|
Hippocrates can kiss my health-care-providing butt.
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Frank built his entire thesis by assuming that he knew what people should hold as valuable, and then showing that they are irrational in their voting patterns because their votes don't actually give them what they hold as valuable.
His mistake was his underlying assumptions. He just seems incapable of believing that people's moral and philosophical beliefs could be a source of value higher than economic self-interest.
|
This is a good example of why you shouldn't describe books you haven't read.* From Frank's media blitzkreig and the start of the book, I can understand why you might think that this is true, but if you were to actually read it you would discover that he drops this "thesis" fairly quickly and has quite a bit of narrative describing, e.g., interviews with the wingnut leaders of Kansas, many of whom he seems to have some respect for.
And you're not even describing the thesis very well. I don't think Frank says that voters should value their economic interests above their cultural interests -- I think he's explaining/marvelling that they do, and upset that the Democratic Party often doesn't seem to get this. I think he feels that it's a failure on the Democrats' part to speak to their economic interests that led people to become radicalized.
* For another, unrelated example, see James Wolcott ripping Richard Cohen a new one.
edited to add a thought
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Last edited by Tyrone Slothrop; 09-17-2004 at 01:21 PM..
|
