Frank and Bartels

The debate between Thomas Frank and Larry Bartels about the white-working class vote in America is certainly an interesting one. Frank makes the point that white-working class voters in the United States (at least prior to 2008) are voting against their economic interests, by voting for the Republicans who use emotionally charged social issues such as abortion and guns to win their support. On the other hand Bartels uses statistical analysis to conclude that outside of the South, white-working class voters have not abandoned the Democratic Party, nor do they brush aside their economic interests in favor of social issues. While Bartels argument is persuasive in its use of pure black-and-white numbers, Frank is correct in recognizing that this issue cannot be solved by simply analyzing the numbers from the National Election Survey (NES).

In the early 1930s working class whites were the foundation of the New Deal coalition. This was true not only in what was the "solid South," but also in other parts of the nation, Kansas included. Slowly over the years (particularly after President Johnson passed the Civil Rights legislation) white, working class society (not just in the South, but in predominantly white states such as Kansas) has gravitated to the Republican Party. Frank makes a persuasive argument explaining why this happened. He borrowed a familiar theme from the 2004 Presidential Campaign of John Edwards about "two Americas" (38). However he did use it differently to demonstrate how the GOP has taken everyday issues and turned them into wedges to carve up the Democratic Party during Presidential Elections. Particularly striking to me was when he stated that "a Red Stater is a regular, down-home working stiff, whereas Blue staters are always some sort of pretentious paper-shuffler." And he followed that up by quoting a man from a small town in Pennsylvania: "These people are tired of moral decay. They're tired of everything being wonderful on Wall Street and terrible on Main Street." This man bought into the Republican brand of populism that candidates such as former President Bush used during his 2004 re-election campaign to win the support of working class voters. He and the Republican Party painted Senator John Kerry as a "pretentious paper shuffler" and an out-of-touch liberal from Massachusetts. Frank was right, the GOP got away with painting themselves as the populist party while still holding the hands of Wall Street, while the Democrats had no idea how to respond and Kerry looked weak.

Bartels repeatedly used statistical analysis to confront Frank's argument. But unfortunately he does little to explore the numbers further and had a very narrow definition of "working class." Frank confronted him about this directly in his response. Frank correctly argued that by defining "working class" as anyone who makes $35,000 a year or less Bartels was simply missing the point. He repeatedly made the case that individuals who had college degrees (and as a result could not consider themselves working class) were more culturally conservative than their "working class" counterparts who made less than $35,000. However as Frank argued, he does not define who is actually making less than $35,000. Some of those folks could "be struggling but they are not 'working class' by anyone's definition." On the other hand, Frank does not make this case, but some of those who make more than the $35,000 threshold could be making just slightly higher than that and are therefore bumped up into the "middle class." Just because they make $40,000 does not mean that they automatically change their mind about their ideals. Nor does it mean that they think of themselves as part of the middle class.

By setting a maximum income threshold to define a particular segment of society, Bartels is taking a cold look at a nuanced argument. Members of the working class do not define themselves by the amount of money they make. They define themselves as working class based on their lifestyle and profession. His choice to set an arbitrary barrier is radical and certainly not persuasive. Unfortunately this is not an argument that can be made on numbers alone. Prior to 2008, when Democrats learned how to speak the language of the working class again (with an assist by the terrible state of the economy and the nation's collective distaste for the GOP), the Republican Party was able to capitalize on and appeal to the working class by talking about emotional issues that appealed to them.

During the 2006 and 2008 campaigns voters, white working class included, recognized what Frank argued about the GOP, they "talk[ed] Christ, but...walk[ed] corporate" (34). People such as the man from small town Pennsylvania were "tired of everything being wonderful on Wall Street and terrible on Main Street." The only difference according to Frank is they recognized that they had been had by the GOP and voted for the Democrats. Frank was correct when he discussed the importance of authenticity and how working class people (and all I people, I would argue) search for authenticity in a candidate. In 2004 they thought they had found it in George W. Bush, but they realized that unfortunately he was authentically artificial and according to Frank's logic, in 2008 they followed his advice and voted "right."