Adjudicating the dispute between Bartels and Frank

Thomas Frank, the author of "Lie Down for America," claims that some people in the electorate are simply voting wrong. Why would people in lower income districts support the GOP, a party that traditionally supports deregulation and corporate welfare? The argument is rather compelling. He goes on to claim that the Republicans use moral conservatism to vote against their economic self-interest. Frank makes a series of generalizations in an effort to understand why people vote for a party that overall does not have their best interest in mind. Overall, he claims that the GOP portrays itself as a party for "normal people" and Democrats as "the party of a wealthy, pampered, arrogant elite that lives as far as it can from real Americans." This is the beginning of deep partisan divides which split the country into "two Americas."

Included in his argument are generalizations regarding the people with "red state" mentality, and how they are viewed amongst themselves: they are humble, reverent, courteous, kind and cheerful, loyal, and a regular "down-home working stiff." But more than anything, they have a tendency to be immune to class, in that they see past class division, which is a strong reason for their support of a party that does not seem to represent their problems they face in day-to-day life. One point that had been made in the past is that people who live in rural area, such as Kansas, vote Republican even though the party does not seem to represent them because they have worked hard for everything they have, and do not like the "handout" policies of the Democratic party. Economic policies are becoming less important in the eyes of the voters, and this is the cause for the lower income demographics supporting the GOP. More than economics are "values." These values only matter because the Democratic Party "has either largely accepted the conservative economic agenda or is perceived to have largely accepted the conservative economic agenda. Either way, economic issues are effectively removed from the table, and social issues are highlighted. This is important because economic issues are the area where working-class voters are historically most liberal."

However, Bartels argues that Frank's generalizations are wrong, and that the people who vote for the GOP are not "voting wrong" at all. He is troubled by Frank's claim that its "Democrats that are the party of workers, of the poor, of the weak and the victimized." Additionally, he takes aim at Frank's claim that  “sturdy blue-collar patriots,” “small farmers,” “devoted family men,” and “working-class guys in midwestern cities” are all contributing their share to this “panorama of madness and delusion”. This "delusion" is the GOP actually taking care of the people who vote for them, since the party consists mainly of "lawyers, millionaires, and Harvard grads pushing an agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, free trade and corporate welfare."

Bartles points out that most of Frank's claim is about white working class people, not taking into account other demographics that may be affected by the same problems. To Bartles, this creates a distorted picture of the electorate, and weakens Frank's argument. He claims that there is actually an increase among working class whites for the Democratic party. "Since 1976, Democratic presidential candidates have received 50% of the votes from the lower-income segment of Frank’s white working class, 43% from the middle-income segment, and 35% from the upper-income segment." Bartles states that material economic circumstances play an even larger role in voter decision and affiliation than in the past. More than anything "the overall decline in Democratic support among voters in Frank’s white working class over the past half-century is entirely attributable to the demise of the Solid South as a bastion of Democratic allegiance."  When addressing these "values" that are so salient among the electorate, "these comparisons make it clear that, whatever Frank’s observations may suggest, the growing importance of social issues in American electoral politics over the past 20 years is mostly not a working-class phenomenon." When comparing issue by issue, cultural wedge issues generally do not seem to have been more potent among Frank’s working-class white voters than among better-educated white voters.

Overall, the arguments made by Bartles are rather compelling. However, Frank makes generalizations that were not necessarily rectified by Bartles. It is still questionable as to why rural low-income populations vote for Republicans when the party platform has close to no interest for their better interest. The only answer is that the voters are tricked into voting GOP by the use of divisive wedge issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Using these "values" techniques, the GOP is able to siphon working class people who should be voting for the Democratic Party. This most certainly played into the 2008 election cycle, when the GOP attempted to appeal to "real Americans" by campaigning in these rural areas and attempting to paint Barack Obama as "un-American." Although a state such as Indiana, which is ripe with working-class people, vote for the Democratic Party, a rural state such as Kansas or Oklahoma still maintained to vote for the GOP.

This is a situation that warrants further study, in that certain members of the electorate seem to be making decisions based on something outside of party platform. There is a good section of the voting block that is looking outside of what the party will deliver. Although the GOP trumpets wedge issues in order to wrangle "values voters," something must be done to show them that the GOP does not have their best interest in heart. The Republican Party, especially in 2004, made a series of empty promises based on "values" in an effort to gain the support of its evangelical base, such as pushing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. How would such an issue as this be more important than the economy, health care, education, employment, or national security? Additionally, does the "tough guy" image the GOP campaigned on in 2004 resonate with voters in any way? 2008 was much different than elections of the past, due to changing tides in national political philosophy, but the GOP still maintained to go after the "values voters" in which Frank describes. Between the two men, Frank's argument is correct, and much more compelling.