The Washington Post contributes an excellent chapter to the slow-motion obituary organized labor has been writing for itself in the United States over the past 50 years. The article concerns an internal fight among the leadership of the AFL-CIO, with a faction led by John Sweeny insisting that Big Labor's problem is that it has not been sufficiently slavish in its commitment to the political interests of the Democratic party. Unfortunately for those who are sympathetic to unionism (and BadgerPundit is assuredly not), it looks like the 70-year old Sweeny is going to win this fight.
The defection of the Reagan Democrats in 1980 should have proved to Big Labor that the political beliefs of its membership are far from monolithic. Perhaps it has never occured to fossils like Sweeney that most Americans have an instinctive horror of organizations which require blind loyalty, ideological homogeneity, and unquestioning obedience to the party line. Sweeney might want to consider that Labor's failure to spread an ideological "Big Tent" has been one of the many factors in the decline of unionism.
Further, Sweeney and his Big Labor pals ought to stop and ask themselves what they have gotten for themselves by doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on Democratic political power over the past several decades. The answer, of course, is nothing. As the most recent election indicated, and the makeup of Congress shows, the majority of Americans lean rightward in their politics. There is certainly not a leftist consensus in American politics, and an obvious distrust of the Democratic party on central issues such as taxes and national security. Given the conservative bent of the country as a whole, does it make any strategic sense at all for Labor to make an ostentatious and doctrinaire commitment to the minority party (the Democrats)?
Sweeney may hope to win back both houses of Congress and the White House for the Democrats. But reason and experience suggest this is a fool's errand. Sweeney's membership might well ask why the AFL-CIO does not rather conduct a highly advantageous auction for its political support. By simply giving Labor support away to the Democrats, Sweeney gives Democrats a pass to renege on promises, while inviting the Republican majority to oppose Labor issues at ever turn. Why should the Republicans ever listen to Labor, if a priori Labor has announced its intention to work reflexively for the defeat of Republicans? Much like the African American voting block in the U.S., Big Labor has cooked up a recipe for its own political marginalization.
The irony is that Labor might find a receptive audience among Republicans for some (but certainly not all) of its agenda, particularly on issues such as China and illegal immigration. The Republican Party is currently divided by an uneasy truce on free trade issues. The Buchananite wing of the party (which BadgerPundit largely rejects) is highly sympathetic to protectionism and tighter immigration restrictions, and could easily make common cause with Labor on many economic issues. Fortunately for believers in free markets, Big Labor's leadership is too blind and dogmatic to see the potent political alliances it might form beyond the Democratic Party.
So Sweeney & Co., keep demonizing Republicans to your hearts' content. Your're simply digging Organized Labor's grave with an astonishing productivity that would ordinarily be forbidden by Teamster work rules.
As a unionized public employee (firefighter), I heartily support the diversification of labor's allegiance. For far too long the Dems have simply taken us for granted. Thankfully, the International Association of Fire Fighters has taken the side of not being so rigid in its allegiance and has said so to the AFL-CIO.
Posted by: Jim the Fireman | March 08, 2005 at 04:32 PM
Whether or not it is "protectionist" to demand a level playing field for commerce is a matter of semantic dispute.
Given that, your comments are correct: many business owners are extremely upset with the Administration's laissez faire attitude regarding global commerce--and most of them are Republican-inclined (to say the least.)
Based on personal knowledge, I can also tell you that this AFL-CIO split may become permanent. The Construction Trades people are infuriated with Sweeney, not in the least because his slavish adherence to the DNC immigration position weakens the Trades' strength.
Finally, at some point the violence exercised by certain Unions in support of Democratic positions and candidates (e.g., Philadelphia 2000, Green Bay 2000, and numerous vandalisms/threats in 2004) does NOT make rank-and-file membership comfortable, any more than it would make Republican rank/file people comfortable were it the other way around.
Too bad. Unions have good reason to exist, although they have overplayed their hands in some cases.
Posted by: Ninenot | March 10, 2005 at 08:52 AM