The book "What's the Matter with Kansas" suggested that conservatives generally voted against their own financial interests to chase social issues. Sound familiar?
In the book "What's the Matter with Kansas" Thomas Frank argued that conservatives had become overly consumed with hot-button social issues like abortion and gay marriage. These obsessions led them to become angry and to lash out against those liberal elites who held and pushed the opposite views.
According to Frank, the anger was such that it unwittily made them vote against their own economic interests, in order to support their social issues. At the time, Frank was suggesting that this was stupid. Only a fool would vote against their own economic interests for the sake of silly social issues like abortion and gender rights.
I would be curious to ask Frank what he thinks about the current Democratic Party, many of whom admit that Trump would be better on the economy, on crime, on immigration, and even in foreign policy, but will still vote for Harris because of blinding hatred of the bad orange man, whom they believe stands against them on social issues? Would Frank still see putting social issues ahead of the economic issues as foolish enough to devote an entire book to it?
Moreover, there is a big difference between the Kansas conservatives and the modern-day liberals. The Kansas conservatives did not necessarily believe that the liberal concepts of welfare and social services was better for them. On the flip side, many of the 2024 liberals openly admit that the economy was better under Trump and that he would likely be better for the economy than Harris.
Most conservatives would much rather hold a job and take care of themselves (and family) without the help of the Government. It's a liberal mindset to look at government handouts and vote accordingly. So Frank's book was largely based on the concept that those Kansas conservatives did not understand what is good for them. He wrote it under the ideals of liberalism, rather than the ideals of the people he was writing about.
But today's situation is different. It's not an author's opinion that California liberals would be better off economically under Trump. It's the opinion of the large number of liberals, who would still rather vote for Harris in spite of knowing it will hurt their pocketbook. The idea of abortion without restrictions, trans-rights, censorship, path to citizenship, and allowing people to vote without ID is way more important than whether or not anyone can afford groceries, pay their bills, or keep up with a mortgage.
Sounds to me that this is the same concept as "What's the Matter with Kansas" only on steroids. Maybe Frank should write a new book?
https://fb.watch/uctFrL9BD6/?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V
Look at this from Drudge. Björn Höcke No where in the WSJ article is their a pic of him doing the Heil salute
California, Minnesota
I mean Walz had cops shooting residents with paintball guns, outside on their own propert to enforce the George “Fentanyl” Floyd curfew, shutdown everything during Covid, it goes on and on.
California’s biggest issue is Governor Hairgel looking at the Oval Office.
Donks are the authoritarians they accuse the right of being
According to Frank, the anger was such that it unwittily made them vote against their own economic interests, in order to support their social issues. At the time, Frank was suggesting that this was stupid. Only a fool would vote against their own economic interests for the sake of silly social issues like abortion and gender rights.
Thomas Frank was an idiot when he wrote the book and he's an idiot now. Not wanting to vote yourself largesse from the federal treasury makes you a fool? Hardly. It shows that you have integrity and you're not a fucking parasite.
We gave the left gay marriage and what did it lead to? Grooming in schools and by drag queens at 'story…