I've seen many snarky tweets about this, but a few people are also calling for more of substantial critique. So I thought I'd offer some preliminary thoughts on this informed by western/social/political history. https://twitter.com/ecmaEditors/status/1305868975289532426

(I'm not going to summarize the article -- too much typing -- just going to get into the issues)

First, the paper makes little effort to distinguish between perception of what people did on the "frontier" (self-perceptions, mythology) and what they actually did. Did they oppose the redistribution of land, government intervention? Were they "anti-statists" against "big govt"?

You might think a paper focused on these questions would look at support for govt policy. Instead, it looks at evidence from "individualistic names." Okay, interesting, but maybe not the key measure? Let's just go through some policies that were pretty tied up in the "frontier."

It's hard (and perhaps crass) to put a figure on the redistribution of land from Native Americans to whites, but seems like it might have been the biggest redistribution of wealth in American history to me.

Did the "pioneers" insist on paying Uncle Sam for homesteaded land instead of getting a hand out? (No). Surely later on, after the original sin of redistribution they objected to the further loss of Indian land in the 20th c. through the Dawes Act, though right? (No).

No doubt they spurned the transcontinental railroads due to the give-aways of land they got? They refused to let them go through their settlements! (No).

What about big government intervention? Let's see, the military physically attacking, imprisoning people -- that seems like a pretty big intervention. Did the frontiersmen every suggest the US military do that on their behalf to quell the Indians? (Yes, all the time).

As individualists, these frontiersmen hated it when the government forcibly removed Indian children to boarding schools. Right? That seems like kind of a big government intervention. But there was a lot of frontier support for "killing the Indian' in this way, too

Into the 20th century: there was a lot of agriculture on the early frontier and a lot of these places remain agricultural. Did they object to massive public investments in irrigation and hydropower? To farm prices and price controls? I'd be surprised to find that.

I mean, I could go on. Other historians can add other examples. Turning more toward the present: Are many of these places with a lot of "frontier" experience really anti-statist? I'm going to guess that in most, there is lots of support for controlling women's reproduction.

How does the widespread support for federal public land in many previously "frontier" communities in the West square with frontier anti-statism?

Have these places generally been open drug legalization? Did they oppose prohibition? (My guess is this is a mixed bag. But it shouldn't be if they're "individualists" committed to a small state).

Do they strongly oppose immigration restrictions? I'm guessing no. And again we might want to look back at history: CA frontier settlements were some of the most vigorous supporters of draconian restrictions on Chinese (and other Asian) immigration (not to mention citizenship)

The name data is interesting. Perhaps it indicates something. But it seems more like it was used because it was data amenable to an econometric formula than because it is the most relevant data. It's clearly not.

None of which is to say that communities associated with the "frontier" might not have expressed anti-statist preferences in policies. It's just that: A) name data doesn't tell us that, and B) the whole approach is overly generous (and undertheorized) about the relationship b/w..

ideology (or political culture) and interests. This goes far beyond an occasional lapse of hypocrisy. Frontier communities and their successors invited/demanded some of the most biggest state projects in US history.

The fact that there is little relationship between party politics and "frontier" communities is, at least, something that should require more explanation. To be sure, ideology and party politics aren't necessarily the same.

But one would expect more digging in to election platforms and coalitions than we see here if you want to suss out the roots and branches of political culture.

Their method oddly excludes much of the interior American West "island frontiers." Much of this would probably have a high "total frontier experience" score, which would yield some interesting questions about political history.

For example, large parts of remote eastern Montana was "red" -- meaning communist, not Republican. While the currently extremely conservative state of Oklahoma was once a socialist stronghold, with some of its rural counties voting over 50% socialist.

Missoula county, would have had a very high "total frontier experience" by my calculation (40-50 years on a scale that goes to 63). Missoula elected a socialist municipal government in the 1910s. And is now quite liberal.

Which brings up yet another problem with theory: it's failure to present a compelling mechanism for the strong transfer of political culture at the very local level in light of the massive mobility of Americans over the centuries.

Are people that live in Missoula now, for example, most of whom weren't born here really more influenced by the political culture of the Missoulians of the 19th century than the political culture they grew up in?

You can ask this question about virtually any of these places, and particularly about the American West which has seen numerous waves of in and out migration over time.

Anyway... that's all for now!