What's the Matter With Obama Supporters?

While Mrs. Miller occasionally indulges her guilty pleasure of following celebrities (at right, her favorite dress from this year's Oscars), one of my vices is following the law-gossip blog Above the Law (even further right, my pick for best dressed).

Anyway, last week an AtL post caught my eye: Obama, BigLaw, and Taxes (Or: Obama = $34,000 Paycut) As the title suggests, the post calculates the stiff tax increase an associate at a big firm would face under an Obama administration. But despite the fact that theseattorneys have a reputation of greedily jumping to whichever firm pays the most, a vast majority them are Obama supporters. What gives?

A few years ago, I stumbled over a book called What's the Matter With Kansas by Thomas Frank. The book's basic premise was that evil Republican strategists (often named Rove) had tricked working-class Kansans (and other middle Americans) to vote against their economic interests. Frank doesn't bother considering other explanations; after all, doesn't everyone know that those hillbillies are stupid?

Maybe it's cause I spent some of my childhood in southwest Missouri a couple hours from the Kansas border (I even attended the Walnut Valley Festival in Winfield once), but I can think of two other good explanations. First, I'd bet that there are many conservative Kansans whom would rather not "take from the rich and give to the poor" even when they are the poor. These folks would consider that practice to be "stealing." But even beyond that, I am certain that many Americans care about unborn babies, traditional marriage, national security, and a host of other issues more than their direct economic self-interest. But Mr. Frank, blinded by his Marxist-materialistic orthodoxy, just assumes that they've all been duped!

I wonder what Mr. Frank would say about these Obama-supporting lawyers? Would he berate them for allowing themselves to be duped by David Axelrod (Obama's Rove) and Will.i.am? It's probably safe to say, he wouldn't. He'd be quick to point out that they either think their taxes should be higher or that Obama's positions on other issues are worth taking a financial hit. 

All I am trying to say is that there's nothing "the matter" with Obama-supporting lawyers. They plan on voting for the candidate that best represents their values (I just happen to radically disagree with those values). I guess the real question is what's the matter with Mr. Frank that he can't give conservative Kansans the benefit of the doubt?