A few weeks back, I wrote a post on the politics of organized labor -- a post that was fundamentally about how political power is wielded through both both the carrot of reward and the stick of punishment. Same thing for the converse: If you only use the carrot -- or worse, if you hand over the carrot without something in return -- you incinerate whatever political power you have, as politicians will know they never have to do anything you ask.
This is not some great revelation -- it's about as rudimentary a political principle as there is. Which is why it's truly stunning to see that some top professional labor leaders in Washington -- i.e. people paid lots of hard-earned union dues to engineer political strategy for labor union members -- either A) don't seem to understand this idea, or B) refuse to understand it out of a corrupt willingness to sell out labor union members on behalf of these leaders' partisan affinities and/or their personal loyalty to cronies inside the Establishment Democratic Party.
We saw this here in Colorado when the AFL-CIO responded to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet's opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act - ie. labor's top legislative priority - by loyally restating its lockstep support for Bennet and by then insisting that EFCA was suddenly a "non-issue" for labor unions.* We also saw it with AFSCME president Gerry McEntee compliantly endorsing Rahm Emanuel for Chicago Mayor, despite Emanuel consistently laying waste to organized labor's basic agenda. This was the same McEntee who previously promised to lead the fight against any progressive groups trying to run primaries against anti-labor Democrats. Now, we see even more of this ignorance/corruption from labor leaders -- and in even more shockingly ignorant/corrupt terms.
In an article headlined "Labor holds nose, backs former foes," Politico reports that "Labor's big threat to punish misbehaving Democrats has largely evaporated in the heat of the midterms, as unions now scramble to rescue incumbents they once pilloried." In this, the message to all Democratic politicians now and in the future is clear: Labor may talk about using the stick, but it won't actually follow those threats up with action come election time. Which, of course, tells all Democratic politicians that they won't pay a price for opposing labor's agenda... which, of course, effectively encourages Democratic politicians to oppose labor's agenda on behalf of corporate interests. This is, in short, labor saying "Thank you sir, may I have another?" to anti-labor Democratic politicians.
Is this political ignorance/naivete by labor leaders? Or is it deliberate corruption, whereby labor leaders are selling out their members so as to preserve their personal connections to their D.C. Democratic Party friends? It's hard to say, but my guess is that it's a little of both. I say that because this statement from one AFSCME leader is so idiotic -- so truly incoherent -- that I can't tell:
For us, (backing all Democratic candidates) is a no-brainer... Once you get back into session, we're going to be trying to move people on votes. But right now, we're all about getting people elected.
This statement is confusing from an analytical standpoint because it's difficult to tell whether it exhibits innocent (and a shockingly huge amount of) stupidity or whether its stupidity is so intense that it simply can't be genuine and instead is just an unconvincing public excuse for deliberate corruption.
Honestly, I can't really tell, but what I do know is that the statement makes absolutely no sense. Think about it: Labor leaders are saying that "once you get back into session" they'll be able to "move people on votes" -- even though they've spent the election telling most Democratic politicians that they don't have to move their votes in order to get labor's support. Indeed, if "moving people on votes" is predicated on those people, in part, fearing electoral retribution from labor, and if labor hasn't exacted any retribution at all, why would those politicians ever move on votes at the request of labor in the next congressional session or any other?
They wouldn't, which is why I say, again, this statement is perhaps the single stupidest -- or single most unconvincing -- rationale for sacrificing movement agenda to party that I've ever seen. Labor leaders in D.C. would have us believe that they don't have to answer their own legendary "which side are you on?" question. They would have us believe that they can simultaneously serve two masters -- The Democratic Party and their own members who pay those labor leaders' salaries. With many good, pro-labor Democrats they can certainly do this -- but they cannot when it comes to clearly anti-labor Democrats. And when those labor leaders back those any and all Democratic politicians regardless of those politicians' record on labor issues, they are unduly prioritizing partisanship over their own union members.
When you want to know how labor can spend so much money supporting Democratic politicians and have so little influence over those Democratic politicians, remember this statement.
Sure, labor gets outspent by corporations and that plays a part. And let's be clear -- I'm not suggesting labor unions actively back anti-labor Republicans over anti-labor Democrats. But make no mistake about it: When labor leaders in Washington aggressively back anti-labor Democrats (rather than, say, sitting out those elections) and/or refuse to follow up their own threats with action, those labor leaders are destructively undermining the political agenda of their rank-and-file membership. That's a true tragedy for those of us pro-labor progressives who understand that a vibrant -- and honest -- labor movement is essential to the progressive movement as a whole.
* On this specific issue, I'll be interviewing Colorado AFL-CIO chief Mike Cerbo at 9:20am Colorado time (11:20 ET) on my AM760 show on Wednesday (10/27). It should be an interesting discussion, and I promise I will demand some answers. Tune in at http://sirota.am760.net.
Follow David Sirota on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidsirota
Robert Creamer: If You're Deciding Who to Support or Whether to Vote -- Follow the Money
Brian Ross: Tea Party Hypocrisy: The New Taxation Without Representation
Leon T. Hadar: Post-Midterms Foreign Policy: Will They Make a Difference?
As far as union top dogs: it doesn't even require a debate... when have they ever been anything but blatantly corrupt. Decade by decade they steal the dues, misuse dues, and donated to politicians that sometimes enact laws that work a/g them. Do you want to think about how many union members who are the hard workers, went through illegal foreclosures brought on by a Democratic President who signed legislation repealing Glass Steagall and Futures Commodities Modernization Act?
It would be truly helpful if we could have a forum for discussions that produce useful solutions instead of the us vs them crap. Dems and Repubs are absolutely the same -- except to those who are blind. Just do the research and see where they both get their funding and what is truly going on in the world. Foreign interest $$ and Multinationals contribute equally to both parties; they don't care who gets in; just as long as the agenda for profits and power is carried out. We The People are voting for "bought politicians" before they ever step a foot in D.C. So sad, so true.
They are NOT the way you go about dealing with friends and allies. At least ones that will be staying around for any length of time.
I want to fully advocate a LONG-TERM WINNERS MENTALITY. The only, and I mean the ONLY, way for the Democratic Party to become a progressive party that fights for the agenda with the same veracity as Republicans do is if very large elements of the base band together and DEMAND IT.
Demanding a relentless pursuit of a pro-middle class agenda does not mean you make excuses, apologies, and denials for corporate lackeys that call themselves Democrats. You call them, write letters, vote against them in primaries, and let them HEAR IT from the top of your lungs that they will UNDOUBTEDLY LOSE YOUR SUPPORT AND VOTE if they cater to corporate interests over yours. Then, most importantly, you FOLLOW THROUGH WITH YOUR THREAT and call them often to let them know they let you down...or, you thank them several times and give them support when they deserve it.
No Social Security cuts to pay for extra tax cuts for the richest 2%
No excuses, no apologies, no capitulating, no empty rhetoric
What is acceptable?: Strength. Spine. Courage. Conviction. Pro-Middle Class policies
IMO we should contract by asking all to share the sacrifice equally. No lay-offs for a 10% pay-cut, along with 10% reduction in cost of goods and services, and 10% cut in taxes.
WH provided an example when President and his staff took a pay-freeze on assuming office and on their one year anniversary. Unfortunately there were several examples of workers (unions) in public and private sectors refusing this option, including a lot of grumbling from senior citizens for meager increase in SS. Govt employees union refuses salary freeze in our small, but highly taxed city in upstate NY.
Some argue rightly, that across-the-board 10% cut penalizes low wage workers (and low income retirees). I favor making adjustments for them. Yet without consensus, low-wage workers, being the lowest on the totem-pole (newly hired status) are first to loose their jobs.
Where is gain of the proposal?
Reduction in cost of living.
Stems job-losses.
Saving unemployment checks.
Gives a bigger bang for retirement income. and
America is more competitive across the globe.
But what do I know? Smart minds on blogs and in media blame immigrants for the lay-offs.
I don't KNOW that they're wrong. I do wonder about those 40% to 60% of American potential voters that just don't bother. Are they really apathetic or have they made a reasoned decision that as long as no party represents them they won't support "either" party.
I can say that for myself at least part of the Democratic party's assumption is incorrect. My one vote is almost assuredly too small to matter BUT small as it is it will no longer be cast for a Democrat.
The problem is that no-one has figured out how to make Democrats change, particularly since they don't want to.
If you want the Dems to actually listen up and respond to their base, then vote 3rd party for candidates that actually stand up for your beliefs and don't just pretend that they do. I voted Green Party this election and will continue to do so until Democrats show me that they actually care about their base.
The GOP may be crazy, but at least they stand up and fight for the people that support them, which is a heckuva lot more than you can say about the Dems. They don't ignore their base while governing and then openly deride them for their lack of support as Obama, Biden, Gibbs, and Emmanuel all have.
The Democratic party has played with various liberal and progressive causes but never really done much for them. When Reagan sent the Republicans screaming off into Right wing loony land the Democrats looked like the "party of the left" just because they were the only thing "Left" in the middle.
Mostly the Democratic party of today acts to PREVENT a real party of the Left from forming. It's always "too dangerous" to "waste your vote" on a party that might actually represent YOU our YOUR PRINCIPLES. So you "have to" support the Democrats even though you know they're just going to do what the GOP does only a little slower.
And no, the GOP doesn't "fight for the people that support them!" They "fight for" corporate American and the wealthy. They occasionally toss their base some red meat which harms them more often than it helps them.
It seem that so many people look around and in seeing others doing a little better than themselves, seethe with resentment and long to see them brought down.
I hope that one day ordinary Americans will see that we are all interconnected and that when you work (or vote) against your neighbor (Here I'm using neighbor in the sense that Jesus did.), you are also working against yourself.
And when we vote for Democrats after they've poked a stick in our eye ostensibly to curry favor with people who will never vote for them in the first place (but factually to curry favor with the same corporations that control both parties) ... when we allow Democrats from Obama on down to take us for granted ... we aid and abet the takeover of the party by big money corporate special interests.
Which is why my new motto is: if Democrats won't work for us, they won't work at all.
Unlike the Left, who when "their party" kicks them to the curb double down on their support for that same party. Positive feedback is NOT a good way to control a machine.
And it's not just labor. The entire population of people that genuinely hold principles and convictions consistent with progressive and liberal politics follow the same pattern election after election and have done so for at least 30 years. They blindly support "the Democrat" no matter what that individual Democrat or the party has done on their issues. And the result has been just as consistent as their behavior: The Democrats have moved to the corporate right for 30 years or more. In the last 20 years, as the Clintons and the DLC moved to prominence, the Democrats have SPRINTED to the corporate right. And why not? It costs them nearly nothing in votes and garners massive corporate donations. Win/win. For the Democratic party. For anyone to the Left of Ronald Reagan it's a guaranteed loss.
Do what you did, get what you got. Either find and support a third party or reconcile yourself to being part of the problem.
In our history nothing changes right away. It takes years and people fighting for it. People like you always believe if we cannot get things done in 21 months after 8 years of destruction, we all need to give up.
Well Sir I totally disagree with 1001%. Wake up and live in the real world. Your way of thinking is why the dems never get anywhere.
You do not have the echo chamber of 1300 stations, You do not have the MSM. How do you propose to change things? By writing to whom? Get a life.....
Meed I say more? The name says it all.