One of “our most insightful social observers”* cracks the great political mystery of our time: how conservatism, once a marker of class privilege, became the creed of millions of ordinary Americans With his acclaimed wit and acuity, Thomas Frank turns his eye on what he calls the “thirty-year backlash” the populist revolt against a supposedly liberal establishment. The high point of that backlash … of that backlash is the Republican Party’s success in building the most unnatural of alliances: between blue-collar Midwesterners and Wall Street business interests, workers and bosses, populists and right-wingers.
In asking “what ‘s the matter with Kansas?” how a place famous for its radicalism became one of the most conservative states in the union Frank, a native Kansan and onetime Republican, seeks to answer some broader American riddles: Why do so many of us vote against our economic interests? Where’s the outrage at corporate manipulators? And whatever happened to middle-American progressivism? The questions are urgent as well as provocative. Frank answers them by examining pop conservatism the bestsellers, the radio talk shows, the vicious political combat and showing how our long culture wars have left us with an electorate far more concerned with their leaders’ “values” and down-home qualities than with their stands on hard questions of policy.
A brilliant analysis and funny to boot What’s the Matter with Kansas? presents a critical assessment of who we are, while telling a remarkable story of how a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs came to convince a nation that they spoke on behalf of the People.
*Los Angeles Times
more
In viewing today’s political & cultural landscape, a great many of us have wondered “How did we get here?” at least once. If you’re one of them, you need to read this book. In fact, everyone should. Here, Thomas Frank practically gives us a blaring klaxon detailing the exact way a fairly small grassroots group—the evangelicals—engineered a diabolical plan to convert the US into a theocracy. To their thinking, this would get them into heaven & leave behind whoever didn’t conform to their exacting standards.
Frank even reveals what he calls their “Möbius strip of grievance”: We came to power because we were the overlooked, hated silent majority. But, when we came to power, our opposition hated us and treated us unfairly. The result of that treatment is the loss of our power and proof that the system is rigged against us. Once again, we’re the overlooked, silent majority. This is an example of what he calls the movement’s “backlash mythology.” He also includes considerable coverage of their primary–& very successful—weapon, the wedge issue.
Of course, we are dealing with a complex situation which can be best understood by reading several books on it, as well as listening to expert interviews on TV, radio, & podcasts to expose oneself to different points of view. But What’s the Matter with Kansas is a great jumping-off point.
That being said, why wasn’t this book more popular? Frank is still being featured on national news shows & has written several best-sellers, so he’s hardly an obscure author. I would have to blame the book’s lack of prominence on two things: Frank’s vocabulary & his footnotes.
First, the vocabulary. Frank is one of those guys who is perfectly clear & easy to understand during an interview, but his writing is full of obscure & seldom-seen words, such as “toffs” & “tautologies.” Is he trying to impress us? Yes, he did impress me—I was an English major—but not in a good way. I would prefer readability over a demonstration of erudition.
The readability issue brings us to the footnotes. Publishers have modernized these by moving them from the bottom of the page to the back of the book. This is usually a welcome change, since many footnotes only contain source citations. However, in the case of WTMWK, the footnotes are not only huge—there are literally 41 pages of them—but contain a plethora of minutiae (how’s that for obscure, Tom?) which clutters up the book. Is all this necessary? Some of their information could have been incorporated into the main text, some is curious enough to be in its proper place as a footnote, & some could have just been ditched. For instance, sometimes Frank engages in speculation about what an author meant, & he quotes other authors to support his theory…all in the same footnote. This would be better served by being part of the chapter it referred to.
Now that you have been warned about what to expect, you can assemble the necessary tools to help you tackle this book…such as a dictionary, & perhaps a glass of wine as a patience enhancer. In my opinion, use whatever you need, because this book is that important.