Re: Nick Cohen on Thomas Frank

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Carl Remick writes:
> I agree with your view about What's the Matter With Kansas?,  AN, and I hope
> LP will reply at some point.  I would welcome hearing a Marxist explanation
> for the great mystery that Frank identifies -- that Kansans (and US'ers in
> general) seem to be driven by phony-baloney social issues to  the virtual
> exclusion of being concerned about economic reality.  How *can* sheer
> fantasy trump material fact that way?

CB: >There is this "old" Marxist idea about bourgeoisification 
> of a certain
> critical mass or layer of the working class in the richest 
> imperial centers
> with some of the super-profits, with consequent opportunism and class
> collaboration. The source of the superprofits is various 
> forms of segmented
> and oppressed labor. ...

LP:>Frankly, I don't see why Thomas Frank's book is such a big deal. The
"matter with Kansas" has also been the matter throughout the deep south
since Reconstruction. White workers have often resisted trade
unionization because of racism. <

I haven't read Frank's book (though I did hear him interviewed by Terri Gross on US NPR). But I think that his thesis would be different if put into Marxian terms. (That doesn't mean that the theory proposed by CB and LP is wrong, just that it doesn't apply in this case.) 

The theory as I understand it is that the blue-collar white working class in Kansas has suffered from a decline in their living standards and that the "pro-life" right wing took over the Republican Party there and pushed "social conservative" issues, such as anti-abortion and anti-gay garbage. (This is a version of the old scape-goating racist strategy, but not the same.) The Democrats failed to provide an alternative because the were dominated by the Democratic Leadership Council types, who saw the white suburbs -- and not the blue-collar working class -- as the new base for their party. The DLCniks were "liberal" on "social issues" while abandoning the "New Deal" pro-welfare-state tradition, while the GOPsters hid their economic agenda (privatization, etc.) and pushed "traditional values." This encouraged the blue-collar working class to shift toward the GOP for reasons similar to why Palestinians have shifted from supporting the PLO (Palestinian Authority) to supporting fundie Islamists like Hamas: the former can't (or won't) provide any kind of help on earth, so let's gamble that maybe the latter can help us in heaven -- and through faith-based non-governmental initiatives on earth.  

I guess that isn't in Marxian terms, but that's not what's important. I'm also not sure if this correctly describes Frank's perspective. 
JD