Posted on 10/11/2006 3:57:39 PM PDT by SJackson
In his book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Thomas Frank asked how it is that working people in a red state like Kansas can consistently vote against their own economic interests.
Indeed, getting the vote of low- and moderate-income people - particularly, males - has been a phenomenal accomplishment of the current breed of Republicans. The Karl Roves and Jim Dobsons of the world have cleverly used religion, abortion and outright homophobia to get folks to ignore their self-interests and elect candidates who do vote for so-called "family values," of course, but also work overtime to make life comfortable for the rich and powerful at the expense of the powerless.
We saw another example of that last week with a ruling from the National Labor Relations Board.
There's no question that thousands of working families in Ohio, for instance, voted for George Bush in 2004 to secure his re-election. An incredible campaign by the self-styled Christian Right turned out the vote for Bush in a state that turned out be a crucial one for him.
But what the voters in Ohio and in many of the other red states so often forget is that they not only elect the "born again" Bush, but they put in place a vast federal bureaucracy controlled by those who believe in and are beholden to corporate America - everything from the high-profile U.S. Supreme Court to the often under-the-radar NLRB.
As Paul Krugman of the New York Times pointed out last week, the failure of the NLRB - particularly in the years that began with Ronald Reagan - to enforce the country's labor laws has been the major factor in diminishing the power of the country's union movement.
He called it a "war on wages."
Big corporations like Wal-Mart don't have to fear firing workers who attempt to unionize because the Bush appointees to the labor board, if they act at all, will only respond with a slap on the wrist.
Last week, this administration's NLRB added to labor's woes with a ruling that expands by millions the number of workers ineligible for union representation. In a case brought by the management of some Massachusetts hospitals, the NLRB greatly expanded the definition of who is a supervisor and, hence, exempt from any union.
Until the new ruling, a supervisor was classified as someone having the power to hire and fire. Now, however, a supervisor is any worker who even occasionally can give orders to others who work with him or her. Wisconsin's AFL-CIO president, David Newby, estimated that exempts 8 million union and potential union workers.
The American worker not only got George Bush to carry the torch against gays and a woman's right to choose, but to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots, too.
Dave Zweifel is the editor of The Capital Times. E-mail: dzweifel@madison.com Published: October 11, 2006
Ol' Dave is back to carrying the water for the old warriors of the left, trotting out all the shibboleths and slogans, even if he doesn't fully understand the meaning and origin of most of them.
Do not cry for the people of Wisconsin, or for those of Madison in particular. There is an old streak of statist thought, going back to the days of Bob LaFollette, woven into their thinking, and nothing less than a new generation will do much to change those attitudes. There has been ample opportunity, over and over, to "throw the rascals out", yet they keep on getting back in office. Wisconsin has always had a large contingent of "progressive" thinkers, but most often, they end up being in the minority most places outside of the "industrial belt" cutting up across the state from roughly Beloit, to Madison, then up towards Green Bay. Three quarters of the population live in that one quarter of the state, and everything that affects the whole state is pretty much decided in Milwaukee and Madison.
As the official spokesman for Working Class Filth everywhere, I can emphatically say that Krugman's head is firmly up his butt. None of us were "snookered." We left union politics and the RAT party because they are anti-American, communist perverts that want our wealth and liberties and, ultimately, to destroy our families and nation.
Next question...
Majority of Americans are conservative on moral issues and liberal on economic issues. That is why old style New Deal Democrats were so strong and that is why Reagan got votes of "Reagan Democrats" only after the left became decadent
When people are forced to chose they tend to put their values before money. Gay "marriage" advocates helped GWB to win in 2004 and they keep GOP in power.
Or for long term neither.
The answer was written before the esteemed Mr. Frank was born:
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
Of course, perhaps they don't vote against their own economic interests. Perhaps they are smart and know that in the long run they and their children are better off in a free society.
Just different priorities. Moral issues are more important than money. That was the flaw in Frank's book. He didn't quite "get" that.
I don't accept the premise that the Republicans are snookering the working class.
However, for the sake of argument, if it's true that Republicans are snookering the working class, then this reflects badly on the dems: It reveals their incompetence at snookering the working class into staying with them.
I have read this book. I have not read such a smug piece of crat before. Worse than reading it is seeing him on Direct TV UC channel giving a speech at a University about it.. Typical left wing elitism. Does he think the poor little middle class (when Demo use that word they are lying they mean those below and just a smudge about the so called poverty lever which the middle class in NOT) wants some money from the government. Hell the middle class payes taxes out the you know where taking care of the so called democratic middle class which is not. I am still angry. GRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrr.
For Democratic activists gay "marriage" and abortion are more important than anything else. Even than their own economic interests :) or power.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
And what has the Democratic party done to protect the jobs of the American worker? Here in PA, the industrial jobs keep disappearing under a tax-and-spend Democratic governor who refuses to amend the tax code, while state businesses suffer under the second highest corporate tax in the nation.
Frank lived in a rich suburb of Kansas City, which is nothing like 99% of Kansas. He now lives in Chicago, like a good leftie.
I actually enjoyed parts of the book -- I learned a lot about Kansas history. His analysis left something to be desired.
The guy obviously loves his home state -- I'd like to see him write a book on just Kansas history.
The premises of Frank's argument are that:
1) Socialist economic policy benefits the lower and middle working class.
2) Putting your morals ahead of the contents of your wallet is stupid.
The first is demonstrably false, the second tells you everything you need to know about leftist morality.
"...cleverly used religion, abortion and outright homophobia to get folks to ignore their self-interests and elect candidates who do vote for so-called "family values," of course, but also work overtime to make life comfortable for the rich and powerful at the expense of the powerless."
I have a reasonable education, and fairly well-read. Those of who trend towards the lower end of the economic scale oftentimes tend to be a bit more authentic, a trait that is admirable. On the other hand, the shiny turd screed above - I think the writer is just saying "We're smarter than you, (We Know Best) (We're On TV, Wrote A Book, Have A Degree(tm)) and you're too stupid to vote in your best interests." This isn't anti-intellectualist - just anti-pseudointellectualist. Tho the rest of it went something like "Private property will be banned." "You have nothing to lose but your chains.." etc.
Thomas Frank is from Kansas but we don't claim him. He's just in a snit because most of us here don't believe in his liberal gobbly gook. We prefer God, family, less government, lower taxes and capitalism. Granted, we have a lot of RINOs (why, I'll never understand). It's no wonder he hasn't lived in the state for years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.