The real difference in the 2 party's economic policy

[MelK]

I've been reading the book "What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" by Thomas Frank.

He continually asserts that the blue collar voters of Kansas and other red states are voting against their economic best interests when they vote for Republicans, but he never backs up his claim that the Democratic economic policy is in the best interest of blue collar/farm workers with solid facts or arguements. He just asserts that it is so.

So my questions are:

1 - Is the Democratic economic policy really better for average people than the Republican policy?

2 - What are the key differences in the party's policies that makes one party's policy better for average people?

3 - Is a person's judgement on which party has the better economic policy really based on that person's perception of how economics works, rather than clearly measurable in objective results?

4 - Can we really know which policy is better for blue collar workers, or is it just a matter of opinion?

5 - How much more important should economic policy be to a voter than non-economic social issues?

I am confused and don't know how much weight I should give to the authors assertions on this point.

[lehighguy]

Never read the book, but I will try to answer some of the questions:

1) Debatable. I of course have my opinion on this, but it's still debatable. And there are many different policies.

2) Taxation, spending, trade, and entitlements. It should be noted there is little difference between the two parties in practice, they are all idiots, but there are differences in theory.

3) The average persons judgement has nothing to do with economic understanding. Studies could back that assertion up. The average person votes for a person for the same reasons they buy Coke over Pepsi, consumer appeal.

4) A lot of the big questions are matters of opinion. Like wether we want to maximize the pie or distribute it more equally. Do we want to tax income or property. Which government programs are essential and which aren't. What are "property rights". These are value judgements.

However, some ideas and policies are just plain stupid, like farm subsidies or minimum wage. People who support them do so to gain popularity or funding not because they are legitamate in any way.

5) You have to ask yourself, we all have an opinion on this one.

[MtSmalls]

To answer all of those questions might take the longest post ever in 2+2 forum, but I’ll try to be succinct. The first two questions are really the same question asked different ways. Primarily the historical position of the Democratic party has been to increase taxes on the upper income brackets and reduce or leave flat the middle and lower brackets. This would be more advantageous for the average person. It also tends in budgetary matters to be far more generous to social programs such as education and welfare than the Republican party. In terms of broad economic policy, the policy followed by the last three Republican adminstrations has been dominated by supply side economics. Basically, if you cut taxes on the wealthy and businesses, they will provide more jobs. The majority of economists believe, and the evidence of the last 25 years shows, that this is less simulative to the economy than a demand side push (creating jobs through government programs etc). Which policy is better for ‘blue collar’ workers is largely based on opinion. Given the results of the Reagan tax cuts, and most recently Bush II programs, I would say that the average American, regardless of his profession was better off during the Clinton years than he is today, or was 25 years ago. As to the final question, that would be up to each individual voter. There are an infinite number of issues out there (economic, social, political, international etc), and each voter has to decide which are most important to him. There are single issue voters in both political camps. The evangelical Christian is unlikely to ever vote for a Pro-Choice candidate, regardless of their stance on anything else (Watch the OH governors race next year for this one). There are Steel or Auto union members that will vote for the most pro-labor candidate, almost always a Democrat. There are many today who feel national security is the most important factor, and vote accordingly. Given the current state of the economy and the national Debt, my attention in the 2006 cycle is definitely going to be on the economic positions of the candidates.

[MelK]

Thanks for your replies, they were good. Considering the importance of this issue to people's lives, though, I am surprised that it is not a "sexy" enough topic for this forum to generate a lot of discussion. Oh well.

[superleeds]

... is negligible.

[Bez]

[ QUOTE ]
The average person votes for a person for the same reasons they buy Coke over Pepsi, consumer appeal.



[/ QUOTE ]

Coke tastes much better than Pepsi. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[jj_frap]

MelK, I read the book recently, and it's also important to note that the author discusses the effects of the Democrats' backing free trade agreements that destroyed good union jobs in Wichita and other blue collar communities in Kansas and throughout the U.S.

The author seems to feel that the Democrats have lost their way on economic issues and are not much better then the GOP in that regard, alienating blue collar workers and causing them to back the GOPdue to their pseudo-populist appeal to Christianity and wedge issues.

Thus, I feel that Frank is placing far more blame on the Democratic Party than you seem to suggest, and is more or less saying that these people no longer vote Democratic because the party, in his opinion, (and in mine as well, but that's besides point) should be representing their economic best interests but is not, allowing the GOP to fill the vacuum by catering to evangelical wedge issues while implementing (via the backdoor) even more destructive economic policies.

[FishHooks]

I kinda agree, I read about 2/3's of the book, I just couldn't read the rest didn't really like it. It's filled with many stores about his childhood, and who knows if their true or not. Regarding your Wichita comment, if I remember correctly he somehow blames the Republiancs for letting Boeing move their company from Witchita and really hurting that town back in the 80's.

He also says in the book he was a conservative in the Reagan area and talks a lot of about the Reagan conservatives who won the heart of America.

My review of the book would be that it wasn't great, he seemed like a smart guy in the first part of the book. However his stories just dragged on, because it seemed every topic related back to the same story about his childhood. There aren't many facts in the book, the book would seem to me that its more of a liberal casual read, not a book your going to find a lot of information in.

[adios]

Apparently CAFTA type issues are the one main difference even though Clinton pushed NAFTA. The Democrats are seeking higher marginal tax rates for higher wage earners and seek to reduce the marginal tax rates and/or eliminate the marginal tax rates of lower income earners. The Democrats consider wage earning households in excess of $200,000 per year to be wealthy also while I don't think the Republicans necessarily agree with that and/or they don't care about where the demarcation line is between wealthy and non wealthy.

[KDuff]

I also read the book. I found that it lacked rigor.

He assumed that most rational person from Kansas would vote Democrat-- based on class and economic reasons. Through his anecdotes he realizes that cultural considerations play a major part in the voting calculus. Although this goes beyond the scope of Kansas, I had hoped that he would give a strong economic case for the middle and upper classes (white collar?) to support the Democratic platform. His inability to prove the superiority of the Democrat's policies made his thesis difficult to accept. He spent too much time whining about cliched conspiracy theories of GOP tactics, instead of looking more at the growing policy divide between Kansans and Democrats.

Did it bother anyone else that he thought that since Kansas was a hotbed for radicalism in the 1890's and even earlier that contemporary Kansans were betraying historical precedent?