Tom Frank's book, What's the Matter With Kansas, is centered around this question:
Why, oh why, do poor rural Kansas voters support the GOP, when it's clear that the Democratic party's platform is geared to help those poor rural voters, while the GOP platform is not?
Why, Frank asks, do the voters in Kansas vote AGAINST their own economic interests?
We've all seen it - the single mother working two jobs who can't afford healthcare, but she votes for Bush "because her pastor tells her to".
Why do such voters support the GOP, when it is clear the GOP doesn't have their interests at heart?
This is an interesting question, and I think Frank's book is a good one.
I just think he's wrong.
Here's the idea. If Tom Frank is right, then by voting for the GOP, those rural Kansas voters should be voting AGAINST their own financial interests, right?
With a GOP victory, those voters should then see fewer social welfare programs, fewer farm subsidies, fewer dollars poured into Medicare, fewer public education dollars - government spending on domestic programs should shrink. After all, the GOP is the party of God and smaller government, right?
Problem with this argument is, in spite of one GOP victory after another, this hasn't happened. The GOP has NOT moved to shrink ANY federal government program. Just the opposite - the size of the federal government under GOP control has mushroomed to epic proportions. It is bigger than ever, and promises to get bigger still.
Far from working AGAINST those New Deal welfare programs - which are wildly popular - the GOP has learned to co-opt many of them for its own use.
Public education? Why, the GOP is all for it! Workplace safety? Of course the GOP supports such laws! Women's suffrage? You bet, the GOP supports it all the way!
The GOP, instead of calling for the outright stoppage of such programs, paints itself as fiscally responsible, and says, "we'll hold down costs and manage those programs better. We'll SAVE Social Security. We'll SAVE Medicare".
The GOP has factions who rail against such programs, true, but those factions have NEVER been allowed, or able, to take steps to tear the programs down.
Who has stopped them?
The Democrats. Time after time, the Democrats have blunted the aims of the GOP. The GOP has an ugly face, and for decades the Democrats have successfully prevented America from seeing it.
Even now, the same thing is poised to happen. The GOP, giddy with a "mandate", sees a chance to appoint pro-life judges to SCOTUS, to get rid of Roe v. Wade. Federal guarantees of abortion access would go away, and each state would determine whether a woman's womb belonged to her, or to the beliefs of the majority.
Instead of allowing this to happen - instead of letting Americans experience what the GOP wants - the Democrats will, once again, step in and prevent it, through filibuster.
This is why I think the basic premise of Frank's book is wrong. No matter which way the electorate votes, the welfare programs remain in place. They NEVER go away.
If you rely on welfare, and your experience tells you that, no matter which party wins the election, those welfare checks will still be there, then why NOT vote for the party that promises lower taxes for everybody, and presents itself as the party of God?
A vote for the GOP has zero negative consequences. Thanks to the Democrats, who for decades have blunted GOP aims.
This gives us two things. First, an electorate that knows from experience that it doesn't really matter WHO you vote for - the government programs don't change. Second, the Democratic party is unable to say, with any sort of convincing argument, that the GOP plans to do away with the New Deal. The public response is, "Pshaw! They'll never do that. They've never done it before".