Populism In Traditional Politics

Inconveniencing Traditional Politics
Fundamentally, in the United States there are two parties and ideologies attached to them. The Democrats represent the left: stalwart vanguards of progressivism that put the working-class ahead of the corporate overlords, and defend the minorities from the majority. The Republicans represent the right: traditionalists who cling to the ideals of small government, individualism, and personal liberty. In theory then, it should be easy to place the supporters of these groups at either end of the political spectrum, but as Frank points out in What’s the Matter with Kansas?, “Nearly everyone has a conversion story they can tell: how their dad had been a union steelworker and stalwart Democrat, but how all their

brothers and sisters started voting Republican” (Frank, 3). Clearly, over time the Republicans and Democrats have swapped places in political ideology, and the people involved have too. Frank argues based on Kansas that there is a backlash mentality driving people to vote against liberal elites, and that the working class are voting on value issues rather than economic ones. Essentially, people are looking for outsiders to lead them, regardless of whether or not their political policies actually benefit them.
There is an element of truth to what Frank describes as the “Great Backlash,” however I believe that certain trends are likely to remain the same. For instance, in the past few decades Americans with a history of voting for Democrats or Republicans are unlikely to change their mind on a whim (Bartels, 66). On the other hand, the effect of political dark horses like Donald Trump in the Republican primary cannot be underestimated. Trump is possibly closer to the image of the great backlash than any Republican candidate since Reagan, but of course lacks any government experience. As for the elites, I argue that there are elites on both sides of the aisle that the current backlash fights against, since many Americans dreaded a Bush v. Clinton election this year. Obviously, that did not happen, and instead the populism behind “main street” this year will either bolster Trump or Clinton. Ultimately, I agree with Frank on many points, but would like to expand on some of his thoughts on value issues and anti-elitism.
Typically, when Americans think of the geographic political divides, they point towards the coasts as liberal strongholds and draw red across the “Bible Belt” southern states. A liberal must come from New York City or the surrounding area, carrying Starbucks coffee and a Macbook Pro with an attached “Ready for Hillary” sticker, while a conservative is viewed as a grey-bearded truck driver blasting the national anthem with a “Make America Great Again” hat on. This perception, while not perfect, explains portions of the disconnect that both liberals and conservatives have for one another. Though people would imagine the poorest county in America to be in Appalachia or the Deep South, Frank writes that “It is on the Great Plains, a region of struggling ranchers and dying farm towns, and in the election of 2000 the Republican candidate for president, George W. Bush, carried it by a majority of greater than 80%” (Frank, 1). Perhaps what Bush promised to the poorest Americans was hope, despite trends showing that “Republican economic policy laid waste to the city’s industries, unions, and neighborhoods, the townsfolk responded by lashing out on cultural issues” (Frank, 4). Although it would be unwise in a conventional situation to trust an employee with a task after said employee failed, in the case of Kansas the people chose to scapegoat their problems to culture, which is out of the government’s hands. The effect, as Frank argues, is “a movement whose response to the power structure is to make the rich even richer; whose answer to the inexorable degradation of working-class life is to lash out angrily at labor unions and liberal workplace-safety programs; whose solution to the rise of ignorance in America is to pull the rug out from under public education” (Frank, 7). Because of this, it becomes clear that people are voting against their own self-interests, and allowing themselves to be taken advantage of by their “anti-establishment” politicians. Overall, Frank’s explanation of why people would vote against their own self-interest is tied back to the idea of value issues, but it doesn’t entirely explain why people would not see the cause-effect relationship with electing Republicans that ultimately fail them.
To a certain extent, the anti-establishment rhetoric can be explained by the influence of populism in Kansas, and America at large.

For instance, in Kansas Politics and Government: The Clash of Political Cultures, it’s explained that “Evil institutions, external forces, ‘the system,’ the establishment, or some alliance of government and business are likely to be blamed when things go wrong” (Flentje, Aistrup, 4). With Kansas’ early beginnings, the state was flooded with new people and industry from the East, and eventually gave way to a self-interested individualism that led to populist sentiments (Flentje, Aistrup, 5). Keeping this in mind, it’s easy to see the correlation between populism and anti-establishment messages. Kansas was where “A populist political party, […] emerged in the 1890s to voice farmer’s disgruntlement and to challenge Republican hegemony in Kansas,” which allowed for the possibility of filling the state with populist politicians (Flentje, Aistrup, 8). In the original What’s the Matter with Kansas? by William Allen White, he expresses discontent for the political elite being elected: “We have raked the old ash heap of a failure in the state and found an old human hoop skirt who has failed as a businessman, who has failed as a preacher, and we are going to run him for Congressman-at-Large. He will help the looks of the Kansas delegation at Washington.” (White). By Kansas’ nature, the people are steered away from the political elite, and often demand justice for their perceived injustices. The same farmers who “demanded justice, an end to economic and political inequities,” in the 1890s put forth Williams Jennings Bryan in order to avoid the Gold Standard, which would have hurt farming prices (Flentje, Aistrup, 8). Though Bryan was unable to win the presidency, the influence of Populism stemming from Kansas continues to make a significant effect on the state and its people. Perhaps this is why the people of Kansas prefer politicians that seem

to represent them, rather than Ivy-league educated Washington elites. By extension, the American people are also tired of seeing the same kind of candidates churned out by the political establishment, and begin to see the appeal of political dark horses like Trump or Sanders despite their vastly different messages.