John Edwards for Labor Secretary

Hear me out: this is an argument as much about the place of workers' issues in the future Administration, as it is an argument for making John Edwards the next Labor Secretary.

When it comes to tackling the economic crisis, the president-elect has been pre-occupied, personnel-wise, with the question of who will be Treasury Secretary and Commerce Secretary. I'm not going to argue that those positions aren't important. We are, obviously, in a severe economic crisis: the credit crisis is real and financial institutions are dragging the rest of the economy down. But, traditionally, Treasury and Commerce have been outposts for advocates for capital, not for labor. And looking at the crisis through the lens of Treasury and Commerce misses the problem by a mile.

Our crisis, as I have argued, is a long-term crisis generated largely because of a decades-long wage depression and assault on basic living standards that lead people to prop up their incomes by sinking deeply into debt. If wages had tracked productivity from the mid-1970s to now, the minimum wage would be over $19-an-hour, not the current $6.55 an hour. President-elect Obama's campaign promise to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011 will still leave that wage at a poverty level, not a living wage.

Without any real increase in wages, consumers in the past 20 years have piled up debt upon debt. According to Demos, a non-partisan organization, Americans overall credit card debt grew from $211 billion to $876 billion between 1989 and 2006. When credit cards were maxed out, they turned to their sole remaining economic lifeline: home equity. Demos estimates that homeowners sucked out $1.2 trillion in home equity, not for mansions and yachts, but for basic living expenses.

So, with credit virtually dried up, how will future consumer spending -- which accounts for 70 percent of the economy -- be financed? We are now facing perhaps several years, or maybe a decade, in which consumers will have to go through a painful unwinding of the debt morass they have sunken into -- not because they were profligate but because they had no choice. Paychecks have been inadequate to cover the basic costs of life and, now, people simply have no money left -- as the recent steep decline in consumer spending proves.

The point is: To fix that crisis, we need to, if I may use a word in vogue, "change" the system. Changing the system means understanding that the so-called "free market" and so-called "free trade" are not simply things that need tinkering and more regulation. They are the problem. We have a wage depression because, for three decades, we've allowed the "free market" and "free trade" to rule. Neither of these concepts actually exist. They are simply marketing phrases that have masked the building of a world with one fundamental dynamic: wages must be pushed down, even if you work your ass off and become more productive. We need a strong advocate for workers who can have as big a voice as the banks and business, who seem to be, thank you very much, well-represented in the emerging Obama Administration.

Which brings me to the Labor Department. Certainly, this agency has been a backwater, considered a second-level cabinet position and lacking the stature of national security and foreign policy. And, on economic issues, the tragedy is that it has less juice on economic matters than the Treasury and Commerce Departments. Right now, the DOL is run by a political hack: Elaine Chao, who is the wife of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. Talk about a tragedy and farce.

But, take a quick look at the Labor Department: its mandate includes job training, safety and health, enforcement of wage laws, mine safety and international issues -- the whole panoply of issues that are at the heart of constructing a decent economic future for working people. If we want a country where people have some measure of economic security, peoples' wages have to be protected (meaning, you need a Labor Department that stops the widespread practice of violating basic wage-and-hour laws), they have to work in a place that is not dangerous, and they need trade policies -- which a powerful Labor Secretary can have a voice in shaping -- that do not reinforce a low-wage spiral.

Which brings me to John Edwards. I'm not going to argue that he was the perfect candidate on policy (but, admittedly, I'm demanding: if you're not Paul Wellstone, you don't make the cut). But, Edwards dictated the Democratic Party debate, as even the business press acknowledged. It is almost a certainty he would have been in the Obama Administration but for one lapse (we'll come to that in a moment). Let me remind us why:

Edwards decided to make poverty the central element of his run for president. You had to be crazy to do that -- every political expert, pundit and operative would tell you that "ending poverty" would be a no-win plank because the poor don't vote. Poverty -- the reality that millions of Americans cannot afford to put food on the table or clothe their families or send their kids to college and that we live with the scandal of a poverty-level minimum wage -- is a stain on our country.

But, Edwards considered it the cause of his life. You can take a cynical view, as some have, and say it was all made up and he didn't really believe it. But, facts are facts: Edwards staked his political future on the issue.

Since Edwards left the race, how many times have we heard the word "poverty" uttered, much less had a national debate about poverty? Once we get out of the immediate crisis, someone needs to be pounding the table with a fist, reminding us how millions of Americans live every day. I believe Edwards would do so.

When he was running, Edwards would talk about unions all the time. He understood that, without unions, America cannot have a middle class, nor can it be a democratic society because if you have no power and rights at work, you basically give up democratic rights for half your waking life. Unlike the rest of the major candidates, he talked regularly, unprompted, about unions in front of non-labor audiences. You can say: he made it up. But, facts are facts: he said the word "union" in places where he wasn't looking just for a labor endorsement.

Edwards was the first to have a clear, universal health care plan. I actually wished he had been better on the topic, embracing a single-payer plan, which I think is the only plan that will work. But, his plan set the bar for the other major candidates.

He also had a much deeper critique of so-called "free trade". He wasn't just calling for "fixing" NAFTA (whew, thanks to the Democratic primary, we found out that NAFTA was a bad thing). He zeroed in on the much deeper flaws woven inside the so-called "free trade" deals, flaws that give powerful rights to corporations and investors. Those flaws cannot be fixed just by slapping on labor and environmental provisions.

Okay, so, let's talk about sex. My own opinion is that the only strike against Edwards serving in the new Administration is this: he lied about sex. Notice the emphasis: He lied. That he had an affair, from my point of view, is his private business. But, stupidly, he lied about it, not just to his wife, but to a network of his supporters, his campaign operatives and an entire nation. And, yes, that lie could have been very bad for his party had he become the nominee. But, he didn't and it wasn't. Get over it.

Politics, and moral choices, are always a debate about relativism. So, just briefly, let's examine the relative nature of Edwards' transgression. We seem willing, mostly, to overlook the presumptive future Secretary of State's vote for an illegal and immoral war -- the reasoning for which she has, at best, repeatedly obfuscated. Moral strength? Edwards voted for that same war and had the guts to say it was the worst vote of his life. Our future Secretary of State still cannot say her vote was wrong. Instead, she blames, depending on the day, either George Bush for actually going to war and/or a poorly-managed war.

Marc Rich's name has been resurrected in connection with the presumptive nominee for attorney general. That someone who broke the law by committing financial crimes was pardoned (by President Clinton, with Eric Holder as some sort of participant/bystander) hardly makes me blink. This is, after all, the United States of America where we allow CEOs to legally loot their companies, taking tens of millions of dollars in pay, benefits and stock options while their workers barely scrape by.

Far worse, and unforgivable, Marc Rich was a union-buster. Rich controlled a company, Ravenswood, which locked out 1,700 workers and permanently replaced them with scabs, tearing a part a small town in West Virginia. After a 20-month lockout, during which the workers' unemployment benefits ran out and they lived on donated food, Rich, pressured by an international campaign, struck a deal that was devastating to the workers -- but at least got their jobs back. I am more curious about whether Rich's union-busting -- which is never mentioned by the press -- was even raised by Holder.

Finally, we are, effectively, willing to look the other way, forgiving (by giving them billions of dollars in tax money), bankers, financiers, Robert Rubin, and a whole host of other people who obliterated trillions of dollars in wealth and consigned a lot of older Americans to a life of fear and poverty. We are not only not firing them, we are continuing to listen to them and we are giving them influential positions in our government and economy.

Personally, I'm more likely to forgive someone for admitting she or he was wrong, or that she or he had lied about a private matter, and feel comfortable about them as a public leader, before I feel disposed to give a second chance to someone unwilling to be straight about the horrible national, human and economic consequences of their vote for a war or another significant piece of policy. And, morally weak that I am (or perhaps French?), I care a lot less about a person's private liaisons than I care about whether she or he enriched themselves by selling us a phony bill of goods (see: Robert Rubin and the wonders of leverage and de-regulation)

By selecting Edwards, the president-elect will, in fact, be doing two things. First, he can say that "change" means putting a halt to the foolish spectacle of placing qualified and often outstanding public servants in the position that they lie to keep private what is a private matter. Maybe I've been around too long but I don't consider any leader a saint: they almost all lie or shade the truth or manipulate to get ahead. It is the nature of the game of politics. Lying to keep a sexual affair private from your family and friends seems to me to be the most mild form of lying by a political figure and a normal human instinct (who among us would want to be embarrassed in the public arena?).

And redemption is a powerful motivating force. Though I don't think Edwards has ever been a slouch when it comes to his work ethic, does anyone doubt that he would work harder than any other high-level Administration official if only because he would have the chance to change the lead sentence in his political biography?

Second, President-elect Obama has made, according to even conventional wisdom, some very safe and centrist choices. I'm not here to quibble with those choices. But, why not use some political capital and say: "During the campaign, John Edwards spoke eloquently about the challenges facing working Americans. By choosing John Edwards, I am making it clear, as I did in the campaign, that workers' voices will have the same standing in my Administration as those voices representing business. On any important economic decision, John Edwards will be at the table and have my ear. "

Some people will say, "you are right about needing a powerful, visible Labor Secretary but why not pick someone else?" Okay, fair enough. It is unlikely that the president-elect will take the gamble that choosing Edwards will entail. The rhetoric of "change" is one thing; giving up a news cycle or two to Fox News is much more important to the nation's future.

By all means, suggest your own person. While I think Edwards is a great choice, my main goal is this: We can't afford a Labor Secretary who is weak, a vision-less, conventional person whose resume fills some box that can be checked off and, then, he or she gets patted on the head and sent back to run a department that sinks into irrelevancy.

We need a Labor Secretary who is a national figure with a public voice, a person who has the president's ear and confidence, and someone who has the internal fortitude, knowledge and experience to fight the pitched battles with the Goldman Sachs acolytes who are streaming into the new Administration. We'd be well-served with the skills of a trial lawyer who can knock down, one by one, the phony arguments about "free markets" and "free trade".

John Edwards would do us proud.

Comments

[pmorlan]

You make an excellent argument. I'd love to see Edwards as Labor Secretary.

[Kenshin]

totally thumbs up on this one. honestly, we've got everyone else on board from the primaries, throw in edwards! this is the perfect position for him, with his dedication to raising the minimum wage and it's relation to poverty.

follow the link. wage theft and such is causing so much poverty, that it's causing religious organizations to become actively involved. these groups are tired of having people with full-time work, showing up to the soup kitchens, simply because they really are not getting their fair wages.

http://www.iwj.org/template/index.cfm

we have laws on the books you know, about this...all we need is the department of labor to actually ENFORCE them! and who better to do that than edwards.

do it obama--at the very least, it will help keep some of the most paranoid progressives from critiquing your every move. which, we do. hmm...i wonder what chicago school ideologue corporatist shill he's nominated lately....better go check...

[Cherubim]

John Edwards has resummed his fight against poverty starting in Haiti.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5idIJ-SRt3R4Bz0IANBHIPQN1B7iQ
"PORT-AU-PRINCE (AFP) " Celebrities from Hollywood and Italy helped cut the ribbon Wednesday on a new hospital for handicapped children in Haiti that has the highest infant mortality in the Western hemisphere.

US actress Madeleine Stowe, Italy's Martina Colombari, Canadian director Paul Haggis and former US senator and White House hopeful John Edwards joined other stars for the ceremonial opening of the modern hospital built by Italian non-governmental group NPH (Our Little Brothers).

"I am particularly excited about being here for the opening of this rehabilitation facility which is much-needed," Edwards told AFP.
"I am also here to help, we hope, bring attention to the plight of the Haitian people, their struggles and their efforts to have a better life."

[ChicagoSuz]

I could see this happening. Obama is the King of Forgiveness... he could overlook Edwards' personal stuff (if Elizabeth went along with it). Aside from the drumming from late night talk show hosts, it would be a good choice intellectually.

[StrategicThinker]

Keep fooling yourself.

Obama is appointing a DC ESTABLISHMENT ADMINISTRATION, through and through.

Edwards, like ALL POLITICIANS, had dirt, but his was exposed because he didn't walk in line with the DC establishment.

He wouldn't have been in Obama's administration even if he didn't have an affair, based on the other STATUS QUO politicians that are being appointed.

[Cherubim]

No matter what don't give up the fight against the powerful interests that
have taken over Washington D.C.
"It can't be done by just a candidate, and it can't be done
by just the President. of the United States."
Never be silenced.
Americans have to take them on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUtU9f6oFTs

[Picara]

I absolutely agree with Mr. Tasini!

Obama's economic appointments so far have been pragmatic and uninspired, calibrated to restore confidence in the markets. We need to get our economy on a stable footing, restore our credit markets and establish a rigorous regulatory system. However, we also need to remember that there are other important causes for the economic problems we are having right now: income inequality, lack of health care, and the many (well beyond the mortgage market) predatory lending practices specifically aimed at the poor.

John Edwards has demonstrated a passionate concern for the rights of workers and everyday people at all moments of his public career, and as Mr. Tasini notes, he helped set the terms of the debate on these issues in the primary campaign. His "indiscretions" have nothing to do with his suitability and qualifications for the job.

[Allablaze]

Edwards should stay in private law practice. He now has a public persona of being a bad husband, and public life is no place for him.

[StrategicThinker]

Only because the media decided to cover his indiscretions and no one else's.

[dubster]

Interesting analysis; I've never thought of Edwards in this way. As a matter of fact I despised him before his affair even become public. I just thought he was a phony and blow hard - you sort of touched on that, when you speculate if he really meant what he was saying, well I never bought into his rhetoric. In light of this new perspective, I would be OK with him as secretary of labor but I would prefer Delores Huerta a tireless labor-rights activists who has received honorary degrees from a multitude of prestigious universities.

I NOMINATE DELORES HUERTA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolores_Huerta

[Cherubim]

The problem is she is not known nationally.

[Cherubim]

This is the message that is missing in the Obama cabinet:
John Edwards talks about the loss of American jobs during a
Democratic debate with Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Richardson.
Please watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VxvJMByAxw

[OklahomaGirl]

This won't happen. John Edwards isn't a marketable commodity any more, at least not now and not in the public eye. If he were to go to Washington he might become a marketable product ie His girlfriend would write a book and it might sell and she might make the rounds on TV like Eliot Spitzer's prostitute. Although Dianne Sawyer sure sunk to new levels doing that interview. Barbara Walters gets the president elect and Dianne gets Eliot Spitzer's hooker. For now, if RH writes a book she would probably have to pay to publish it and then store most of the books in her "kept" garage. You can tell by the number of posts to this article that not too many peole are interesed anymore. We don't need another "Bill Clinton" like circus at this point. There are too many people suffering for this kind of distraction. I'm sorry, John the John made his own bed and he will have to deal with it. His promise is mostly gone. That's too bad. Most of the men in politics who made this mistake had 20 years to recover from it. John's too old for that.

[Cherubim]

OklahomaGirl some things like marriage relationships are private to be
discussed by the persons involved.

Other things like jobs, labor rights, the collapse of our economy, and government bailots
are public matters to be discussed by all Americans.

[Cherubim]

Note: spelling correction for above: I meant "government bailouts".

[2581]

Good analysis. But a far better choice would be Rep. George Miller, the Chairman of the House Committee on Education & Labor, who has worked tirelessly for working-class men and women for the past several years. He has sponsored mine safety legislation and OSHA reform legislation, and has held powerful hearings on worker safety issues. Yes, John Edwards, TALKED about poverty and the needs of working class folks during his presidential campaign, but Miller has a sterling RECORD of accomplishment.

[Kakie]

John Edwards is the best choice, hands down, for Labor Secretary. He led the way for working class and poor families, and made the term "union" a household word again. With his vision of "One America," he constantly reminded us that the government is supposed to work for all of us, not just the powerful special interests.

How refreshing it would be for my party, the Democratic Party, to actually reward political courage, and have Senator Edwards as Labor Secretary.

He would do us proud!

[Cherubim]

I agree with you. John Ewards would be a refreshing change form
the Wall Street backer Obama has made so far.
Is not change what Obama is supposed to be about?
John Edwards is for the workers and unions, i.e. Main Street, not Wall Street.
Listen to what he said to Obama doing one of the Presidential debates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItdN2BYwA-8

[Cherubim]

John Edwards would bring something none of the other proposed candidate have.
He has the charisma needed to motivate large numbers of American worker to
adapt and train for what must be, a new American workforce based on renewal
energy sources.

[Karencnj]

I think he would be a poor choice because it would use political capital that may be needed for the really difficult things that President Obama will want Congress to pass. If Edwards were uniquely good, this could be justified, but he isn't. There are many people with long, substantive records working towards things that John Edwards has only spoken of doing.

In addition, there is the confirmation process. That he had an affair and possibly a child is not an issue, but the fact that his lover was hired on the campaign is something that could be questioned as well as the fact that she has been supported (at a very high standard of living) either by a campaign supporter or the campaign needs to be looked into.

[StrategicThinker]

If current patterns hold, Obama will give it to the most DLC-Republicanlite-Democrat considered good on labor issues by the DC establishment that he can find.

[SociologistTina]

Thanks you SO MUCH for writing and suggesting this.

I think you're right, but I'd be quite shocked if the Obama campaign actually went forward with your suggestion.

[Cherubim]

Obama Plan Focuses on Public Works, Energy
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_11050556?source=rss
The Labor Department reported that claims for unemployment benefits jumped last week to the highest level since July 1992, providing fresh evidence of the weakening job market...

"We'll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels," Obama said. He also made a commitment to fuel-efficient cars and alternative energy technologies "that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead." Obama pointed to the past, saying that Americans in this country's darkest hours have risen above their divisions to solve their problems, as a hope for the future."

Did the preceeding words from Obama seem familiar to you. Sounds very similar to John Edwards'.
I think they were adapted from John Edwards', "Building One America in the New Energy Economy%2

[Karencnj]

Those comments are close to nearly every 2008 Democrat's alternative energy/environment plans. John Kerry made the case strongly for this in 2004 - when he spoke of how the country that creates the new alternative energy technologies and energy efficiency technology and products will gain new, good jobs - boosting the economy, while also helping the environment. He used nearly the same words that "can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead." (Edwards did not have anything similar in 2004.) Kerry included this in every stump speech he gave and was the first to have an ad on alternative energy, but it got very little coverage in the media. Al Gore had the first ad that spoke of global warning.

Obama 's idea actually combines the call for energy efficiency with an FDR like call for a public works project, both to fix the crumbling infrastructure and to create real jobs which is a good way to stimulate the economy. The combination is Obama's stimulation plan. If there is any politician to credit it is FDR - or you can credit John Maynard Keynes, who made the case that when the economy is depressed, increasing government spending is one lever to stimulate the economy.

[Cherubim]

According to at least one article these are the names of people being considered for
Secretary of Labor. I think John Edwards would make a better choice than any of these,
because John Edwards is from the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
So, far, the no Progressive have been added to Obama's cabinet.
List of names being considered
LABOR SECRETARY:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/24/obama_weighs_names_for_top_posts_1227567153/

Ed McElroy, former president of the American Federation of Teachers.

Former Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo.

Linda Chavez-Thompson, former AFL-CIO vice president.

Former Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich., member of Obama's transition economic advisory board.

Maria Echaveste, former Clinton White House adviser.

------

[Karencnj]

Edwards was a conservative DLC centrist in his Senate career - he voted for one of the bad bankruptcy bills. He was against some of the free trade bills, at least partially because they hurt NC (a very good reason to be against them for a NC Senator).

He was clearly one of the more conservative 2004 candidates - even attacking Kerry's near universal health care program as too expensive - Edwards only planned to insure kids. (Edwards' 2008 was closer to Kerry 2004 than his own 2004 platform.

At least 3 of the people on that list have good progressive credentials - and at least the first 4 have excellent labor credentials (I know absolutely nothing about the last - so it may be true for all of them) Edwards became a strong advocate of labor only in the last 3 years.

[StrategicThinker]

And there was no reason whatsoever to believe that you might have gotten a New Deal or a Great Society out of FDR and LBJ, respectively.

Or that you might have gotten a Justice John Paul Stevens or David Souter out of Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, either.

Stevens and Souter "progressed" over the course of their time on the SCOTUS, and FDR and LBJ "liberalized" after they became President and needed to respond to events that shook the Country.

I'll say what I've always said about Edwards' "record." When Edwards was first elected, he said he just "didn't want to mess up." This was a man who HADN'T EVEN VOTED much before in his life, and people like to call him "INEXPERIENCED" now, well what the heck do you think he was when he first got elected? Probably impressionable is what.

He was getting advise from more centrist democrats and working across the aisle with people like John McCain. Don't know what his working relationship was with Jesse Helms. The GOP controlled Congress and Edwards was from a southern state, many of the votes that he made are understandable.............

..............COMENT CONTINUED...............