The Right Talk: How Conservatives Transformed the Great Society into the Economic Society.

• Author: Morris, Ric
• Position: Critical essay

The Right Talk: How Conservatives Transformed the Great Society into the Economic Society. By Mark A. Smith. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007; pp. 267. $29.95 cloth.

Mark Smith's agenda is broad: to demonstrate that the political trend favoring conservatives over the past few decades is related substantially to conservative rhetoric capturing the economy as an issue for the Republican Party. Although alternative explanations, such as the positions of both major parties on security and cultural issues, are not disproven, Smith provides considerable evidence that economic appeals are, at minimum, an important part of the picture.

Smith explicitly disputes Thomas Franks' argument, in What's the Matter with Kansas?, that conservatives have used cultural issues as bait to build an electoral majority and then switched to promoting the economic interests of a wealthy minority after securing election. Rather than treating Republican strategy as a lure, enticing people to vote against their self interest, Smith's book argues that economic appeals are central to Republican successes. It isn't clear that these claims are truly incommensurate: it may be that economic appeals keep Republicans competitive while the cultural angle seals the victory. Smith's evidence does not directly refute those who claim that cultural conservatives, who stayed home in 2000 but voted for Bush in 2004, swung the election. But it does suggest that cultural matters may not have been the primary factor.

The book assumes that public opinion influences how elites' preferences are shaped into rhetoric that builds coalitions and promotes policy change. Particular emphasis is paid to framing, which Smith defines as the "selective presentation by a communication source of certain aspects of an issue, problem, or event" (30-31). Implicitly, one frame's success necessarily weakens or even displaces competing frames. This orientation grounds Smith's refutation of Franks. Smith undoubtedly is correct that even minor differences in the framing of public policy questions can influence public interpretation and understanding, which feed back into policy outcomes by rewarding political actors. He employs a variety of methods, including content analysis and rhetorical analysis, depending on the requirements of his data.

Smith also posits that elites may counter unfavorable frames by reprioritizing (raising a different agenda item), reframing (shifting the focus of arguments...