[PLEASUREMAN]

Perhaps the most infamously deluded political line of recent vintage (among an embarrassment of riches) is the liberal complaint, "What's the matter with Kansas?" That is, why did parts of the country once hospitable to Left class warfare and progressive causes become more conservative and concerned with cultural issues (which, according to meme author Thomas Frank, Republicans never deliver on anyway).

The rank foolishness of framing the question in such a way--why don't they embrace our wonderful ideas?--is sure to escape the notice of many a liberal. An array of enemies must be conjured here, from plutocrat right-wing media barons to top hat-wearing bankers who are literally human-pig offspring to demented crypto-fascist culture warriors (with their sordid, provincial, lower middle class behavior). To people like Frank, the "best interests" of the hicks in Kansas involves resurrecting failed unionism, increasing taxes and creating larger government, and determining exactly how many handicapped parking spots Kwik-Stop must have out in front for addled meth-heads to sprawl in.

The silly question is not new, but it has been trotted out once again to explain why Barry Hussein Obama Christ's healthcare plans don't seem to have many people excited--either underwhelmed by how little they will accomplish or alarmed by how much additional (unproductive) interference they will create. At least the Republicans don't really give a shit how or whether the complete mess of regulation and lobbyist-brokered policy ever gets fixed. The people who do care are so inept or inane that you have no choice but to hate them more.

To any person of normal intelligence, the Midwestern progressivism of the 40s and the conservatism of the 80s onward are observed to proceed from the same dynamic--the vulnerability of isolated rural societies. In fact, both are forms of communitarianism, that is to say both are anti-individualist and both seek to address the free rider problem by strengthening community. Neither the conservatism nor the religiosity of Kansas is truly political, in the sense that it arises from an ideology; instead it is defensive, but this secret will forever remain concealed from the eyes of bi-coastal flyovers.

The secret is only that the smaller the community, the more harm may be inflicted by a parasitic or degenerate segment of its population. A criminal class is less isolated, a freeloader class consumes a greater percentage of resources, a deviant class creates greater social fissures. These vices are vices of the city, not the countryside, which simply cannot afford them--or cannot afford them for very long before dissolving.

Hence also the greater emphasis on a shared morality, enforced by religious commonality, and on a general social conformity--the first makes cooperative ventures more secure, and the second stabilizes against the buffeting currents of social change. Because larger government always brings with it greater opportunities to freeload, it is also viewed with skepticism, although government is freely turned to in order to enforce an exacting social conformity. One could list a dozen more aspects of the political landscape easily explained by this distinction.

But why don't they support unions? To a liberal, particularly a liberal who has never been a member of a working class union, to have once supported them and then changed to opposing them is a devilish mystery. I suspect that much of the anti-union animus in rural areas is due to the fact that unions are frequently vehicles for malcontent labor, and that much of the earlier trade-unionism came to be associated with itinerant forces, always a threat to rural social cohesion. Either way, to ignore the massive failure of organized labor in the period between the 40s and today is to stab one's eyes out and then wonder why the room has dimmed. Unionized industry has largely collapsed, as much due to its own excesses as to the economic climate of globalism and corporatism. Asking the hicks to go for unions now is asking them to completely give up.

All of this, quite obvious, quite plain, quite staring one in the face--but to vast swaths of liberals, a riddle from the Sphinx, never to be solved by the hapless progressives who ponder how the people of "Kansas" (a mythical place in the liberal imagination) have been robbed of their senses by right-wing demagogues or sinister Republican operatives. Such are the stultifying limits of the partisan mind!

[PLEASUREMAN]

The Daily Howler looks at another factor at work:

Quote

Alas! In our view, Harris-Lacewell’s point reflects on the point made by Weiner. Over the past fifty years, part of the liberal world’s “messaging” problem has involved the tendency among certain liberals to exacerbate distinctions of class and region—elements of fragmentation which make social progress much harder. It was true in the 1960s, and it’s true again now: A certain type of pseudo-liberal has always loved to mock the (white) rubes who live in red-state America. The pattern is familiar: First, we mock their rube-like ways. Then, we marvel at the fact that these rubes won’t accept our own brilliant views! Over the past fifty years, this class condescension has made it harder to build consensus for certain kinds of progressive ideas.

It remains a marvel of human folly how liberals endlessly create new catchphrases to define the hicks as idiots and kooks--then have very earnest discussions about What's The Matter With Kansas? It's as if they don't think the hicks can hear them.

[isamu]

The other way to look at this is if "cultural" issues such as abortion and school prayer are as trivial as Thomas Frank and all make them out to be, why don't Democrats adopt the conservative position and steal Republican votes?

This post has been edited by isamu: 09 December 2009 - 03:14 PM

[Chef Boyhowdy]

isamu, 09 December 2009 - 04:14 PM:

The other way to look at this is if "cultural" issues such as abortion and school prayer are as trivial as Thomas Frank and all make them out to be, why don't Democrats adopt the conservative position and steal Republican votes?

See Dogs, Blue. They ultimately run afoul of the Democratic Coastal Machine and/or their own constituencies.

This post has been edited by Chef Boyhowdy: 09 December 2009 - 03:26 PM

[Probably Not]

The DH observation on class condescension is correct but omits to mention the source, which is likely a combination of the usual disdain of the city for the country (shown for what it is in Shakespeare's As You Like It) and the chronic need modern liberals have to display their anti-racism. What better way to demonstrate lack of racial allegiance than to (verbally) assault members of one's own race? Fortunately, one has the ignorant poor (rednecks) and objectively evil rich (Republicans) to serve as the butt of bad jokes until the end of time.

[rho]

PLEASUREMAN, 09 December 2009 - 11:46 AM:

To a liberal, particularly a liberal who has never been a member of a working class union, to have once supported them and then changed to opposing them is a devilish mystery. I suspect that much of the anti-union animus in rural areas is due to the fact that unions are frequently vehicles for malcontent labor, and that much of the earlier trade-unionism came to be associated with itinerant forces, always a threat to rural social cohesion.

I suspect it's a lot simpler. At one point in history, unions made a lot of sense. You can only read so many accounts of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire before you get a sense of just how fucked up unbuffered capitalism can be. Not from any fault in capitalism, mind--the fault lies inherent in human disposition. Unions made a lot of sense when you couldn't upload a cellphone video to YouTube of your diabolical moneyed masters chaining the fire doors to prevent Social Justice from sneaking in unawares.

Just like everything else in the world, a little unionism is good. Too much is shit. We've reached the point of Too Much, and therefore Something Must Be Done.

The Something, however, is more likely to be an overreaction than not.