Does the New NPR CEO Have a Burner Account?
ESPN Host Had an Interesting Take on the 'Jail Trump Now' Crowd
Bill Barr's 2024 Decision Might Irritate Some, But It Shows He Knows Who...
Republican Congresswoman Has a Warning for Columbia University
Papua New Guinea PM Hits Back After Biden's Cannibal Story
LA Mayor's Home Was Broken Into...Again
HRC Made Some Rather Unhinged Claims About What Trump Wants to Do to...
Why Jewish Students at Columbia Were Just Urged to Go Home
Medicare Is in Serious Need of Reform. Biden's Budget Plan Won't Cut It.
Meet the New Boss, Mike Johnson, Same As the Old Boss
Here's How One New York Business Responded to the Illegal Alien Crisis
Surprise: Famous Hamas Sympathizer Caught in Racist, Homophobic Rant
America Needs Friends in the Middle East
Pro-Growth Should Be a Top Priority for Fiscal Reform
While Conservatives Are Attacking Each Other, the Left Is Marching On

A Difference Without a Distinction

Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas," has a piece today in the Wall Street Journal titled "Obama's Touch of Class."

In it, he essentially argues that "The landmark political fact of our time is the replacement of our middle-class republic by a plutocracy. If some candidate has a scheme to reverse this trend, they've got my vote, whether they prefer Courvoisier or beer bongs spiked with cough syrup." 

In other words, he's not all about supporting elitist intellectuals -- he's about supporting left-wing redistributionists.  Get the distinction (or not!)?

Ultimately, my beef with Frank's theory -- that blue-collar workers are being distracted by the wedge issues purveyed by evil Republicans from voting in their own economic self-interest -- is as follows (as I first noted here):

But even to . . . agree that Barack was simply arguing that small town people aren't voting in their own best interests -- well, isn't that condescending, too?  Doesn't that imply that someone believes these people are too dumb to know what's really good for them?

And isn't it possible -- just possible -- that some Americans hold their social views very dear, and are willing to forgo the opportunity to vote for more government goodies because of their other beliefs?

After all, even if they vote against (what some consider to be) their economic self interest in order to promote their social views, isn't that what rich "tax me" liberals (like Kennedy, Kerry, and the Clintons, for that matter) do routinely? 

Or is it "principled" when rich social liberals do it, and "stupid" when poor social conservatives do?

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos