What’s the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America
Where to buy What’s the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America books online?
- ISBN13: 9780805077742
- Condition: NEW
- Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Product Description
With a New Afterword by the Leader
The New York Times bestseller, praised as “hilariously amusing . . . the only way to know why so many Americans have chose to vote against their own economic and political interests” (Molly Ivins)
Hailed as “dazzlingly insightful and wonderfully sardonic” (Chicago Tribune), “very amusing and very painful” (San Francisco Chronicle), and “in a different league from most political books” (The New York Observer), What’s the Matter with Kansas? unravels the fantastic political mystery of our day: Why do so many Americans vote against their economic and social interests? With his acclaimed wit and acuity, Thomas Frank answers the riddle by examining his home state, Kansas-a place once legendary for its radicalism that now ranks among the nation’s most keen participants in the culture wars. Charting what he calls the “thirty-year backlash”-the well loved revolt against a supposedly liberal establishment-Frank reveals how conservatism, once a marker of class privilege, became the creed of millions of ordinary Americans.
A brilliant analysis-and amusing to boot-What’s the Matter with Kansas? is a plain portrait of an upside-down world where blue-collar patriots recite the Pledge while they strangle their life chances; where tiny farmers cast their votes for a Wall Street order that will eventually push them off their land; and where a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs has managed to convince the country that it speaks on behalf of the People.
The New York Times bestseller, praised as “hilariously amusing . . . the only way to know why so many Americans have chose to vote against their own economic and political interests” (Molly Ivins)
Hailed as “dazzlingly insightful and wonderfully sardonic” (Chicago Tribune), “very amusing and very painful” (San Francisco Chronicle), and “in a different league from most political books” (The New York Observer), What’s the Matter with Kansas? unravels the fantastic political mystery of our day: Why do so many Americans vote against their economic and social interests? With his acclaimed wit and acuity, Thomas Frank answers the riddle by examining his home state, Kansas-a place once legendary for its radicalism that now ranks among the nation’s most keen participants in the culture wars. Charting what he calls the “thirty-year backlash”-the well loved revolt against a supposedly liberal establishment-Frank reveals how conservatism, once a marker of class privilege, became the creed of millions of ordinary Americans.
A brilliant analysis-and amusing to boot-What’s the Matter with Kansas? is a plain portrait of an upside-down world where blue-collar patriots recite the Pledge while they strangle their life chances; where tiny farmers cast their votes for a Wall Street order that will eventually push them off their land; and where a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs has managed to convince the country that it speaks on behalf of the People.
Thomas Frank, the founding editor of The Baffler, is the leader of One Market Under God and The Conquest of Cool. He writes frequently for Harper’s Magazine, The Nation, and Le Monde diplomatique.
Winner of the Midwest Booksellers’ Choice Award
A veteran leader and journalist, and a native Kansan and ex- conservative, Thomas Frank here explores such fundamental American riddles as: Why do so many Americans vote against their economic and social interests? Where’s the outrage over all the recent corporate thievery? Why do illusionary slights to the Ten Commandments distress some people more than do the prospects of falling wages, or monopoly power, or the destruction of their very way of life?
This timely, well-written, and widely acclaimed book—equal parts brilliant political analysis and wry, readable memoir, and already deemed by some a contemporary classic—fully investigates these questions by examining the conservative revolution in the leader’s home state over the last several decades. Kansas, which has lately drawn the astonished attention of the world for its unlikely skirmishes over abortion and homosexuality, is in step with much of mid-America, Frank clarifies, in that its economic losers are even more committed to the Republican agenda than are its winners. Indeed, the Sunflower State’s low-wage slaughterhouse workers and struggling farm-town citizens today far outdo its real-estate millionaires and prosperous telecom executives in their dedication to a political program that can only wind up harming them. How, and why, did this take place—in Kansas and elsewhere throughout the United States?
What’s the Matter with Kansas? is a plain, refreshingly witty portrait of an upside-down country where blue-collar patriots recite the Pledge while they strangle their life chances; where farmers cast votes for an economic order that will eventually push them off the land; and where a group of right-wing frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs has managed to convince the world that it speaks on behalf of America’s common people.
This timely, well-written, and widely acclaimed book—equal parts brilliant political analysis and wry, readable memoir, and already deemed by some a contemporary classic—fully investigates these questions by examining the conservative revolution in the leader’s home state over the last several decades. Kansas, which has lately drawn the astonished attention of the world for its unlikely skirmishes over abortion and homosexuality, is in step with much of mid-America, Frank clarifies, in that its economic losers are even more committed to the Republican agenda than are its winners. Indeed, the Sunflower State’s low-wage slaughterhouse workers and struggling farm-town citizens today far outdo its real-estate millionaires and prosperous telecom executives in their dedication to a political program that can only wind up harming them. How, and why, did this take place—in Kansas and elsewhere throughout the United States?
What’s the Matter with Kansas? is a plain, refreshingly witty portrait of an upside-down country where blue-collar patriots recite the Pledge while they strangle their life chances; where farmers cast votes for an economic order that will eventually push them off the land; and where a group of right-wing frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs has managed to convince the world that it speaks on behalf of America’s common people.
Winner of the Midwest Booksellers’ Choice Award
“This fresh and engaging book stands out in the torrent of political screeds now pouring off the presses.”—Walter Russell Mead, Foreign Affairs
“The year’s most prescient political book.”—Frank Rich, The New York Times
“[A] scathing and high-spirited polemic.”—The New Yorker
“[A] scathing and high-spirited polemic.”—The New Yorker
“This fresh and engaging book stands out in the torrent of political screeds now pouring off the presses. Written by a man of the left, What’s the Matter with Kansas? examines the rise of ultraconservative politics in the state that was once known for agrarian populism. The new activists, Frank says, are lower-middle-and effective-class people-in past decades, the backbone of social democratic politics in Kansas. Why, Frank questions, do effective-class Kansans labor to support a right-wing agenda that will strip them of social benefits, lower their wages, and provide enormous tax windfalls to the rich? Frank’s eye is keen, and his pen is nimble; his answers are sadly conventional. He sees the contemporary Democratic Party as an odious mix of economic conservatism (the Democratic Leadership Council) and decadent social liberalism (Hollywood), and with the two parties united on antiworker economics, Kansas voters act rationally when they choose the party that at least pretends to respect their social values. A sharp turn to the economic left, Frank believes, will ultimately revive Democratic fortunes and stop the New Right in its tracks. Many thoughtful and spirited people have reached this conclusion in the past; none ever managed to erect the powerful socialist party of their dreams. Perhaps Frank will make it where others have failed.”—Walter Russell Mead, Foreign Affairs
“[Frank] is one of the wittiest, most insightful observers of culture and politics writing today.”—Jim Miller, The San Diego Union-Tribune
“Engaging and regularly amusing . . . Frank is on to something vital here, something that Kansans need to face . . . [He] performs a valuable service in holding up this unflattering mirror to his home state . . . He has ongoing a welcome and timely debate.”—Randy Scholfield, Wichita Eagle
“[A] brilliant polemic.”—Jonathan Shainin, Newsday
“A brilliant book, one of the best so far this decade on American politics . . . What’s the Matter with Kansas? should at last make Frank a national figure.”—George Scialabba, The Nation
“Revealing and startling . . . A searing piece of work . . . One of the most vital political writings in years . . . The must-read of this election season. Republican voters need to read it to better know their party and their leaders. Democrats need to read it to better know their opponents and their conundrum.”—Steve Greenlee, The Boston Globe
“Drunk on tax cuts, favors for corporations, and, above all else, their undying lust for the culture wars most of us lost interest in years ago, conservatives have driven Middle America into a ditch, Mr. Frank argues in this brilliant book. His examination of how the right has prolonged the battles over pop culture, abortion, and religion (and meanwhile accrued fantastic power and financial gain) will not single-handedly eject President Bush from the White House—but it does contain the kind of nuanced thoughts that should be talking points for the Kerry battle . . . Mr. Frank’s willingness to scold his own side; his irreverence and his facility with language; his ability to make the relations that additional writers fail to make—all of this puts What’s the Matter with Kansas? in a different league from most of the political books that have come out in recent years. Even better, its understanding of the methodology that has agreed Republicans the Presidency and control of both houses of Congress makes it a road map for upending the G.O.P. Here’s hoping somebody slips a copy to John Kerry.”—Kevin Canfield, The New York Observer
“A very amusing and very painful book.”—Paul Buhle, San Francisco Chronicle
“[A] wild romp of a book [written in a] smart, well-read, and slightly bombastic style . . . Dazzlingly insightful and wonderfully sardonic . . . Frank has made much sense of the world in this book; it will prove to be a revelation to many.”—Jefferson Cowie, Chicago Tribune
“Frank combines top-flight television journalism with first-person reflections to dig deep into the Kansas psyche. Both exhilarating and a small scary, What’s the Matter with Kansas? should help flat-landers and coastal types alike know how traditional Republicanism gave way to the politics of the Christian Right in the heart of the heart of the country.”—Burdett Loomis, professor and chair, Department of Political Science, University of Kansas
“When I read Thomas Frank, I hear a faint bugle in the background. It’s the cavalry-to-the-rescue call: There you are, surrounded by Republicans—outmanned, outgunned, and damn near out of both ammunition and humor—when up shows Thomas Frank. A heartland populist, Frank is hilariously amusing on what makes us red-staters different from blue-staters (not), and he really knows evangelical lChristians, antiabortion activists, gun-nuts, and Bubbas. I promise y’all, this is the only way to know why so many Americans have chose to vote against their own economic and political interests. And Frank explores the theme with erudition, understanding, passion, and—thank you, Mark Twain—such tart humor.”—Molly Ivins
“This is the right tale of how conservatives punk’d a nation. Tom Frank has stripped the right-wing hustle to its core: It is bread and circuses—only lacking bread. Written like a poem, every line in its perfect place, What’s the Matter with Kansas? is the best new book I’ve read in years, on any theme.”—Rick Perlstein, leader of Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of American Consensus
Amazon.com Review
The largely blue collar citizens of Kansas can be counted upon to be a “red” state in any election, voting solidly Republican and possessing a deep animosity toward the left. This, according to leader Thomas Frank, is a pretty self-defeating phenomenon, agreed that the policies of the Republican Party benefit the wealthy and powerful at the fantastic expense of the average worker. According to Frank, the conservative establishment has tricked Kansans, playing up the emotional touchstones of conservatism and perpetuating a sense of a vast liberal empire out to crush traditional values while barely ever discussing the Republicans’ actual economic policies and what they mean to the effective class. Thus the pro-life Kansas factory worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically. To much of America, Kansas is an abstract, “where Dorothy wants to return. Where Superman grew up.” But Frank, a native Kansan, separates reality from myth in What’s the Matter with Kansas and tells the state’s socio-political history from its early days as a hotbed of leftist activism to a state so entrenched in conservatism that the only political division remaining is between the moderate and more-extreme right wings of the same party. Frank, the founding editor of The Baffler and a contributor to Harper’s and The Nation, knows the state and its people. He even includes his own history as a young conservative idealist turned disenchanted college Republican, and his first-hand experience, combined with a sharp wit and thorough reasoning, makes his book more credible than the elites of either the left and right who aver to know Kansas. –John Moe
Buy Cheap What’s the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America Online
Related posts:
- This Matter Of Marriage
- US: Transforming Ourselves and the Relationships that Matter Most
- Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ
- America’s Best BBQ: 100 Recipes from America’s Best Smokehouses, Pits, Shacks, Rib Joints, Roadhouses, and Restaurants
- Seven Events That Made America America: And Proved That the Founding Fathers Were Right All Along
How can you state that because Kansas is voting Republican something is incorrect? As you see, the leader has a horn to blow from the get-go. Kansans don’t need anyone to tell us how to reflect — when the law in this county is considering outlawing the word “God” in schools that are paid for by my tax dollars, there’s plenty incorrect with the people who are okay with this thought — mostly Democrats.
Maybe Kansans are simply Christians first and are voting their hearts. Reflect about it.
Sign Me: Mad at the People who are trying to steal the heart of my country and the heart of my children.
Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
How ironic that a north-eastern snob writes a book telling Kansans that yes, they are excellent-hearted people but rumor has it that they don’t have enough sense to vote and make a choice for themselves so Mr. Northeast is going to swoop in and save the day. Oh, it brings a tear to the eye.
Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
Mr Frank has chosen to continue to disaffect redstaters by stating that people who live in Kansas (or additional red states) have something incorrect with them. This is not a fantastic go for democrats since Republicans control the House of Representatives, the Senate, a to some extent moderately conservative Court, the Presidency, state governorships and state legislatures. That is simply a fact. Moreover, Bush got more votes than Clinton by a wide margin. Clinton never got a majority of the vote and Bush did. Frank is simply assuming that simply because the majority of voters do not agree with him, therefore, they are incorrect. The question is how he can be certain that they are incorrect. As an educator, I certainly do not make a huge amount of money. But, I voted for Bush as a result of my beliefs. First, Christians are obligated to vote Republican since taking an innocent life is murder and babies are not guilty of any crime. The Bible regards life as beginning at conception (John the Baptist, Psalm 139). The Bible also views taking innocent human life as murder. The Bible views murder as incorrect. Hence, the Biblical view is that abortion is incorrect. Thus, the Bible is clear on that issue. The Bible nowhere teaches that all wars are incorrect. Rather, the Bible clearly endorses the concept of a just war. More abortions are committed than people die in our wars in any event. Further, one can not aver Biblical support for the view that the Iraq war was one-sided. For, that is certainly less clear than the Bible’s challenger to abortion. The Bible certainly views homosexuality as a sin. The Bible nowhere teaches that the government is to confiscate the hard earned money of private citizens who worked hard for it in order to give it to persons who did not work for it. The Bible nowhere states that the purpose of the government is to be a safety social net. The Bible does explicitly give that responsibility to private Christians. Hence, all evangelical Christians are bound to vote for a Republican. Persons who reject what Christ teaches clearly have chosen to do their own thing for now. If one believes the Bible and reads it in context, what additional conclusion does Mr. Frank expect? As a Bible believer who understands what the Bible teaches, Mr. Frank is going to have to show me (and people like me) how the Bible does not teach things that it does in fact teach. This is an impossible task. Morality based upon Biblical principles forms the heart of the reason why the base of the Republican party votes the way it does. Until Mr. Frank rewrites the Bible, the base (and Kansas) will continue to vote the same way.
Secondarily, my first degree as an undergrad, was in economics. I have real problems with the redistribution of income by the government. The fact is that the more equally that you split the pie, the smaller the pie gets. Further, it is perfectly obvious what happens when one removes incentives for effective. It reduces efficiency and productivity. It shrinks our gdp. Morally, why are people who worked hard for their money (or their parents-do not they have a right to pass on the money they earned to their children?) have to give to me simply because I make less? If this is right, logically, we ought to make everybody make exactly the same amount of money, whether they sit on their butt and do nothing, they work at McDonalds or they are medical doctors. Moreover, many of you make more money than I do. So, lets just skip the middle man, just give me the extra money. What sense does that make? And I really work. What if I am one of the people who does nothing and lives off of others? Very few people got their money by winning the lottery. Usually they earned it themselves or their parents passed it on to them. Thus, I find socialism morally incorrect. If socialism is so fantastic, why is it that the European economies are so far behind ours? They regularly average double digit unemployment whereas we average just over five percent. Our gdp is much larger than any additional country. Communism has been establish to be bankrupt (North Korea appears to be doing terribly, the Soviet Union collapsed!). China is gradually moving toward a free market and Cuba is no paradise. Kansans like most redstaters are loathe to be bone idle and live off of others’ hard work. We do not require charity. An equal percentage of income as an income tax is the best for everybody. The wealthy will still pay more in absolute terms. Besides, does one really judge that the wealthy place their extra money in their sock or under their mattress? Do you really judge that? If they do not, then guess what it goes back into our economy! It gets loaned out to a young couple to buy a house, which requires construction workers to erect…. Our economy rules the world and it all comes back to us. That is simply a fact. Hence, unless the mattress theory or shoebox theory is right, the thought of penalizing people for effective hard is terrible not only because it reduces the incentive for people to work hard, but because otherwise the money goes back into our economy. My income tax rate is relatively low. But, my father has paid fifty percent of his income in taxes for as long as I can remember (NY). That is outrageous.
Finally, I suspect that redstaters do not want to wait for another attack. The best defense is regularly a excellent offense. The thought of depending upon the UN’s permission before we act is not a doctrine that engender worship from persons who view a strong national defense as an imperative. The Middle East is the source of most terrorism. Terrorism generally sprouts from frustration at being out of power economically and politically. This resentment due to their lack of power stirs up persons who become terrorists. By starting a free market economy and a democracy in persons places, over the long run there will be less of the resentment that leads to terrorism. Japan and Germany were not rebuilt in a year before apt stable. It took five to ten years before stability was introduced. Nevertheless, it did take place and they are both more or less our allies and certainly not our opponents as they were prior to WWII. In the same way, while Iraq has huge problems now, in five to ten years, it will become much more stable. With a stable Iraq, a more stable palestine, a democratic Afghanistan, Israel as our ally and a democratic Turkey as well as the potential for a revolution in Iran where more than half of the population is under twenty one, the Middle East in ten years will be much more stable and become much less of a hotbed for terrorism. The prosperity that comes from a free market and the sense of power that comes from being in a democracy are contagious and it is very likely to spread across the Middle East as freedom did in Eastern Europe in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Since they are voting, the people are clearly expressing their own will. If they want to live under a tyrant, they can vote for that. Thus, the thought of some of a forced liberty is utter nonsense. The success of the elections demonstrates the brilliance of the overall plot. It will not take place in a day. There were naysayers for many years regarding Japan and Germany. They said look at all the problems. You will never make it in bringing stability there. But, the cynics were incorrect then as permanently.
Besides, we knew that at one time Iraq possessed wmd. They had used it over a dozen times, including against Iran in an eight year war which they ongoing. We had seen their wmd. Hence, we know that it existed at one time. They did not ruin it in front of us. Nor did they ever show us evidence that they had ruined it. Hence, we had no reason to judge that they had ruined it. Saddam booted out the inspectors in 1998. At that time, we had no reason to judge that he had ruined his wmd.
The only reason he allowed inspectors back in was because we had 150,000 soldiers on a carrier in the region. As soon as persons soldiers left, the inspectors would have been booted out and we could not keep them there indefinitely. Moreover, the inspectors were under Saddam’s control. They were not free to search for wmd. Additionally, much of the wmd could be hidden in a fantastic many places. Further, dual use facilities made it even harder to detect wmd. Agreed the size of Iraq, one could never know for sure if the inspectors had establish nothing because there was nothing (ie Saddam ruined his wmd earlier) or because there were too few of them and Saddam was simply playing a shell game. Moreover, we had no reason to judge that Saddam had ruined his wmd (since there was no proof). Why would he ruin his wmd lacking telling us and providing proof to us? If he did it in front of us, giving us proof, we would have removed the sanctions. But, there was no motive at all for him to ruin persons weapon privately. Since it would not benefit him, there was no reason to judge that he had secretly privately ruined his wmd (was it because of his religious conversion when he establish Jesus? obviously not!). As a consequence, knowing he had them at one point, had used them before and having no reason to judge that he had ruined them, we concluded as did additional UN agencies and as did our European allies, that he probably still had them. After having veteran 9-11 which was terrible enough lacking wmd being used, the chance that Saddam still had them and could pass them off to a terrorist group was not a chance we could take. For, if they did have it and we guessed wrongly that they did not, we could have lost hundreds of thousands of our citizens. We could not simply take Saddam’s word for it and hope that he was telling the truth. After 9-11, we saw that the consequences of this kind of policy were too risky. Besides, additional than the people who reflect that Saddam had a vision of Jesus and converted, who else does not judge that Saddam would have eventually made more stockpiles of wmd? The scientists still had the know how. He would simply have waited for an opportune time. Why worry where the milk went, when you know you still have lots of dairy cows which can make all the milk you want or need? The stockpiles could be reproduced because they still had the knowhow.Thus, the stockpiles are not the issue. Saddam’s history of aggression, his history of using wmd, our knowledge that for certain he did have them in the past, his failure to prove his destruction of his wmd, his utter lack of motive to ruin them and his booting out the inspectors and his violation of the terms of the stop fire justified our liberation of Iraq in order to be certain that wmd from Iraq would not find its way into the hands of terrorists. Hence, the war was entirely justified. Further, as mentioned above, in the long run (ie in a decade or so), the Middle East will be much more stable. Bush will appear to most people as Reagan does to most people (the intellectual, liberal elite excepted) (Reagan did win 49 states!). Deep inside we redstaters sense that in matters of foreign policy, you elite bluestaters are a bunch of paintywaists. You may be personally courageous, but your foreign policy (and that is what matters not one’s individual actions thirty years ago in the military shooting kids in the back)is weak and a policy basically of appeasement. A name could have a history of service to one’s country as excellent as Douglas MacArthur, but if his foreign policy is weak, then that is what really matters and disqualifies him for the Presidency. We would rather go with a cowboy then Gumby.
Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
Don’t let the take in fool you. This writer is a liberal who thinks that the “lower classes” need huge government liberals to take care of them. He contends that conservative poor folk vote against their own interests.
The leader insults the intelligence of persons he purports to want to save from themselves. It’s more than just a excellent con job by the Republicans that wins this voting block over and over again. The conservatives are right and the liberals are incorrect. It’s no more intricate than that Mr. Frank. Prospective buyers don’t waste your money. Go into a store and read the first three pages and you shall be putting this book back on the shelf and walking out the door with your money still in your wallet. After all if we poor folk are permanently voting against our own interests than its vital not to waste our money on such blatant class envy drivel; isn’t it?
Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
Mr. Frank and the plethora of similar authors, politicians and pundits searching for an answer to “WHY?” fail to look in the mirror. Frank continues the long-practiced Democratic tactic of slamming the “rich” and “corporate” types who “run the Republican party” from their limos. Fact of the matter is that Frank and the proponderance of Dems building these complaints have directly benefited immensely (i.e., have made tons of bucks) from exactly the free market economic practices they complain about. The smoke they’re blowing simply distorts the reality that America is the most desirable destination for anyone seeking a better life. If Mr. Frank and the others don’t appreciate what they see through their rose colored glasses, they are welcome to emmigrate to, say, France.
Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5