Frank on Culture War

Thomas Frank, the author, most recently, of What's the Matter with Kansas? is doing a stint at the editorial page of the NYT. He's just posted a doozy of a piece (subscription required). A snippet:

The culture war will remain with us, both in Kansas and in the nation, because it is larger than any of its leaders, larger than its legions of citizen activists, larger even than the particular causes in which these forces are enlisted. Seen from the streets of Wichita, the rightist rebellion of Kansas seems to fulfill that most romantic of American political traditions: the uprising of the little guy.

To the faithful, theirs is a war against “elites,” and, with striking regularity, that means a war against the professions. The anti-abortion movement, for example, dwells obsessively on the villainy of the medical establishment. The uproar over the liberal media, a popular delusion going on 40, is a veiled reaction to the professionalization of journalism. The war on judges, now enjoying a new vogue, is a response to an imagined “grab for legislative power” (as one current Kansas campaign mailing puts it) by unelected representatives of the legal profession. And the attack on evolution, the most ill-conceived thrust of them all, is a direct shot at the authority of science and, by extension, at the education system, the very foundation of professional expertise.

Sometimes this is right out in the open. At one point in Kansas’ endless slugfest over curriculum, the conservative-dominated school board appointed a state schools chief with virtually no experience in education. Moderates erupted in fury. Returning their fire, one member of the Kansas Senate declared that the mere fact that “the elitists in Kansas today” — meaning, apparently, “education insiders” and prominent suburban lawyers — opposed this fellow made him “the perfect man for this job.”

Frank continues with an observation about the mildness of the moderate opposition to this attack on expertise. It's difficult, though, to see what the alternative might be. To be stridently against those who think they are an oppressed minority is to reinforce their impression. Of course, ignoring them has the same effect. This poses a deep problem about the very nature of democracy that is no less bearing on the issues I've previously raised about exceptionalism (see here and here). In a future post, I'll outline some connections.