Does correlate with the 2004 pres and senate elections

To understand what this book is about, first I'll give an example of a similar case from my state of NC in the 2002 and 2004 elections. Erskin Bowles ran twice for U.S. Senator and yet he went down in flames. He was a rich banker, a supporter of Clinton's NAFTA and other free trade agreements in addition to being a Clinton cabinet member during the Clinton presidency, a proud supporter of deregulation, and he LOST BIG. His conservative Republican opponents, no less elite in reality, labelled him another liberal elite, campaigned heavily on guns, gay marriages, abortion, and other hot button issues and won lots of cheering audiences filled with working class voters who were laid off be it the textile industries or other industries with jobs being outsourced to China, Thailand, Mexico, Phillipines, etc .... And along with it, these same conservative Republicans, now both Senators, took in far more money from big corporate donors, themselves responsible for turning most of my state into a collection of ravaged ghost towns like Kansas. The issue about the economy which was supposed to give Bowles a big boost was easily robbed from him because he imitated the conservatives' ideology of free trade and massive deregulation and trying to say he'll give more tax cuts all the while giving wishy washy stands on cultural issues such as abortion, guns, gays, etc ...

This is the kind of fallout that Thomas Frank takes a deeper look at by interviewing voters of various backgrounds but even more so from rural ravaged areas from KS as that was where Democrats in the past could count on their support until they started imitating corporate Republicans in the suburbs. This book helps explain why in my state, voters in ravaged rural areas that have had to shut down textile and other industries would show their upset feelings about John Edwards, then VP candidate, supporting free trade and the Iraq War followed by angry sentiment calling him a "Liberal elite trial lawyer." Add to it, my state became a laughing stock for the so-called "freedom fries" issue as some local restaurant wanted to change the name "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries" just because the French did not support the U.S. going to war with Iraq which by now makes the Vietnam War look like a defeated walk in the park.

Neither party is appealing on important issues such as the economy but because conservatives have been so good at framing the social issues for the voters while at best giving the economy a couple of paint stroke brushes, it is no wonder the Republicans have been thriving for the past 25 years. This need not apply to just the red states but the blue states as well. In my state, Kerry/Edwards had at best a lukewarm rating even in the urban areas while getting creamed in most rural and suburban areas losing to Bush as high as 70-30%. It is debatable as to whether or not just putting the economic issues back on the table will bring the Democrats back to being relevant. Still, this book can help clear up the mystery about voters going conservative on social issues which are never looked at once elections are over and in the process happily denying themselves of their economic needs even when they need it the most.

Nothing's the Matter with this book!

What's The Matter With Kansas is an entertaining book that explores the reasoning behind the conservative perspectives of people from Kansas or Middle America. The author presents his arguments in a humorous manner. He thoroughly explains each point he makes by explaining his reasoning with evidence from historical and current time periods. Although Thomas Frank discusses certain issues that are obvious such as religion, location and values, he explains each reason so thoroughly that it gives the reader and new perspective to consider. Overall, I highly recommend this book for anyone who is interested in an enjoyable analysis of the conservatism existing in Kansas and how it developed.

No matter which party you vote for, it's the same

This does open up discussion about the complicated issue of voters voting against their own economic interests. Like most on the left, Frank is correct to point out that when poor people vote Republican, they are voting against their own economic interests. However, what has befuddled Frank and truly the rest of us is the reality that even if we vote Democratic, we're not necessarily voting for our economic interests but just about as much against it which means that no matter which of the two parties you vote for, you're voting against your own economic interests. Frank starts out by giving the reader something to wonder when he says that Democrats are supposed to be the party of the people and yet they get less and less of the people's support that they could have once counted on. Sure, there were plenty of cultural conservative issues going on in the 1950s and 1960s and yet because the Democrats at that time were more focused on people's economic needs, they were able to hold on to their seats despite their socially liberal views. The comparisons and contrasts between the moderate and conservative Republicans is interesting and as Frank gives his take on the Democrats here and there, it becomes increasingly apparent that most Democrats you see today not only resemble corporate Republicans who used to be socially liberal but in some cases conservative Republicans themselves who are not only pro-corporate but conservative to the core on social issues. Frank does hammer the fact that Democrats have moved to the right while Republicans moved even further to the right at least economically although these days it's increasingly apparent that the same can be said even on the cultural front which explains why John Kerry last year had a hard time keeping even his socially liberal base intact. This of course means that elections have been and will continue to be about nothing but the right vs the right which is why no matter which party you vote for, you're voting against your economic interests anyway with the Democrats looking like they are only slightly to the left of Republicans. Another issue which appears to complicate the mess is the "victimization" issue which Frank is outraged about conservatives using to pretend that they are being persecuted by some mythical liberal boogeyman even though they're the ones in power demonstrating the worst of elitism but somehow looking compatible to the regular folks. No question the Democrats are doing the same when it comes to some pocketbook issues and trying to use the race issue to keep African Americans in their column just because of a few Republican polls saying so. For example, Democrats cave in on bankruptcy legislation and class action tort shifting legislation and then when asked about why half of them voted, not only don't answer the question but shift the debate on social security and brag and boast about making it a wedge issue just like conservative making wedge issues on hot button issues which they know they'll never fulfill their promises on once elected and reelected. This of course is why Frank implies that it is important for Democrats to counter the GOP's phony cultural populism with true economic populism if people are to ever have/regain faith in the Democratic Party. True, people may have suspicions if a Democrat who voted for Reagan's tax cuts in 1981 and/or Clinton's NAFTA changed his or her mind and voted against Bush's tax cuts and/or CAFTA or other free trade agreements for that matter. However, maybe that Democrat might take the time to convince voters that he/she acknowledges that Reagan's tax shifts and Clinton's NAFTA were indeed wrong and that they underestimated the potential damages they would have on the economy in the long term and that they learned that lesson by not voting for Bush's tax shifts and/or CAFTA which while similar to earlier legislation are far more economically damaging to an already severely damaged economy. While Frank may not provide any direct solutions of his own, his analysis of voters voting against their own economic interests and the lack of economic differences in the two parties provides an opening for independents and progressives to construct long term solutions to restore their relevance and credibility in governing for the people by the people rather than caving in just because they thought it worked before when in reality it never did.