Scan barcode
pattricejones's review against another edition
4.0
As relevant today as when it was published. There's no need for me to repeat the accolades in previous reviews of a book in which such insightful observations are phrased in such lively and lucid prose. Let me just say this: There can be a tendency, when reading a book like this, to skip the conclusion, assuming that the author will be merely summarizing and repeating what has already been said. Don't do that. Frank builds up to his most important conclusions inductively, saving their statement for that last chapter. Don't skip it.
loujoseph's review
3.0
a good read mostly because i already agree with most of his conceits, it gets annoying fast when you realize that he's manipulating facts a la michael moore and ends up hurting his own cause.
annmeyer's review
4.0
Thomas Frank sets out to explain the political shift within Kansas, and purportedly America at large, between moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans in the 1990s forward. Frank argues that the shift is due predominantly to the increased significance of social and cultural issues (e.g. culture wars at large) over economic issues, pushing white working-class (and to some extent middle-class) voters further to the right. Frank is critical of this shift because voters are embracing a party which historically, and presently, prides itself in its fiscal conservatism, not only its social conservatism, and that in voting Republican, many Americans are in fact voting against their interests. Frank emphasizes the hypocrisy of Republican politicans and pundits, such as the Bush family, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and more, who consistently attack Democrats and liberals for being the elite who are constantly in power (through media, even if not in politics) despite being wealthy, well-educated, and elite themselves. The conservative populism he identifies, therefore, is one more concerned about culture than class. Frank also criticizes Democratic politicians, such as the Clinton administration, for moving more to the center on economic issues (which I agree with) and enhancing the power of cultural issues in being the primary division between both parties.
I felt conflicted about this book from the first few pages, with its tone and rhetoric out of left field for a historian (though the book is very open about combining history with memoir and journalism), and more conflicted after reading Larry Bartels' criticism of its application to the American electorate broadly. Bartels pushes back on the claims Frank makes about voter interests and trends since the 1980s, more or less using statistics to debunk the phenomenon as a nationwide one while also revealing that lower class voters do not necessarily care more about cultural and social issues than economic ones. I think there's some space for criticism of Bartels and statistical analysis of the phenomenon at large (or at least, I'd like there to be), particularly considering the shift of the Republican party's language (e.g. coded mentions of racial issues) and conflation of economic issues with cultural issues (e.g. government spending and social security + its implicitly racial association with "welfare queens," handouts, etc).
I think the book is not without its issues, especially insofar as it attempts to make inferences about the national electorate when it is really only focusing on Kansas (which itself draws criticism for being a historically Republican state, though Frank focuses on it because he is from Kansas, it is historically significant in the context of U.S. populism, and he's looking particularly at an increase in conservatism and thus polarization) but it is still an intriguing and entertaining political history of Kansas in the 1990s and early 2000s. I think the book is especially important for capturing the messaging and media machine established by conservatives and its state in the early 2000s, one which is evidently still extremely important and relevant as we examine Fox News, OAN, Joe Rogen, and conservative pundits today. Their role in escalating, continuing, and broadening the culture wars in the past twenty years, further working to divide Americans and vilify liberals (who often foolishly attack middle Americans right back) has played a pretty alarming and significant role in shaping our current political context.
I felt conflicted about this book from the first few pages, with its tone and rhetoric out of left field for a historian (though the book is very open about combining history with memoir and journalism), and more conflicted after reading Larry Bartels' criticism of its application to the American electorate broadly. Bartels pushes back on the claims Frank makes about voter interests and trends since the 1980s, more or less using statistics to debunk the phenomenon as a nationwide one while also revealing that lower class voters do not necessarily care more about cultural and social issues than economic ones. I think there's some space for criticism of Bartels and statistical analysis of the phenomenon at large (or at least, I'd like there to be), particularly considering the shift of the Republican party's language (e.g. coded mentions of racial issues) and conflation of economic issues with cultural issues (e.g. government spending and social security + its implicitly racial association with "welfare queens," handouts, etc).
I think the book is not without its issues, especially insofar as it attempts to make inferences about the national electorate when it is really only focusing on Kansas (which itself draws criticism for being a historically Republican state, though Frank focuses on it because he is from Kansas, it is historically significant in the context of U.S. populism, and he's looking particularly at an increase in conservatism and thus polarization) but it is still an intriguing and entertaining political history of Kansas in the 1990s and early 2000s. I think the book is especially important for capturing the messaging and media machine established by conservatives and its state in the early 2000s, one which is evidently still extremely important and relevant as we examine Fox News, OAN, Joe Rogen, and conservative pundits today. Their role in escalating, continuing, and broadening the culture wars in the past twenty years, further working to divide Americans and vilify liberals (who often foolishly attack middle Americans right back) has played a pretty alarming and significant role in shaping our current political context.