Bartels and Frank

It was rather amusing and entertaining to follow the literary jousting between Bartels and Frank. Both sides provide convincing arguments while at the same time successfully mangling the others thesis. However, if compelled to choose a side, I suppose I would consider Frank's position to be the most tenable.

The Bartels essay relies quite heavily on statistical data compiled through National Election Studies(NES). These various surveys focused on political attitudes and behavior at the national level over a period of 50 years. However, this type of empirical approach is far from infallible. As Frank observes, Bartels uses this data in a rather haphazard way. A group as diverse as the working class is extremely difficult to define. Therefore, broad strokes can be used to decide what information is pertinent and what can be conveniently omitted. While Bartels does make some interesting observations and there is inherent logic in his argument, it does seem that there are some instances where he simply manipulates the data in order to substantiate his thesis.

As the material in question is from 2005, I feel it is important to recall the mentality of the country after the reelection of George W. Bush. Personally, I remember being rather disillusioned and perceiving a palpable shift in ideology across the country. Whether this had actually occurred or was continuing to occur, the perception was that a profound conservative wave had swept over the land and that the moral majority had won the hearts and minds of the populace.

While it is certainly possible to find inconsistencies in some of Frank's work through the use of curious statistical analysis, I feel that his central theme is more than valid. Regardless of how you spin the numbers, there were large swaths of the populace voting in direct contradiction to their own economic interests in the 2004 presidential election. The point about the G.O.P. forming a new dominant political coalition through the advancement of a particular social agenda is debatable, however, there was no disputing the fact that the Republicans had become significantly more conservative during Bush's first term.

Of course, when one attempts to mediate this debate through the prism of our current political landscape, the perspective may change. Although I sided with Frank on his interpretation, our current view reveals some flaws in his reasoning. First and foremost, this perceived shift to the right and formation of a dominant Republican coalition was in fact fleeting. Frank's claim that some of these trends which had developed over the previous 10 to 15 years were permanent and irreversible was false. In 2005, I believe it was true that the Democrats had alienated middle America to a certain extent, and that they lacked a coherent message or strategy.

Our recent election produced a complete repudiation of the Bush administration. This was caused by a myriad of issues, but was largely due to the failing economy and an increasingly unpopular war. So, the movement Frank alluded to in his book turned out to be part of the political cycle, as now it is the Republicans who have lost their way and are struggling to remain on point and stay in touch with a diverse population.