Bartels vs Frank

Although Thomas Frank seems to be a little bitter, I would definitely argue that he is right and Bartels is wrong. They both try to offer explanations for the “working class” voting Republican instead of their usual Democratic stance, but Bartels’ analysis is very narrow and close-minded.

The biggest problem with Bartels’ argument is his definition of the working class. As Frank’s rebuttal stated, Bartels’ definition of the working class is anyone with a household income below $35,000. This is not a good enough definition to make an analysis. What about the young professionals who are just starting out, or the people on disability or who are unemployed or who are retired or –hey!- who are students. To help refute Bartels’ definition, Frank goes on to explain that only one third of those he labels as “working class” are actually employed. Also, Bartels’ implies that when Frank considers the “working class” he is talking about whites only. And the fact that Bartels’ definition makes little sense completely discredits his entire argument.

As far as the 2008 election goes, this debate isn’t really salient anymore. The two debate why the poorer working class voted Republican. However, this past year, they leaned toward the Democratic Party, which basically makes the debate a moot point. Also, I do not think this switch in party partisanship is that shocking and monumental as is it portrayed. From election to election, what the people find most important changes. When the working class voted Republican, they were more concerned with moral decay, and the Republicans offered a better solution for them. This year, the main concerns were the economy, the environment, and the Iraq war, and the Democratic Party offered more enticing solutions. This switch in voting is something that has happened in the past and I presume, will continue to happen in the future.