Frank, (in “Class Dismissed”) points to Bartels’ methodological approach to illuminate his research errors. The one I find most convincing is his discussion of defining “working class”. Bartels suggests that should be defined as “people with family incomes in the b
ottom third of the income distribution”. But on top of that, Frank points out that Bartels “brushes off” other ways to determine working-class including (subjective) self-identification; mainly because he claims people cannot be trusted to accurately classify their own class. But also doesn’t present the data for self-identification because if he did, it would negate his argument. By omitting the results he leaves out an important finding. Those who self-identified with the working class voted for Bush over Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.If Bartels wants to eliminate the usage of subjective measures, then he should do so throughout his research, but he doesn’t. He later uses self-identification measures to establish religious-ness and liberal/conservativeness. Frank argues especially with religion that people commonly lie. Bartels should either consistently omit self-identification measures or consistently include them. The key word here is consistency.
The 2008 election does not affect my view on this debate. The reason for this debate in the first place is the ongoing control of government (the presidency) by Republicans. Since Barack Obama won the contest, I do not find the arguments in this debate to be relevant. Possibly, the “working class” voted Republican in the past election, but since Obama was elected, I find this debate to have little importance. If John McCain had won, perhaps the election would further support Frank’s argument.
I agree with you in the fact that the points for Bartels and Frank make do not support the 2008 elections. This election was so different from any other just by the candidates, it is hard to classify it as simmilar to any other election.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the numbers for Kansas, ( as on the CNN exit polls for 2008 Presidential election) it does appear that Frank's analysis held true for his home state. It could be that the Republicans will end up only with the Great Plains and the South to count on.
ReplyDeleteMaybe 2008 will be the start of a long term shift nationally. Of course, Bill Clinton beat a Republican candidate in a bad economy 17 years ago, only to have the GOP come back pretty strong two years later. It may be that outside of the Republican core states that neither party can take the "working class" for granted; I think the "working class" may be more thoughtful than either Bartels or Frank gives them credit for.
I really like your argument that Bartel left out information with self identification because it would have shown that those identifying themselves as "working class" voted for Bush. It was something I overlooked. But i too, see that Frank's argument was more convincing. It shows how data can be skewed to argue an argument.
ReplyDeleteFor the 2008 election, I believe that people were just tired of the same old Republican regime in the White House. It might not show that this trend has come to an end, but only the future will show that. I think it was people who were tired of the same old thing and wanted someone new. Looking back the idea of "change," was used by both candidates. But there will always be people who will vote by their moral beliefs, and if that means they vote opposite to their economic benefits, well thats up to them.
I find your arguement pursuasive, but comparing measures of class identification and religiosity is different. How besides self-reporting could we measure religiosity?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete