Voting! It's what's for dinner!

Jonah Goldberg, in his column today, takes on a spate of recent books about voting patterns.

The big book is, of course, "What's the Matter with Kansas" in which Thomas Frank criticizes the people of Kansas's choice to vote against what he considers their economic interest. For a good and somewhat critical review of the book, check out this article at Salon. He also takes on an article by Mr. Larry Bartels that suggests that many Americans are like Homer Simpson, voting for a big tax cut for Mr. Burns because taxes are too high, even though Simpson himself won't ever get a tax cut.

Both these arguments, as Mr. Goldberg points out, assumes that cultural issues are unimportant compared to economic issues. "People vote - or at least should vote - based upon the kind of country they want their kids to live in. And that means they vote on more issues than narrow economic interest, however defined."

Well and good, and I happen to think that a consideration of social issues has it's place in deciding who to vote for. What Mr. Goldberg won't touch, however, is the relative importance the Bush Presidency places on those issues. After four years of the Bush Presidency, the wealthy who supported him have had their economic needs met and then some. They've received massive tax cuts (and the promise of future tax cuts), weakened Government regulatory power, an impotent Environmental Protection Agency, no crackdown on offshore banking, and so on and so forth. The only major economic goal President Bush hasn't delivered good progress on is drilling in ANWR.

Meanwhile on the social side of the net, President Bush has managed to get some extremist judges put on the bench (although it should be noted that such judges are as determined to protect big business as they are to end abortion). And he has done some faith based initiatives. And he's talked about supporting an marriage protection act. Oh and the stem cells; he's conflicted about them.

So personally I have to wonder if the people of Kansas who are voting on these big social issues are getting a lot of bang for their buck? As compared to, say, the wealthy and the corporations who support President Bush. A more cynical man than myself might make reference, once again, to the old bait and switch.

Jonah Goldberg also seems a bit conflicted on whether people should vote or not. Early in his article he makes the statement, ". . . I'm the sort of curmudgeon who thinks voting should be more difficult and there should be less of it." That statement puts Mr. Goldberg in an interesting quandary; he is chiding the Democrats for not trusting the people to vote their interests while admitting that he doesn't entirely trust the people to vote for their interests.