Dec 22, 2005
the good kind of quarrel
Or mostly, anyway. You can now read a .pdf essay in which Thomas Frank responds to Larry Bartels's critique of What's the Matter with Kansas. (For links to Bartels and summaries of Bartels and various elements of the WMK debate, see the introductory sentence here.)
Frank argues Bartels's definition of class at some length. He concludes by saying that if Bartels's paper is the whole story, then there is nothing to explain about what he calls, variously,"right-wing populism" or"working-class conservatism" and I am sympathetic to his suggestion that there most certainly is.
Frank doesn't explain why Kansas is a particularly good state to examine (it has not just gone Republican, and if it has just gone a particular shade of Republican it would be perhaps more telling to analyze states where there have been more obvious shifts), and maybe he should.
But I mention this not because of the substance of the argument -- though the substance interests me -- but because there is substance in the argument between the two.
It's true, the quarreling parties do not universally observe the Tawney principle. Frank indulges what he calls his"fondness for sarcasm", and he points out in a footnote that Bartels has not been 100 percent gracious in his criticism either. But mainly they're arguing the actual data and the actual issues. Neither argues that he wouldn't like the consequences of his critic's argument being true, or that he doesn't like his critic's friends. They argue the points at issue.
This is the kind of argument that leads to better understanding of substantial issues. It's the kind of argument after which, even if it turns out both parties have been wrong, and even if they've been more wrong than right, each can properly claim to have advanced our understanding of the subject for having pressed their claims. It's the kind of argument that is a credit to its participants, and to the audience they address.
Frank argues Bartels's definition of class at some length. He concludes by saying that if Bartels's paper is the whole story, then there is nothing to explain about what he calls, variously,"right-wing populism" or"working-class conservatism" and I am sympathetic to his suggestion that there most certainly is.
Frank doesn't explain why Kansas is a particularly good state to examine (it has not just gone Republican, and if it has just gone a particular shade of Republican it would be perhaps more telling to analyze states where there have been more obvious shifts), and maybe he should.
But I mention this not because of the substance of the argument -- though the substance interests me -- but because there is substance in the argument between the two.
It's true, the quarreling parties do not universally observe the Tawney principle. Frank indulges what he calls his"fondness for sarcasm", and he points out in a footnote that Bartels has not been 100 percent gracious in his criticism either. But mainly they're arguing the actual data and the actual issues. Neither argues that he wouldn't like the consequences of his critic's argument being true, or that he doesn't like his critic's friends. They argue the points at issue.
This is the kind of argument that leads to better understanding of substantial issues. It's the kind of argument after which, even if it turns out both parties have been wrong, and even if they've been more wrong than right, each can properly claim to have advanced our understanding of the subject for having pressed their claims. It's the kind of argument that is a credit to its participants, and to the audience they address.