What Did Speckie Do?

In our reading we have been examining the arguments presented by Morris Fiorina, and comparing it to the one presented by Thomas Frank in his book, 'What's the Matter with Kansas?' The central theme of the discussion is Fiorina asserts that the major points of contention in American politics are socially rooted and not economic. This contrasts sharply with Frank's book, because frank examines the takeover of the south by the republican party, and asserts that the economically challenged farmers were duped by the GOP's stance on social issues and subsequently convinced into voting for a party that would be against their economic interest. As we can see here, these two authors disagree at a fundamental level what politics stems from. this is not by any means a complete summary of the two arguments - as you can imagine they are far more detailed. Since this week's incarnation of class focuses more on Fiorina, he will get the attention.

With regard to Arlen Specter I think his party hopping implies that elites are not as polarized as we had once thought but are primarily focused with getting re-elected. Fiorina would say that Specter and his constituents are so rooted in their social ideals that they see a shift in the way that the parties define themselves, justifying the jump. Aldrich would say that the policy plans of the democrats made the switch more viable because it made economic sense to the median voter in Specter's district. In the end i think that this kind of activity really is an outlier and that the reality is that the parties are very polarized. In addition, ifthe parties were not then we might see more switches? who can say? I am just postulating