may have already made, that one side has to give in to the other just because.

Let's say, and this is purely theoretical, that one party in an argument thought the moon was made of green cheese and that, because the Earth was short of food, we ought to spend vast sums of money to mine the moon. The other party thought this was folly and that the food problem should be solved with better farming techniques, or whatever. The point is, it's entirely possible that one side of a given issue in a debate can be entirely wrong. But if it is considered inherently therapeutic, fair and reasonable to "split the differences" then what one inevitably is doomed to (both the parties and the people) is being always compelled to integrate at least a part of someone else's crazy half. Of course, at times compromise is desirably and, at least the way our republic is constructed, it built into the process. But that's as a check against totalitarianism, not good judgement.

You'll be surprised to find out just who His Eminence John Ralston Saul believes is mining the moon. We have met the enemy and he is us!

It's as though one who thought he was in Kansas waking up from a dream of Oz!

auntieem.com

You'll be surprised to find out just who His Eminence John Ralston Saul believes is mining the moon. We have met the enemy and he is us!

That's a long article, MM. Can you "cheat" and let us know how that story turns out? Is it a fairly damning critique of conservatism? If so, what is the main charge?

He echos the founding fathers with his appeal for empowered democratic citizens who are equal to globalization, rather than being subject to the U.N.
It's a mistake to transfer economic and political power to globalism without empowering the citizen at the same time.

Fewer and fewer corporations are controlling more and more of the market, stifling competition, capitalism and prosperity. Gordon Gecko from the movie Wall Street is running amok.

The rational economic model has failed. Innefficient multinationals tend to be top heavy,
bureaucratic and not concerned with innovation, risk taking and R&D, just the bottom line.

Private sector debt is out of control. Corporations used to be in the 45% bracket, but now pay only 6-7%.

Alot of managers are moving alot of money around
and merging and aquiring, but nothing is being created, and economic policies are creating the opposite of what a good capitalist desires, an environment where it could flourish.

He does argue for spending on social programs such
as public education and health insurance, but speaks of socialism and
small "L" liberalism as being undesirable as runaway capitalism.

We're going to have a bright future eventually, but 25 years of failed corporate policy should be enough to show us it isn't working. He used Asian
and South American economies as examples of what not to do.

He is intelligent and positive, and I do not see
an angry liberal with an axe to grind. He is a humanist and most likely has less belief in private property than a Christian American would.
He says that Britain and America aren't "getting it" yet. He says we are returning to a pyramid shaped distribution of wealth like we had in the 1900s rather than the diamond shape we were moving toward. This creates a danger of Neo-marxism.

Reagan/Bush/Thatcher cut red tape and lowered taxes, which helps short term, but is not a substitute for ceativity and a realistic industrial policy.

We also need to raise taxes and support classical
education and smaller classrooms, teach multiple languages, etc.

"Ideology is a profound form of denial."
"The power of the city (Washington) prevents liberals and conservatives from admitting it" (that
the market theory has failed.) Technology is being used to advance policy rather than the other way around.

What's ahead is the end of "globilization theory as truth.

(I put a few words in his mouth, which I admit is unsanitary, but that's the gist of it)

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Thanks for giving the gist of that, MM. Well done. I think I understand now. I guess my desire would be to see some statistics regarding corporations and capitalism over the last forty years and see if we�re spiraling to economic hell, as the author suggests, or if, really, it�s business as usual and that some folks just don�t like the business of business.