Dave Lindorff: Which Side Are the Democrats On? Which Side Are the Labor Unions On?
It is refreshing to hear the new head of the AFL-CIO, former mineworker and Mineworkers President Richard Trumka, get mad at sell-out Democrats and make a threat not to "support" them next year.
As Trumka pointed out in a talk to the Center for American Progress this week, for years, Democratic politicians, and the Democrats as a Party, have counted on the labor movement to get out the vote of its membership on Election Day, only to turn on workers after getting to Washington, on the issues that really matter, such as jobs-killing free trade agreements, the gutting of bankruptcy law and credit law protections, and, most recently, the undermining of needed labor law reform.
Trumka, quoting from a famous mineworkers song by Florence Reece, later popularized by Paul Robeson and Pete Seeger, said that going forward, Democrats will have to make it clear to labor, "Which side are you on?"
But really, that's only half the question. Reece, in her song, was asking that question of workers themselves. And indeed, the reason Democrats have become such traitors to working class interests in recent decades is that the labor movement itself has not answered Reece's question resolutely or honestly.
The hard reality is that, despite years of betrayal by Democratic politicians and by the Democratic Party, labor unions have continued year after year to answer the call to rally their ever diminishing members during campaign seasons to go door to door doing the hard work of rallying voters for ever more treacherous candidates, and to do massive "get-out-the-vote" campaigns on Election Day, as they did this past November to assure the election of solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and the election of President Barack Obama. Labor has also donated princely sums collected from members to Democratic candidates and to the Democratic National Committee.
And just as predictably, Congressional Democrats, and the new president, have been betraying their labor base. After vowing to pass the Employee Free Choice Act this year, which as written would have ended years of weakening of labor's right to organize unions by ending the cumbersome requirement for "secret ballot" elections to establish union representation, in favor of just obtaining signed cards supporting a union from a majority of workers, Obama and the Democrats in Congress caved in to pressure from the business lobby and trashed the bill. If it passes at all in its present form (which is pretty iffy), it will leave secret ballot elections in place -- a process that management have long ago figured out how to delay endlessly, and to subvert, to the point that it is now next to impossible to unionize new workplaces.
It's fine to say, as Trumka is doing, that labor will no longer support politicians who sell out labor on its issues, but what good is that really, if those politicians simply replace labor with more money from business interests? It doesn't help things that once the sell-outs get elected, instead of attacking their betrayals, labor gets sucked into compromises. Just look at health care "reform." For decades, the labor movement has advocated a single-payer approach, yet when President Obama and the Democrats began putting together a health "reform" package this spring, most of organized labor started backing the pathetic "public option" plan, buying into Obama's pre-emptive compromise approach. Now health care reform appears to be pretty much a dead letter. The same thing is happening to labor law reform, with labor caving in and backing a weakened version of the EFCA.
The only way to really make Democrats stop these kinds of betrayals is for labor to decide "which side it is on" and to actively oppose those who sell labor out.
Trumka, as head of the AFL-CIO, is in a position to make a fundamental change in labor's relationship with the Democratic Party. He should announce plans to encourage the formation of a new labor party, which would run its own candidates for office in key districts. Labor, uniquely, is in a position to do this. It has the money and the numbers to be able to easily get on the ballot in every state even by as early as next year.
In some states, such as New York, parties are able to cross list candidates, so instead of just endorsing a Democratic candidate who seemed to be supportive, a labor party could nominate that person as its own candidate. Votes for the candidate could be made either on the Democratic line, or the labor party line. But to get on the labor party line, a candidate would have to be a genuine labor party candidate. Failure to back labor once in office would mean no more labor party line.
And in states where there is not such cross listing allowed, running candidates on a labor party ticket would be a much bigger threat to sell-out Democrats than just running candidates in the Democratic Primary. And with good candidates, some labor party candidates would certainly win their races, becoming a third force in Congress.
The time is ripe for a labor party. Polls report that more and more people are quitting the Republican and Democratic Parties in disgust. They have no home at this point, and labor party would offer them that home, which would accelerate the decline of the two major parties -- basically hollowed out husks that only manage to stand up because they are stuffed with corporate swag.
So what's the answer, President Trumka? Which side are you on?
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and long-time labor writer and activist. A founder of the National Writers Union, he also organized a labor union of food service workers at Sarah Lawrence College and worked on the United Farmworkers Union grape boycott in New York City. He is author of "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006) and his work can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net.
Dave Lindorff: Which Side Are the Democrats On? Which Side Are the Labor Unions On?
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash.com
BuzzFlash: Editorials | Interviews | News Analysis | Alerts | Perspectives | Radio Ads | Reviews: Books, Movies, Music | Television | Books, DVDs, CDs, Hats, T-shirts
Community: BuzzFlash Mailbag | Reader and Guest Contributions | News Releases
Columns: Wings of Justice | GOP Hypocrite of the Week | Last Chance Democracy Cafe | Libby Defense Fund | Jeffrey Feldman's Frameshop | The Daily Buzz | Independent Thinker of the Month | World Media Watch | Blue State Jukebox | Verse-Case Scenario | Ms. Smith Goes to Washington | Caption This
Columnists: P.M. Carpenter | David Lindorff | Barbara's Daily Buzz | Ann Davidow | Thom Hartmann | Steven C. Day | Steven Jonas | Tony Peyser | Shirley Smith
Cartoonists: Kirk Anderson | Steve Bradenton | Tony Peyser | Andrew Wahl
Poets: Tony Peyser
Other: About | Frequently Asked Questions | Headlines | Search BuzzFlash | Put BuzzFlash Headlines on Your Web Site | Get BuzzFlash Alerts | Contact | Home
Support Independent Media: Click Here to See How
Unless otherwise noted, all original content
and headlines are © BuzzFlash.
Contact BuzzFlash for reprint rights.
General Disclaimer: Guest and Reader Contributions, News Releases and Mailbag Letters posted on BuzzFlash are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of BuzzFlash or its editors.
your the traitor
If Mr. spoon considers me a traitor for voting for the labor party,I say so what.It is the Democtratic party which betrayed me by going over to the dark side and supporting business over people.People of little intelligence support parties just so they can say "my party won".I am overjoyed we may finally be getting a third party,its what this country needs,somebody to represent the people.If the Democratic party loses so what,the Democrats are following the Republican party anyway.Third parties seldom win elections but they force the other 2 parties to make significant changes if they can get enough people elected and make enough noise to scare the 2 mainstay parties.And as a bonus if the Democrats refuse to change then maybe we will luck out and the labor party will replace them as the republicans replaced the whigs.
The GOP ain't dead yet, so let's resuscitate it
"...running candidates on a labor party ticket would be a much bigger threat to sell-out Democrats than just running candidates in the Democratic Primary."
And just what would this accomplish? Do you think the suburban, coordinator class, of which you, sir, are a member, who have taken over the Democratic Party will cross over to vote for a labor party candidate? I do not for a minute think the Rockefeller Republicans who masquerade as Democrats, those who infiltrated the party during the Vietnam conflict and had the monetary where-withal to take over (q.v. Hillary Clinton), will deign to cross over to vote for a labor party candidate. So what would the out-come be?
Republican control of the US House and Senate, just like 1994.
Wonderful. Bill Clinton-redux sans blowjob.
To date the only successful third party is the Republican Party. The only reason it succeeded where other third parties had failed is that the Whigs were moribund and the Democratic Party was fractured. Until a month or so ago it looked as if the Republican party, as we know it, was on the ropes, destined for the ash heap of history in all US states but the Old Confederacy. But thanks to apparent fumbling by the White House, incessant craping from the lapdog media and blind vitriol from the ideologically pure left, the Grand Old Party just might make a miraculous recovery!
Are you not thrilled at that prospect, Mr. Lindorff?
ET Spoon
"Whigs were moribund and the
"Whigs were moribund and the Democratic Party was fractured"
The Republican Party is all but dead outside of the Confederate States and the Democrats are about as organized as a herd of cats.
When can I start signing people up for the Labor Party? Most people I know would never vote Republican and are disgusted with the Democrats!
ET go home and shut up.
Mr. Lindorff makes valid points that show Obama and his band of wannabe Repukes are destroying the Democratic Party. It is obvious to most rational people (yes, that excludes you) believe that Single Payer Healthcare would save America money and make us more competitive in the world economy. Most rational people conclude that George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsefeld should be strung up by their balls at the foot of the US Capitol Building for their war crimes and their thievery of the US Treasury. Most rational Americans beleive that Hank "Yank" Paulson, Tim Geithner and Alan Greenspan should be tried convicted and sent to prison for a long, long time for their crimes against America in aiding and abetting the criminals on Wall Street that stole $Billions of US Tax Payer dollars.
"Obama and his band of wannabe Repukes"???
Stormin' Norman! Less than a year ago you were supporting Obama and attacking anyone who dared to be critical of him. Now, less than a year later, you're criticizing Obama and his "band of wannabe Repukes"? So the obvious question is, Norm, ....
... if someone was foolish enough to take your rantings seriously then, why should they repeat the mistake and do it again now?
BTW - Tell us some more about what "most rational people" believe, Norm. I can't stop laughing from that one.
Kinda' like having Rush Limbaugh claiming to speak for "most skinny people" ..... :)
An important correction
The workers' anthem "Which Side Are You On?" was written by Florence Reece, not Joe Hill. The song was later popularized by Paul Robeson and Pete Seeger.
Sorry for the error.
Dave Lindorff
How do I post an answer to your blog, David
Laurence D. M. Marshall
Dear David,
I want to post a supoort letter to your blog. Although I have registered with Buzz Flash I cannot find anywhere that tells you how to post a comment below your latest blog. How do I do this, please?
Many thanks - and what a fabulous article you have just written. I couldn't agree more.
Thanks,
Laurence Marshall
My blog
Since I'm a one-person shop at www.thiscantbehappening.net, I don't have a response page. I tried it, but got repeatedly hit by right-wing spammers, and also deluged with idiotic red-herring comments by right wing idiots. Since I can't spent the time monitoring the site, it was just a big hassle, so I gave it up. Counterpunch has made the same decision.
Sorry.
But you can always write here, or to my site's email address. I try to respond, but can't always. :-)
Most rational people wouldn't say "go home & shut up"
So, as part and parcel of "most rational people," what do you propose be done?
Where were "most rational people" in 1980 when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter?
Where were "most rational people" in 1988 when George H.W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis?
Where were "most rational people" in 2000 when George W. Bush stole the election from Al Gore?
Where were "most rational people" when George W. Bush stole a second election from John Kerry. In fact where were "most rational people" when Howard Dean and Rep. Dennis Kucinich challenged the Democratic Party's establishment in 2004? And as corollary, why are we not talking of President Dean or President Kucinich?
Why have "most rational people" not elected any Greens to public office?
But tell me, why would "most rational people" want a return to a failed administraiton like Bill Clinton's, of course sans blowjobs, of political stalemate? Do "most rational people" think that once the Republicans regain majority control of both Houses of the US Congress, they will have a sudden epiphany and pass a single payer health care legislation?
By the way, I worked with too many union members who were registered Republicans and proud of it to really make a labor party viable, though it's a dream I long cherish. Also as a journalist Lindorff should know that in the '06 Connecticut senatorial election organized labor brought in the vote for Holy Joe Liberman over anti-Iran war candidate Ned Lemont.
"Most rational people" should realize rhetoric like Lindorff's is akin to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
ET Spoon
A "failed administration" like Bill Clinton's?
You may not have been happy with Clinton, but he left office with the highest end-of-term approval ratings of any POTUS ever.
Failed? Compared to the way Obama's heading, it's hard to imagine any rational person who wouldn't want a return to his administration....
.....even with the blowjobs.
Name the greatest accomplishments of Clinton's administration
I give Clinton high marks for shutting down the government in '95 to keep the Newt Gingrich Republicans from butchering Medicare. And even though Clinton apologist like to point out a stellar economy little seemed to trickle-down to the working class. I do know that under Clinton working conditions and labor-management relations at the United States Postal Service deteriorated.
But when I say that Clinton's administration was a "failed" administration I am talking about six years of stalemate, a split-government with the administration in the hands of one political party and the legislative branch in the other's and they don't talk to one another. And you are conveniently forgetting little irritations like NAFTA, Kosavo, "...smoking but no inhaling," no health care reform and the impeachment brouhaha.
Certainly compared to what followed, George W. Bush, Clinton's administration seemed like a paradise. But of course that is like comparing a pile of dirt to a pile of manure.
And tell me, friend, if you liked Clinton's administration so much why didn't you work harder to get his old lady elected?
ET Spoon
Too funny ........ and easy!
Wow .... where to start. How about the ridiculously laughable claim that "even though Clinton apologist (sic) like to point out a stellar economy little seemed to trickle-down to the working class." Seriously? See, the giveaway with this statement is your qualifier ... "seemed". It's like when someone says "I don't know if ..." or "I'm not aware of" ... it's a dead giveaway that the person doesn't have a clue. So I'll help you out with that. I'll even give you a chart to make it easier for you to understand:
See the chart? Those blue columns represent the lower 50% of income earners in the US. Now, if you'll notice, those columns barely grew under all of the other recent administrations, and in some cases, even shrank. Under Clinton, however, they grew at a rate comparable to the upper income brackets, almost 2.5% annually, faaaaaaar better than any administration in at least the last 30+ years. So in reality, when you say it "seemed" like middle class incomes didn't grow under Clinton, you don't mean they didn't grow, you just mean they didn't seem to grow .... to you. (BTW - As you know, the USPS is an independent agency, not part of the executive branch. Beyond that, their financial problems and lower pay growth in the 90s (and now) are due to a number of issues that have nothing to do with Clinton .... the rise of Fedex and UPS, the rise of e-mail and growth in the use of fax machines, increased fuel/health/pension costs, declining mail volume, etc.).
As far as the "stalemate" that existed with the Republican Congress .... so what? That's not Clinton's fault. It's the fault of the obstructionist Republicans, and the people that voted them into office. In terms of your list of "little irritations", that's equally ridiculous. NAFTA? You may not like it (I don't), but the most comprehensive analysis to date looked at the four major studies of NAFTA and showed that NAFTA caused no aggregate job loss. In other words, the jobs lost were offset by the jobs gained. BTW - Clinton never claimed to oppose NAFTA, unlike Obama who promised to renegotiate NAFTA, then quickly reversed himself after the election.
Kosovo? You mean Operation Allied Force? Hell, that was a success, not a failure. Clinton and Wesley Clark, working through NATO and the UN, managed to stop the Serbian ethnic cleansing and prevent a war at the same time, including what a U.N. Court ruled was "a systematic campaign of terror, including murders, rapes, arsons and severe maltreatments." They did so with the full support of NATO and incurred ZERO combat casualties in the process? How the hell could anyone call that a "failure"?
Impeachment? Yeah, Lewinsky was a stupid move, but the whole "brouhaha" was the result of a Republican Congress with an oral sex fixation. No health care reform? Yes, it wasn't successful, but that's been a progressive objective since the days of FDR, and no one has been able to get it done, including FDR. There are HUGE interests (and money) lined up against public health care, and it's hardly surprising that they couldn't get it passed. But blaming them for its "failure" is like faulting someone for losing to the Yankees, a team with the biggest payroll in the game. On the other hand, at least she had the courage to take on the pharmaceutical and health insurance companies, as opposed to say, ...... sitting back and avoiding fire while letting Congress get blamed, or worse .... making backroom deals with them.
"Smoking but no inhaling"? Seriously??? You're citing that as evidence that his administration was a "failure"? Tooooo funny.
Finally, comparing Clinton's administration to Bush is like "comparing a pile of dirt to a pile of manure"? No one's making the comparison, except you. Why? Because they're not even remotely comparable. You want some of Clinton's accomplishments? Okay, how about these:
Longest economic expansion in history, moving from record deficits to a record surplus (559 Billion), over 22 million new jobs, fastest and longest real wage growth in over 30 years, unemployment lowest in over 30 years, household median income reaches $40,000+ for the first time ever, largest drop in poverty rate in 30 years, EITC for low income families, lifting over 4 million families above the poverty line, Family Medical Leave Act, increasing the minimum wage for over 10 million workers, Workforce Investment Act, expanding PELL grants and work-study, HOPE and LL tax credits for college tuition, expanding HeadStart, 8 consecutive years of crime reduction - lowest level in 25 years, largest gun enforcement initiative in history, Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act, moidernizing Medicair - extending trust fund's life to 2025, SCHIP - provided health coverage to millions of low income children, ....
Clinton was the only two-term Democratic President since FDR, and left office with the highest approval rating of any POTUS ever. I could go on, but you get the point. No, Clinton was not perfect, but placing his record even in the same sentence as Bush's record is just too stupid for words. It's almost like claiming the middle class didn't do well under his administration, just because you didn't do well. Oh wait, ....
... we already dealt with that.
BTW - "If you liked Clinton's administration so much why didn't you work harder to get his old lady elected?" First of all, ... "his old lady"? Nice. I used to think all the neanderthals were on the Republican side of the fence. Thanks for confirming that's not true. Secondly, you're one of those extra-chromosome types who blame her for all of his percieved "sins", while failing to recognize an obvious fact ... they are two separate people. Just because I recognize the success of his administration does not mean she was "my" candidate. Finally, she wasn't my candidate, but after 20 years of being a target for the rightwing, at least she knows how to put up a fight, as opposed to say......
... rolling over and backtracking on virtually every major campaign promise.
BBTW - Just in case that wasn't clear enough for you, ...
...I'm not "your friend."