Centerfield

One of the things I've wondered about is why Kansas has remained Republican during the change of the Republican Party to southern dominance. So many states have changed their loyalties. For instance, in 1936, Kansas' Alf Landon only carried Maine and Vermont against Roosevelt. Now, those states are reliably Democratic in national contests. Any insights?

Also, is there a north/south divide in Kansas? There certainly was in 1856 with bleeding Kansas, but my impression now is that unlike Missouri, Kansas has no southern-leaning culture today.

It's pretty clear to me that the vast majority of voters, including Kansans(?), did not vote based on personal or national economics. In my very first exchange on this blog, the person I was interacting with wrote that economics take care of themselves. I've read from other Republican votes that the deficit is a concern, but, not much of one.

Congratulations to Mr. Franks for profiting from his book. I don't think he changed many Kansas or Republican minds, though. Mission UNAccomplished.

I think Frank has fallen prey to the same sort of typical Marxian/Weberian/Smithian type of analysis it's so popular for economists and sociologists to blindly use. While it may be fun to point out that these people might not benefit from a certain set of economic policies, Frank totally misses the point: that they might actually know that but think certain issues, like social/cultural issues and foreign policy, are of a higher level of importance to them than basic pocketbook issues.

If anything, it's the sort of reductionist view of people as only carrying about their personal checkbooks and bank balances that people in Kansas probably are turned off by. That and the fact that it's that logic that's led the Democrats to failed campaigns so many times.

C'mon, Tully, you don't really think that employment numbers are more indicative of economic health than a rusty car on an empty street, do you? LOL

Was it just me, or did Franks constantly demonize capitalists? I wasn't sure what to think of his book because early on I saw him coming from a Marxist POV (in the economic sense). It made me distrust his arguments almost as a kneejerk reaction. His question of why do Kansans vote Republican wasn't addressed as much as how capatilists have taken over Kansas City. Sure he threw in a few paragraphs about the culture wars, but, unless I completely missed it, he didn't address any hard data in that arena except the fact that neighborhoods where he used to live are filled with nice houses now.

I read Frank's book this summer, and I don't really know much about Kansas (I've been to Wichita once, for a day at a Boeing facility), but I thought that he made some good points about the marriage between those that vote for strictly moral issues and those that vote for libertarian economic principles.

One of the points that I think this brings up is that when you have libertarian economic principles, there is less incentive for companies to care about the things that 'moral issue' voters need, and their quality of life slowly deteriorates.

The article you posted there doesn't even mention poverty rates, which was the main staple of Frank's argument. Here's a document from 2000 that shows the increase in poverty rates. And Frank also cites data in his book that the rate has actually gotten worse since then.

By looking at how well companies like ConAgra are doing in evaluating this is completely missing the point. The point is that the wealthy Republicans from Johnson County (suburban KC) are able to keep their companies successful at the expense of many Kansas residents that are also voting Republican. They do this by bringing in cheaper labor and by transferring the economic risk involved in farming to the farmers.

When I first heard about that book I thought it was one I might want to buy because I thought it was written by a conservative who could explain voter patterns in his home state. However, after looking it over at our local bookstore I concluded it was a liberal rant and didn't buy it. Remember now, I consider myself to be a liberal.

Living in Iowa we are not that different from Kansas. Population is consolidating in the two urban areas we have (Des Moines, about 500k, and Cedar Rapids/Iowa City, about 300k)while statewide population growth is slow. There are lots of small towns that look well past their prime and the countryside is emptying out.

So, while the author's observations are accurate, there is a competing view that was published in yesterday's Des Moines Register:

The writer in the article makes the case that Iowa's population and economic growth has slowed precisely because not enough population consolidation occured during the 20th century and too many people tended to stay in the small towns. Conclusion: you need large urban areas as incubators to attract investment and support statewide growth.

Then again, another article in the paper (sorry, no link available) highlighted how Sydney, Nebraska and many other small towns in the state have more jobs than people and are experiencing an influx of population.

It is tough out here in the heartland but I don't think things would be much different if Frank's recommendations would have been implemented.

Since when hasn't the economic risk involved in farming been born by farmers? Why shouldn't it be?

sorry, I can't figure out the link process. Here's the url from that DM Register article:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041205/BUSINESS03/412050313/1029/archive

Oh boy, selectively cited 5 year old Chicken Little data from a liberal social services agency that wants my tax money! Yawn. And here I was getting my figures fresh and up-to-date from the Census Bureau. Silly me.

Frank freely abuses the data, and out of context at that. The current (2003) Kansas poverty figure is 10.8%, DOWN from 12.1% in 2002, and is projected to drop to 10.1% for 2004. In the last 20 years it's been as high as 14%, and as low as 9.7%. The current national rate is 12.7%, UP from 12.6%. This isn't "getting worse" for Kansas, and in comparison to national figures it's not something we're complaining about. BTW, Wichita was the second-hardest hit city economically from September 11th on a per-capita basis, with the attack temporarily shutting down the aircraft industry based here. We didn't get federal disaster relief. Yet we recovered.

But that only tells part of the story. Census poverty figures are not adjusted for regional price levels. High-cost areas such as New York and California are gauged on the same income scales as Kansas. California and New York both currently have 13.5% poverty rates and cost-of-living indexes 140% that of Kansas, with housing costs even higher. Do the math--and ask yourself which party dominates the legislatures in New York and California.

Yep, by golly, we need some more of that Thomas Frank-style Democratic government 'round here. Damn, but we're such dumb yokels. We just don't know what's good for us!

Rick, Kansas has always been a Republican state, if a rather populist one. But it's western free-range libertarian populism, not urban or Southern welfare populism. When the Dems became perceived as the urban welfare party, they started declining here. The last two times Kansas went Dem in a presidential election were 1964 and 1936.

Was it just me, or did Franks constantly demonize capitalists?

It wasn't just you, Scott, and it's central to his arguments. Nasty old corporations, making money on agriculture instead of setting up state-wide farmer's co-ops to bring about a worker's paradise...if only we would realize the error of our ways and vote Democratic, we too could be saved.

It feels like I should have some comments for this thread...but I haven't read the book in question....

I have a sense that if I had read it...I'd have lots of disagreement with Tully.

But when is that anything new?

Since when hasn't the economic risk involved in farming been born by farmers? Why shouldn't it be?

Because the farmer can't control the weather. If there's a drought or something out of the farmer's control that causes him to be unable to make ends meet, we shouldn't just let him starve to death. Frank argues that the social programs that have been in place to protect farmers from this are being eroded.

Tully, you're obviously a lot more informed about this than I am. I don't have my copy of Frank's book right now, but I'd be curious to know instances where his statistics are taken out of context.

I don't want farmers to starve, but i don' t want it to be a risk-free enterprise either. Bad weather and other adverse conditions have some element of self-correction in them. If there's a bumper crop, prices go down, and if the crop get hit hard prices go way up.

Count me among those who recognize that the national food supply is very important, but don't think this means farmers are entitled to continue to be farmers regardless of all the changes going on in the world. If farming is too risky for your likes, maybe it's time to switch careers.

Count me among those who recognize that the national food supply is very important, but don't think this means farmers are entitled to continue to be farmers regardless of all the changes going on in the world. If farming is too risky for your likes, maybe it's time to switch careers.

I struggle with this a lot. I've always felt the same way, that in today's modern age, people should have to be able to adapt to the changes in the economy. I don't personally know any farmers, but I'd like to know what they'd say if, after a slow year, they couldn't make ends meet, and someone told them to go to the city and apply for jobs.

Carla, it's a pretty telling comment that you're actually admitting that you'd very likely quarrel with Tully even though you haven't reviewed the relevant data. It's as though you are admitting that you'd agree with this guy's interpretation of the data and not Tully's.

it continually amazes me that you and othere think that this has to do with some sort of conservative bias and nothing to do with a serious approach to data and what it tells you.

Also knowing nothing about Kansas economics, if I wanted to find out about it, I'd look at the historical trends, and compare Kansas to other states, and I'd definitely want to account for differneces in cost of living. because that's the sopunbd way to investigate the data and see what it tells you. Those were all questions I wondered about when I saw this post. And Tully answered them all. It tells me, once again, that he appraoches data in a much better way than most partisans do.

Him, I'd never do as you suggest. That's cold, mean, and heartless. The general trend among farmers has for some time been to adapt or perish. The stories of ex-farmers are often ones of borrowing against equity in bad years, and this sometimes leads to a death spiral. these are difficult and uinfotunate circumstances. I'd never want or need to tell an unlucky farmer to look for other work. They can figure it out themselves.

bk:

Instinctually I believe I would be interpreting the data different than Tully. He and I have run across this sort of thing before. And I do think it has to do with a conservative bias. So I guess you've summed it up.

Farmers have several ways of adjusting risk for themselves. Crop insurance, grain futures, etc. And they use them. They're not totally at the mercy of random events. Believe it or not, they're not dumb hicks in overalls. The dumb ones were driven out of business back in the 70's and 80's. The average Kansas farmer today has a bachelor's degree and runs a single-owner business enterprise generating hundreds of thousands a year in revenues. They also generally hold second full-time jobs in the slack seasons, which is much of the year. Not always because they really need the money, but because they're workers by nature. To them the best insurance is money in the bank and fall-back incomes, and there's no reason to just sit around when there's work to be had and money to be made. Same with ranchers, who don't even really have a slack season. They mostly do what they do because they love what they do.

Him, I don't own a copy of Frank's book. I wasn't going to pay him for it. I borrowed one from the library when it first came out. But I remember that he failed to compare Kansas poverty and income figures with national figures, or with national trend lines. He wanted to use us for his example. He just wanted to use us very very selectively, picking and choosing only those bits that fit his desired results. His arguments and conclusions were pre-determined by his ideology and agenda. "Sentence first, verdict afterwards!" As with most partisan polemics.

The book's not without some decent insights, but because Frank was determined to paint a very particular ideological picture, he refused to paint in everything that was there and insisted on painting in much that was not.

Carla, that's because you and I disagree on what bias itself is. I see ideologically biased interpretation of data, I call it that. Around here that usually leaves me weighing against a leftist ideological argument, so you automatically assume I'm a right-winger. It doesn't mean that right-wingers have better data or better arguments, just that what you see here isn't often the right-wing brand of BS. Truly, neither side has any monopoly on oratorical virtue.

But in Frank's case, it's objective numbers he's using to justify his arguments, so when he twists and stretches the numbers out of context or makes out of them things that just ain't so, well, you can call it what you like, but "dishonest" is the polite term. The sad thing to me is that by doing so he automatically invalidates some good insights.

But Frank doesn't really give a bleep about Kansas. His objective is not to help my neighbors or my state, it's to help himself and his own causes. He's trying to use my state as an involuntary poster child for his own purposes. And I don't like him doing that any more than I liked Operation Rescue doing it over a decade ago.

Tully:

You might be right...maybe Frank does. But my instinct tells me there's more to it than that.

Like I said..I havent' read the book. I'm just going on our previous disagreements and my instinct...which often serves me well.

Carla;
Reading from the sidelines I couldn't help but make one observation, "instinct" equals bias.

Is Carla talking to herself now? :)

I believe the previous commenter mistyped his/her signature.

Carla:

Will the real Carla please stand up?

By the by, everyone comes to political discussion with bias. In fact we come to most discussions with our own POV. People like claiming they set their biases aside and are objective...but in my experience that doesn't happen very often, if ever.

Well sure Carla, but I think that viewpoint (people are rarely if ever objective)over-equates everyone, Some people think they really aren't biased, and/or they don't even try to rely on objective approaches. I try as hard as I can to do this, even if in the end, I fail almost as often as people who don't even try.

In fact, if I were to identify what i think of as my biggest bias, it's toward relying on data wherever I can, and trying to approach with an open mind so that I can develop an opinion that is based on the data in all its available fullness. I fully grant that such an approach is far from always being possible.

But i think it makes me a bit less biased than other people who are willing to trust, support, and parrot the
views of people who start with something they want to be true and then search for and highlight data that supports their beliefs while ignoring data that doesn't fit.(I'm not accusing you here, it's just a general description.) I am ALWAYS telling myself "maybe I'm wrong." I review objections, look at the data again, try to come up with alternative hypotheses. And I hate habitual cherry-pickers.

And the Kansas case is a real good example. Knowing nothing of Kansas, I'd want to look at Kansas's current circumstances as compared to other states and to itself over time, and I'd want to look at a variety of measures of economic health, and then I'd try to base my opinion on what each one of these things told me. And if you do such stuff , even if you do it while having a default hypothesis like "I think Kansas is suffering, Or "I think they are holding their own," you should have the experience of changing your mind every once in a while when you've reviewed all the data.

For me, a huge red light and alarm go off when people selectively quote data that is obviously much less than what I'd expect as an honest and somewhat comprehensive attempt. When I run into such stuff, I instinctively doubt, and I have 3 or 4 obvious additional questions that i need answered before I trust the author. And Tully had the same ones I did, and and he went out and found the answers.

I truly wish you got this point, but you seem impervious to it. I trust Tully as a Kansan and co-hort that if Kansas was withering, he would not hesitate to say so. I don't think his bias is simply to disprove this guy because he thinks liberals are always wrong. I think he's saying that if you look at all of the available numbers in a comprehensive way instead of just the few chosen ones, the data doesn't support his contentions very well, if at all. Uness Tully made up the numbers, it seems to me he is right on target. It wouldn't kill you to look into it, and if he was born out, be willing to say so.

It pains me that what I see as one of Tully's best qualities is apparently invisible to you because you assume he is operating as a disprover, an arguer, and a reflexive apologist. He's far too much of an iconclast and challenger of conventional wisdom to indulge in this overmuch.

bk:

I'm not sure why you seem to have the need to charge in on your white steed to defend Tully. I'm not disparaging him.

I'm pointing out that there's likely more to it than what he's saying...because in my experience there usually is. I also said quite honestly that I can't prove that there is because I haven't read the book in question nor have I studied the evidence.

There's nothing more to it than that. I'm not trying to beat up on your friend. I'm not trying to besmirch his character. K?

Obviously there's more to the hundreds of pages of Frank's book than can be covered in a few hundred words. Nor will I waste mega-hours of my time doing a complete autopsy of the corpse of his arguments--for one thing, they're more polemic than anything else, and I have little to no desire to debate Marxist social theology with True Believers whose faith over-rides any actual consideration of the evidence, and who will jump to criticize before seeing absolutely ANY of same. I frankly (pun!) don't give a hoot about Frank's desperately earnest preaching of his politheology--my concerns were with his blatant misrepresentations of the truth about my state, on which he built his sermon for the flock. Lysenkoism remains the the trusty steed of the creed, I see.

It's fun watching someone complain about bias when she hasn't even read the book and doesn't know the arguments, disputing ad hominem instead for the a priori invalidity of objectivity, what with Jacques Derrida now moldering in his tomb and all. Kinda like watching a shadow boxer try for a knockout. A thoroughly unbiased standard source such as the US Census is refutation enough for any honestly rational examiner.

The GOP would love for Dems to believe Frank. The farther the Dems go down false trails, the longer they'll spend in the wilderness.

LOL Tully..c'mon now. You know that you and I have sparred on things before where you've interpreted them much differently than I have. It's not out of line to believe this could be one of those cases as well.

After all, history is the greatest predictor of future events.