The New York Times: State of the Unions
By Paul Krugman
Once upon a time, back when America had a strong middle
class, it also had a strong union movement.
These two facts were connected. Unions negotiated good
wages and benefits for their workers, gains that often
ended up being matched even by nonunion employers. They
also provided an important counterbalance to the
political influence of corporations and the economic
elite.
Today, however, the American union movement is a shadow
of its former self, except among government workers. In
1973, almost a quarter of private-sector employees were
union members, but last year the figure was down to a
mere 7.4 percent.
Yet unions still matter politically. And right now
they’re at the heart of a nasty political scuffle among
Democrats. Before I get to that, however, let’s talk
about what happened to American labor over the last 35
years.
It’s often assumed that the U.S. labor movement died a
natural death, that it was made obsolete by
globalization and technological change. But what really
happened is that beginning in the 1970s, corporate
America, which had previously had a largely cooperative
relationship with unions, in effect declared war on
organized labor.
Don’t take my word for it; read Business Week, which
published an article in 2002 titled “How Wal-Mart Keeps
Unions at Bay.” The article explained that “over the
past two decades, Corporate America has perfected its
ability to fend off labor groups.” It then described
the tactics – some legal, some illegal, all involving a
healthy dose of intimidation – that Wal-Mart and other
giant firms use to block organizing drives.
These hardball tactics have been enabled by a political
environment that has been deeply hostile to organized
labor, both because politicians favored employers’
interests and because conservatives sought to weaken
the Democratic Party. “We’re going to crush labor as a
political entity,” Grover Norquist, the anti-tax
activist, once declared.
But the times may be changing. A newly energized
progressive movement seems to be on the ascendant, and
unions are a key part of that movement. Most notably,
the Service Employees International Union has played a
key role in pushing for health care reform. And unions
will be an important force in the Democrats’ favor in
next year’s election.
Or maybe not – which brings us to the latest from Iowa.
Whoever receives the Democratic presidential nomination
will receive labor’s support in the general election.
Meanwhile, however, unions are supporting favored
candidates. Hillary Clinton – who for a time seemed the
clear front-runner – has received the most union
support. John Edwards, whose populist message resonates
with labor, has also received considerable labor
support.
But Barack Obama, though he has a solid pro-labor
voting record, has not – in part, perhaps, because his
message of “a new kind of politics” that will transcend
bitter partisanship doesn’t make much sense to union
leaders who know, from the experience of confronting
corporations and their political allies head on, that
partisanship isn’t going away anytime soon.
O.K., that’s politics. But now Mr. Obama has lashed out
at Mr. Edwards because two 527s – independent groups
that are allowed to support candidates, but are legally
forbidden from coordinating directly with their
campaigns – are running ads on his rival’s behalf. They
are, Mr. Obama says, representative of the kind of
“special interests” that “have too much influence in
Washington.”
The thing, though, is that both of these 527s represent
union groups – in the case of the larger group, local
branches of the S.E.I.U. who consider Mr. Edwards the
strongest candidate on health reform. So Mr. Obama’s
attack raises a couple of questions.
First, does it make sense, in the current political and
economic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in
with corporate groups as examples of the special
interests we need to stand up to?
Second, is Mr. Obama saying that if nominated, he’d be
willing to run without support from labor 527s, which
might be crucial to the Democrats? If not, how does he
avoid having his own current words used against him by
the Republican nominee?
Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama,
looking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who
has lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or
cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would
affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee,
whoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this
sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing
of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security.
Beyond that, the episode illustrates what’s wrong with
campaigning on generalities about political
transformation and trying to avoid sounding partisan.
It may be partisan to say that a 527 run by labor
unions supporting health care reform isn’t the same
thing as a 527 run by insurance companies opposing it.
But it’s also the simple truth.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Police in thought pursuit
The Washington Times: Police in thought pursuit
December 27, 2007
By Bruce Fein – The Pope had his Index of Forbidden Books. Japan had its Thought Police against subversive or dangerous ideologies. And the United States Congress and President Bush have learned nothing from those examples.
Congress is perched to enact the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 20007 (Act),” probably the greatest assault on free speech and association in the United States since the 1938 creation of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman, California Democrat, the bill passed the House of Representatives on Oct. 23 by a 404-6 vote under a rule suspension that curtailed debate. To borrow from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, the First Amendment should not distract Congress from doing important business. The Senate companion bill (S. 1959), sponsored by Susan Collins, Maine Republican, has encountered little opposition. Especially in an election year, senators crave every opportunity to appear tough on terrorism. Few if any care about or understand either freedom of expression or the Thought Police dangers of S. 1959. Former President John Quincy Adams presciently lamented: “Democracy has no forefathers, it looks to no posterity, it is swallowed up in the present and thinks of nothing but itself.”
Denuded of euphemisms and code words, the Act aims to identify and stigmatize persons and groups who hold thoughts the government decrees correlate with homegrown terrorism, for example, opposition to the Patriot Act or the suspension of the Great Writ of habeas corpus.
The Act will inexorably culminate in a government listing of homegrown terrorists or terrorist organizations without due process; a complementary listing of books, videos, or ideas that ostensibly further “violent radicalization;” and a blacklisting of persons who have intersected with either list.
Political discourse will be chilled and needed challenges to conventional wisdom will flag. There are no better examples of sinister congressional folly.
The Act inflates the danger of homegrown terrorism manifold to justify creating a marquee National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence (Commission) in the legislative branch. Since September 11, 2001, no American has died from homegrown terrorism, while about 120,000 have been murdered.
In the so-called post-September 11 “war” against international terrorism, Mr. Bush has detained only two citizens as enemy combatants. One was voluntarily deported to Saudi Arabia; the other was indicted, tried and convicted in a civilian court of providing material assistance to a foreign terrorist organization. And employing customary law enforcement tools, the United States has successfully prosecuted several pre-embryonic terrorism conspiracies amidst numerous false starts.
Prior to September 11, homegrown terrorism consisted largely of Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, the Unibomber and the D.C. Metropolitan area snipers. The Act, nevertheless, counterfactually finds “homegrown terrorism … poses a threat to domestic security” that “cannot be easily prevented through traditional federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts.”
Twelve members of the commission will be appointed by the president and leaders in the House and Senate. They will predictably serve the political needs of their political masters.
The commission’s Big Brother task is to discover ideas and political associations, including connections to non-U.S. persons and networks, that promote “violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States.” And “violent radicalization” is defined as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.”
Under the Act, William Lloyd Garrison would have been guilty of promoting “violent radicalization” for publishing the anti-slavery Liberator in 1831, which “facilitated” John Brown. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton would have been condemned for assailing laws disenfranchising women and creating an intellectual atmosphere receptive to violence. And Martin Luther King, Jr. would have fallen under the Act’s suspicion for denouncing Jim Crow and practicing civil disobedience, which “facilitated” H. Rap Brown.
The commission will certainly hold choreographed public hearings. Witnesses will testify that non-Christian ideas or vocal challenges to the status quo promote “an extremist belief system” that facilitates ideologically based violence. Internet communications, the media, schools, religious institutions and home life will be scrutinized for promoting pernicious thoughts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed in Gitlow v. New York (1925): “Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker’s enthusiasm for the result.”
Lengthy lists of persons, organizations and thoughts to be shunned will be compiled. Portions of the Holy Koran are likely to be taboo. The lives of countless innocent citizens will be shattered. That is the lesson of HUAC and every prior government enterprise to identify “dangerous” people or ideas — for example, the 120,000 innocent Japanese-Americans herded into concentration camps during World War II.
The ideological persecutions invited by the Act will do more to create than to deter homegrown terrorism. Mark Anthony’s words in “Julius Caesar” are a fitting commentary on what Congress is prepared to enact: “O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason.”
Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer with Bruce Fein & Associates and Chairman of the American Freedom Agenda.
Comments Off on Police in thought pursuit
Posted in Commentary, Free speech