Email This Story

Recipient's Email:
Sender's Email:
captcha a873d89f587d4ea9b43d490c88c36336
Enter text seen above:

What's the matter?

What's the matter?

In "What's the Matter with Kansas," Thomas Frank explained clearly and persuasively a fact that the vast majority of Kansas' voters are notoriously predictable. The vast majority of Kansas' voters including the rural farm sector in three of the state's congressional districts elect "blundering and corrupt" politicians, with two urban areas doing much the same. Those elected govern in favor of the wealthiest 1 percent (read Bank of America, "bye-bye" Boeing, Koch Industries, etc.).

Kansas exists no where in the vicinity of Wall Street. Yet in Kansas, exactly like Wall Street and D.C., large corporate and banking interests act only in contempt for Kansas' vast majority of struggling and working-class citizens. And it is the same elected politicians who are willingly manipulated and controlled by the 1 percent that Kansas' voters will continue to elect and support year after year; election after election.

The vast majority of Kansas voters have common roots in the Kansas heritage of free homesteads, large free-range grasslands, historic trails changed into superhighways, hundreds of small towns and counties, local post offices and mail delivery, hundreds of local public schools and regional colleges, precious ground and surface water resources, constant and predictable prevailing winds, and crude oil and natural gas reserves, all exploited by the 1 percent when they should be maintained as available for the common good and public interests of all Kansans.

A current example is that the corrupt interests among those elected, and influenced by the 1 percent minority are trying to restructure the Kansas voters to provide corrupt control and security for the immediate future political election outcomes. Will Kansas voters concede again? Will new voting blocs be determined for the purpose of politics and not for the purpose of the Kansas "community interest and congruence" that is required by law?

A good and most recent evidence regarding Tom Frank's claims about Kansas' voters has been demonstrated by Michaela A. Smith and colleagues in the College of Political Science at Emporia State University. The college created a program model for establishing "congruent and common interest voter districts," that challenges existing legislative and political committee proposals for creating those same required voting districts. "The novice did better than the elected" -- not at all unpredictable and much less corrupted.

While it is in the public interest and common good, such an outcome won't be allowed by the corrupt politicians. But sadly and predictably, Kansas voters will re-elect the same old corrupt politicians again next election. That is "What's the Matter with Kansas."

Another basis alleged for control and manipulation in Kansas elections are the false claims about too many Kansas voters cheating. And the corrupt remedy already adopted will be to deny the right of voting among identifiable sub-groups through the establishment of voter regulations and control.

Because all this corruption may even include the aforementioned D.C., with a little more work Thomas Frank could make a good case for "The Wrecking Crew."

Bob White