By Steve Lickteig, executive producer
I grew up in Kansas during the “Let’s Make America Great Again” Reagan years. Kansans, in general, were big fans of President Reagan, despite economic policies that many would argue hurt a majority of its rural, middle-class citizens, including my parents. But, back then, Republicanism in Kansas grew from a different seed than it does today. It was more the party of pragmatism and less the party of religion and morality, although both were part of the mix. But for my parents, and most other Kansans, to be Republican was to be a hard worker, not someone who concerned themselves with the personal business of others. Kansas today doesn’t resemble that Kansas much anymore, and it doesn’t come close to the Kansas of 100 years ago. It’s easy to forget that Kansas was founded as a free state, filled with staunch abolitionists and social progressives, who even elected the first female mayor in the nation in 1887. By all accounts, Kansas was once considered a place ahead of its time.
On this weekend’s show, Bob talks with Joe Winston and Thomas Frank about the documentary What’s the Matter With Kansas? (Winston directed the film based on Thomas Frank’s 2004 book.) The film examines the people who make up the “new” Kansas, a place that a Kansan of the late 1800’s would probably find hard to understand today.
What’s the Matter With Kansas? is currently playing in select cities around the country. To find out where and to see a trailer, go to the film’s website.
With a title like "What’s The Matter with…?" the film is setting itself up to add fuel to the already so-polarized firey state of politics in our country today. A totyle lioke that may be what draws some viewers looking for an exciting political cat fight, brawl or pissing contest, but, c’mon – it’s intended to rile people up, and exploit the already over-the-top fears, mis-conceptions and stereotypes that each faction has about the other. The title is similar to the "World Wrestling" kind of hype. Many political junkies of every persuasion live for just that adrenalin surge, just like sports fans. It may make for exciting, sports-like, sensationalized entertainment, but it also lowers the bar for serious, in-depth documentary filmmaking. The really important question to ask after seeing the entire film will be: "Does it help advance our understanding of the issues that polarize us as a nation, or is it just intended to exploit that divide for notariety, attention or profit?" Granted, most documentaries seldom turn a profit.
Of course, everything I’ve just written is based on the interview I heard and the excerpts form the film I’ve seen on the film’s website. It may be that the full-length film goes into more depth, and by letting the people speak for themselves, gives the viewer a better understanding of what they believe what they believe.
The first comment posted was a defensive response from a (self-described) proud, conservative, independently-minded Kansan, who felt like the film was a set-up to make his home state a target of "liberal socialists" – again, another stereotype. From what I saw, the filmmakers just let people speak for themselves. Classic liberals and socialists are two very different political species. The second commenter believes that the filmmakers sought to gain the confidence of their
subjects only to ridicule them. This just shows the commenter’s own fear that there is a hidden agenda of ridicule behind the filmmakers’ motives. People are often suspicious of agendas and motives, especially of others who are "not from around here", and who come in to make a movie about a place that is not their home. Locals can be wary of such situations. Polarization and stereotyping breeds fear of the outsider, of those who are different, and who are seen as troublemakers.
The trouble with polarization (more than with Kansas) is that it reduces everything to over-simplified black-and-white, "with-us-or-against-us", "we’re all good, you’re all-wrong" knee-jerk reactionary epithets. That is the kind of dangerous non-thinking that totalitarian regimes count on to build their base of support. We need more reflection, more listening to what each faction is really saying, and understanding what each others’ fears are based on, if we, as a nation, are ever to reconcile and get last our differences to be able to work together to improve our relations with each other and make our country better. It seems like not many are ready or willing to do that today. I recommend reading the book, "The Soul of a Citizen" (revised 2010) by Paul Loeb. What it has to offer has been embraced by people of all different political perspectives.
Bob, you kept asking "What’s the matter with Kansas?", but the documentarians never did give an answer. It appears they set out to win the confidence of people like Reverend Fox, who they intended to ridicule, and that was the only intent of their film. Never did hear a cogent reason why Kansas is different than it was 100 years ago. When you asked if they tracked down descendants of radicals of the early 20th Century it was apparent they made no effort, and cared little about research.
Whats the matter with Kansas? Listened to the Broadcast this morning and it would seem to be a rhetorical question. Whats the matter with Kansas? It would appear not much. Good hard working people, sound basic societal values. One aspect of our history left out of the narrative was that we were known as "Bloody Kansas" prior to and after the Civil War, in point of fact Kansas actually was the beginning of that most tragic era of history. There were two State Governments, one pro Southern and one pro Union. We were a border state torn asunder by derisive factions. Being a Kansan I am proud of our State, our people, our values, and our way of life. Being a functional conservative, and independently minded, it appears make us an easy target for liberal socialist. Whats the matter with Kansas? Not much.