Anyway, after a long an inconclusive game of cards, I spent a while watching the post-game shows. Much to my surprise, Governor Rendell was on Comcast Sports Night. Even more surprising, he wasn't on in an interview, or as an occasional guest, he was actually one of the three commentators for the program. He was on TV quoting stats, talking strategy, providing analysis of blitz packages, and going back on forth with the other analysts as though he was an actual sports announcer. The fact that he is the Governor never even came up. It was purely apolitical football discussion.
Anyway, seeing Rendell play sports analyst reminded me why he became Governor: because he is able to connect with wide swaths of the electorate who do not necessarily view politics as a series of legislative policies or "issues." Somehow, even though he is part of the Philadelphia political machine, he just has the touch that will secure a huge section of the Perot swing vote. He comes across as a reformer, even though he is anything but. He knows exactly what aspects of his personality to market, and he does an excellent job of it.
Watching him on TV also reminded me of the fairly bloody gubernatorial primary here three years ago between Rendell and Casey. I spent some time flyering for Casey because he had been endorsed by the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO. However, at best I was a detached or occasional activist. It bothered me that Casey was anti-choice, even though it bothered me a little bit more that Rendell, considering what he had done as Mayor, was clearly anti-labor. Because of these mutual dislikes, it was hard for me to become too involved, but in the end I sided with Casey. The way I figured it, reproductive rights hinge largely upon Roe, over which a governor has no influence, but labor rights have been in severe decline for decades. A governor has very real influence over statewide labor rights--just ask anyone in Illinois, California or New York. Of course, in the end, neither labor nor choice mattered. Rendell won in a landslide due to his Philadelphia connections and his "regular guy" image.
At long last, this brings me to the point of this article. I am staunchly pro-choice and pro-labor. However, while these positions did not matter in the election, they did matter among activists, whom I felt were strongly lined up behind Rendell. As someone (admittedly, a male) who is both pro-choice and pro-labor, this really bothered me. I worry that we have come to the point as a party where, in order to be a Democratic standard bearer, it is okay to be anti-labor and pro-choice while it is not okay to be anti-choice and pro-labor. It is as though liberalism has been detached from labor. Just for example, why is it that Roemer's position on reproductive rights has become an issue in the race for DNC chair, but no one's position on labor rights has become an issue? Why is it that when Kucinich ran for President, his announcement brought with it worries over his once anti-choice position, but no one's announcement brought with it cries over anyone's anti-labor positions? Kerry is practically dead last among Democratic Senators on Labor Rights, but no one cared during the primaries. In fact, have you ever, even once, heard of a major Democratic candidate being criticized for their position on labor? I haven't, and quite frankly an anti-labor Democrat even became our beloved President during the super-corporate nineties. By contrast, how often are potential Democratic standard bearers harangued about even holding anti-choice positions at one time? Because Kucinich, who had been voting pro-choice for eight months, had become pro-choice only around eight months before he announced, his candidacy was basically D.O.A.
Why is it that being pro-Roe a litmus test, but being anti-FTAA is not? Why is it that being anti-occupation is a litmus test for so many in the Democratic Party, but being pro-card check for the private sector is not? In my opinion, a candidate's position on private sector card check law should be as well known as their position on single payer health care, Iraqi troop deployment, the Kyoto treaty or Roe, but can you even tell me what Kerry's position on private sector card check is? I'll wager you ten dollars that you can't.
The fact of the matter is this: one of the main reasons Democrats are losing elections is because it is okay to be pro-environment and anti-labor, it is okay to be pro-Roe and anti-labor, it is okay to be anti-war and anti-labor, it is okay to be anti-patriot act and anti-labor, but it is never okay to be pro-labor and anti-any of these other things. It has literally come to the point where you can be pro-liberal, but anti-labor, and no one seems to care. We can have millennialist rhetoric about the abolishment of our rights in so many areas, but never in labor, even though the erosion of labor rights is far more clear than the erosion of nay of our other rights. For cryin' out loud, in the 1950's, 40% of the workforce was unionized. Now, it is 1/3 that total. That is not a potential crisis--that is a full blown disaster that is already taking place.
Quite frankly, the leadership of our party, in an alliance with the Republicans, sold unions down the river for middle-class liberalism. Further, the massive decline in union membership is directly tied to the massive decline in the Democratic Party, especially at the grassroots level. For the love of God, unions were our Left Wing Noise Machine, and we destroyed them to protect our middle class causes at every turn. Who provided our precinct captains that we now so desperately desire? We provided the grassroots before the netroots were around? Who provided the anti-conservative economic policy? Whose void are we now claiming to fill?
Here is an ugly truth about the netroots: we are the not so rich version of the DLC that we claim to hate. Our lack of interest and knowledge about labor is stunning. The importance of these issues among the netroots is revealing. Pop quiz--can anyone even tell me what private sector card check means, much less what it would mean to this country? The last time I used that term in a blog article, it elicited only questions, no affirmations.
You want to know why Canada is so much more left wing than America? It might have something to do with 40% of their workforce being unionized. You want to know why Western Europe is so much more left wing than America? The answer is similar. And this is not a chicken and the egg argument--the unions are the ur force here.
This past Thursday, during the Philly DFA steering committee / house party meeting, I snapped at a couple of people who I both like and admire very much when they complained about the potential difficulty in endorsing and working for Casey for the Senate in 2006 because he is anti-choice. I said something like "yeah, it would be terrible if we actually got someone pro-labor in the Senate for once." I felt bad about snapping at them, but it does not reduce the level of my frustration. It is absolutely stunning to me how little the netroots care about labor, yet still claim to be "taking back the party." It is stunning to me how little the netroots care about labor and still claim to be building a progressive future.
Would it be so bad to have someone who is pro-labor and anti-choice, considering our current state of affairs? Granted, it would not be as good as having someone pro-choice and pro-labor, but why is one a litmus test and the other one isn't? Is Roe being overturned really worse than all of us working at Wal-Mart? As a man, I ask that as a serious question, not rhetorical or sarcastic in any way. (More as an aside, I would ask which one is closer to reality, anyway?) More to the point: why aren't labor rights a litmus test too? Nothing pegs our middle class movement for what it is more than our apathy about labor. That needs to end, because if we are not pro-labor, and loudly pro-labor, the Democratic Party will die no matter what Noise Machine or grassroots movement we bring to bear. Period. It is time for a new litmus test, and quite frankly, as far as I know, the only candidate for chair who passes that test is Howard Dean.
</rant>
|
|
|
Permalink :: 155 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
