On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, JBrown72073 at cs.com wrote:
>> If it was, then everything would fit perfectly. Everyone would be voting
>> rationally (as statistically collective masses, if not as individuals).
>> And the Franks puzzle would not only be solved, but would contribute to
>> confirming the oldest assertion in the mainstream sociological book: that
>> status varies independently of class, and can't be reduced to it.
>
> Except it leaves the mystery of (1) why anyone in the lower 90% of income
> votes for Bush and (2) why people vote at all.
True enough, they don't address that at all. In fact in some ways, this question seems more related to the Bartels thread about Homer Gets A Tax Cut, which provides one of the main answers to (1): Most people are unbelievably clueless as to how economic policy effects them -- even when it's a very direct effect, like their tax burden. On this basis, the mystery is rather why voters are collectively as rational as they are about economic affairs.
As to (2), I think there are two main explanations. The first set is composed of all the ritual, duty, and collective identity ideas. People do it because they think they ought to. And the other is constrained choice. People don't expect much from it, but it doesn't cost much from them. They want change, so they give it a try. Partially on the reasoning that it can't hurt, partially because it cheers them up to feel it's not hopeless. Admitting there was nothing they could do would depress them.
I also think many people who enjoy bitching about politics vote because it's paradoxically easier than not voting. If you're politically vocal, and you don't vote, you're regularly asked defend your action. (It's that "oughtness" thing. You're violating mores.) Which admittedly, some people do with relish. But it takes effort. And you rarely need to defend your action when you vote. So surprisingly, it ends up being the path of least resistance.
> I still think Frank is essentially right when he says that the Democrats
> could do a lot better among the U.S. working class if they weren't
> Republicans light on economic issues.
The funny thing is, nobody argues with that. You don't need Frank's argument to make that case. IMHO, Bartel's analyses actually makes the point better. On his analysis, the Dems have a strong base that is underrepresented and they should rally them. And that the way to their hearts is more progressive economics.
In some ways, Bartel's analysis is a lot cheerier. He says that middle and upper income voters pay relatively less attention to economic issues and more to social issues. And they are more progressive on social issues. And lower income voters pay relatively more attention to economic issues. And they are more progressive on economic issues. So that means the Dems could attract more upper income voters by being more progressive on social issues, and more lower income voters by being more progressive on economic issues. On his analysis, being more progressive in both ways would actually be more effective than being progressive in one way and not the other. Because of the differential importance, you would attract more than you would drive away.
Frank's analysis on the other hand puts social and economic progressivism in contradiction. In fact, one of the worst things about Franks analysis is the extent to which is seems to support the hoary old idea that we have to make a choice, and that choice should be to de-emphacize (divisive, epiphenomenal) cultural identity issues -- like gay rights and women's rights -- and return to (unifying, real) economic politics.
Michael