MyDD :: They Work For Us

They Work For Us

by Matt Stoller, Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 01:53:51 PM EST

You may have seen on Kos an announcement about the new group They Work for Us. TWFU is going to run primary challenges and put pressure on lawmakers to better represent their districts. TWFU is going to be much more powerful than groups like the Club for Growth on the right for a number of reasons.

It's People-Powered: The Club for Growth is entirely money-driven, which means that they can put commercials and pay for GOTV in races, but they cannot deliver actual votes. TWFU has a base of labor support and blogger support, and while it's not going to eschew money, it has a real base of voters that it can communicate with right off the bat. In low turnout primaries, this can be very powerful.

It's Mainstream: The Club for Growth is pushing fundamentally unpopular policies. Perhaps at one time there was a strong anti-tax sentiment, when marginal tax rates were in the 70s, but that day has long passed. The public has seen that the low tax scam from the right is just another way of screwing the middle class. TWFU is part of a new progressive ecosystem that is pushing mainstream policies supported by large segments of the public. Primary targets are going to choose themselves.

It's Faster: Unlike the Club for Growth, TWFU has the blogosphere as a communications network built into its DNA. The Club does a lot of blogging, but the netroots on the right haven't broken out yet. On the left, we're seeing a rapid 50 state communications and organizing network emerge, which can put huge amounts of pressure on lawmakers without direct involvement of TWFU. Just knowing it's there, and that bloggers have a seat at the table, is going to create huge progressive leverage.

It's Low-hanging Fruit: I love trash-talking the Club as much as the next progressive, but the reality is that the Club already has a well-developed right-wing infrastructure on its side and has been effective within that infrastructure. Aside from the blogs in 2004, though, there had been very little work done on the left to hold lawmakers to the standards they set for themselves. With TWFU in the game, there's a lot of low-hanging fruit out there simply because no one's tried this on the progressive side before.

Ah, good times.

Tags: primary project, They Work for Us (all tags)

Permalink :: 20 Comments :: Post a Comment

This is a very good thing (3.00 / 1)

I posted the following comment over at Kos.

I think the person it's addressed to changes, but the content remains the same. It's a serious question.

There was a unfortunate series of event last week which raised a serious question.

What is the political economy of the netroots?

This matters because groups like this have a aim to influence the political economy of the Democratic party.

There's this burgeoning conflict between the leaders of the Hamilton Project, continuing the dereguation and free trade push of the Clinton administration, and the Shared Prosperity group, which is supported by labor groups and calls for a strategic pause in trade deals and restoring protections for workers.

This conflict is going to shape the debate in 2008, I was just wondering if we are going to be hearing about this on the front page. It seems that if the netroots wants to be taken seriously as a political force, there has a clear position on this.

I can almost guarantee you that the policies that groups like They Work For Us push for are going to be in line with the Shared Prosperity group, rather than the Hamilton Project.

by ManfromMiddletown on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 02:15:48 PM EST

Re: This is a very good thing (none / 0)

MFM - I agree that this is a very good thing -- a huge deal IMO. I also understand why you think the free/fair trade issue is a big deal, and I understand why. I've become a fair trade advocate over the past couple of years, but I think that our trade policy is less important than the way the government is actually run.
Scandinavian countries have very open markets, but they're competitive because of their efficient, transparent government.
As long as we've got an adequate safety net/retraining system for workers, and a single payer health care system, I think that trade policy won't matter all that much.
Unfortunately, we currently have neither of these, and our government is convoluted and corrupt, so we aren't competitive, hence, the trade issues.

Anyhow, this group is incredibly important because it's going to enforce party discipline and hopefully help us re-build the democratic party and the middle class.

by mermzilla on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 02:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a very good thing (3.00 / 1)

I think that in the US, trade policy increasingly influences the way that the government is run. Companies use the threat of leaving the country to extort concessions from the government.

At the local level it takes the form of tax concessions, while at the federal level it's undermining protections for workers and the environment. Companies can coerce these concessions because they have the power to take their production out of the US while retaining a base of consumers in the country.

You say:

As long as we've got an adequate safety net/retraining system for workers, and a single payer health care system, I think that trade policy won't matter all that much.

I beg to differ. The productivity of American manfacturing workers has increased steadily since the 1970s, there pay has not. The issue isn't one of worker not having the skills needed for the job. It's that corporate management trying to impress shareholders with profits is increasingly appropriating the labor share of value created in production. And this in turn gives reason to give them large bonuses.

I particularly object to the education myth, because I feel that it blames the victim. The misfortune of workers, rather than being no fault of their own, is taken as a sign of moral failure.

Tech workers used to use the education argument to explain why they were immune to globalization, now their jobs are headed to India.

by ManfromMiddletown on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 02:44:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a very good thing (3.00 / 1)

MFM - You make some excellent points, many of which I agree with. Again, I think that considering our present state of affairs, you are essentially correct, however, I take exception with this part of your argument:

I beg to differ. The productivity of American manfacturing workers has increased steadily since the 1970s, there pay has not. The issue isn't one of worker not having the skills needed for the job. It's that corporate management trying to impress shareholders with profits is increasingly appropriating the labor share of value created in production.

I'm from Detroit, so when I think manufacturing jobs, I think of America's Auto Industry. The Auto industry has historically been a vehicle (no pun intended) to shared prosperity, but the model is failing. This isn't due to trade policies. Toyota and Honda have plenty of plants in America, and they pay their workers a reasonable wage. They buy many of their parts from American suppliers.

The problem, for GM, Ford and Chrysler is the high cost of labor. Specifically, massive health care costs. I'm sure you've seen the statistic that for every care GM sells, $2000 goes to pay for health care. If America had a single payer health care system, those costs would be cut in half, and GM would be more competitive. That's not a trade issue. It's a good government issue.

I also strongly agree with this statement:

At the local level it takes the form of tax concessions, while at the federal level it's undermining protections for workers and the environment. Companies can coerce these concessions because they have the power to take their production out of the US while retaining a base of consumers in the country.

I think that there are multiple solutions to this problem, however. I'd say the easiest is to change our trade policy, and I'm not opposed to that. Corporate influence is has been incredibly corrosive, and reducing that influence via tougher trade policies makes lots of sense. I don't think it gets at the underlying problem, however -- competitiveness. Good, transparent government can make it less profitable for companies to take their business overseas, giving them less leverage. If we create policy that promotes a 'race to the top', via high-tech, skilled workers adding lots of value to what they manufacture, companies won't have as much leverage in extracting concessions. True, we've seen a lot of outsourcing to India, and although I'd argue that the majority of that is for 'call center' type jobs that are relatively low-skill, there have certainly been a lot of skilled computer programmers that have lost their job security as well. I'll partially accept the validity of this argument, but:
a) IT jobs, including computer programming, are more service sector oriented, which isn't what we were originally talking about
b) A four year degree in computer science, though highly skilled, isn't that highly skilled
c) At least 50%-75% of the Chinese and Indian engineers/programmers aren't remotely as skilled as their American counterparts
d) America is actually facing a future shortage of well trained engineers

Of course, what I'm offering is a relatively nebulous solution, while changing trade policy is pretty straightforward and intuitive. I think that changing trade policy is a short term solution that has merit, but the long term solution is to implement structural economic reforms that make the American job market less wasteful and more competitive. Again, I'd point to Scandinavian countries that have very open markets, but remain competitive. It's no coincidence that these countries also have the least corrupt, most transparent governments, as well as excellent social safety nets and retraining programs.

Finally, I'd like to address this point:

I particularly object to the education myth, because I feel that it blames the victim. The misfortune of workers, rather than being no fault of their own, is taken as a sign of moral failure.

I certainly wasn't making this argument, although I suppose I was taking the side of some that do. My basic response is that:
a) Job retraining has been proven to work. It's not a silver bullet, and it doesn't negate the damage of losing one's job, but we can create a system that certainly lessens the blow. You can't blame the workers for being laid off, certainly, but we do live in a capitalist system, where layoffs are inevitable. I think changing trade policy may well be a stopgap, to keep the current generation of workers employed while America transitions into a high tech/high value economy.
b) We'd be doing ourselves a disservice by completely ignoring international competitive pressures. Subsidized/overly protected (non-infant) industries are generally a bad idea. They are inefficient, and they distort the allocation of scarce resources. There are a lot of corporations that use their political clout to extract such subsidies, and that's got to stop. Moneyed interests have a corrosive effect on our government, and it's crucial that we fight them. We need to create an economic system that gives our industries the tools they need to compete with anyone. Yes, it isn't fair to ask a textile worker to compete with third world laborers who make a dollar a day, but those same third world laborers don't have access to the training that American workers do. We should make sure that the next generation of Americans don't need those low-skilled jobs - let's make it a race to the top.

So I guess I agree with you, but not wholeheartedly. Erecting trade barriers isn't a permanent solution, it's a stopgap measure. If Democrats take the presidency and keep the house/senate in 2008, we're going to have to fight hard for them to make politically difficult reforms for the future of this country and the American worker.

Would you generally agree?

by mermzilla on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 04:07:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a very good thing (none / 0)

I don't have time to respond in detail.

But, year a stop in trade deals in a temporary solution, longer term there has to a focus on integrating a common legal basis for trade that protects workers, the environment, and ensures that the conditions of production do not diverge too greatly from a qualitative mean.

You point to Sweden. Sweden is a member of the European Union and as such conforms to the acquis communitaire. This body of law differs from the North American contect, because where NAFTA effectively places caps (very low caps) on regulatory protections for workers and the environment effectively creating an iron ceiling trapping working people below, in the European context the common law is one of minimums that states must adhere to in order to remain in the common market. The EU provides a more humane and sustainable model for economic integration than NAFTA, the WTO, and CAFTA.

That's all I have time for now.

by ManfromMiddletown on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:52:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a very good thing (3.00 / 1)

Great question.

In terms of political economy, I believe in a progressive economy with a high minimum wage, universal health care, ethical corporate governance, heavy unionization, fairer IP and copyright laws, robust public infrastructure in health, communications, and transportation, and fair trade agreements rather than corporate written pacts (which isn't free trade). I want wealth distributed away from rich people and towards the poor and middle class. This puts me on the Jim Webb side of the equation, though I also want a lot cut out of the military budget.

I don't buy that there's an unbridgeable divide between the Hamilton Project and EPI. My guess is that this is the result of bad political strategy and communications. The Hamilton Project has its own branding problems, but I was also unimpressed by Hacker's health care plan, which refused to take on the insurance industry head on and acceded to a rather meek status quo. And let's just say I've been underwhelmed by EPI's online persuasion efforts.

The key is to convince the 'free traders' and the populists that their fate is intertwined, and that it makes more sense to do business with each other than it does to do business with the populist right (Tancredo and Lou Dobbs) or the businss right (Chamber and Club for Growth). Each right-wing is tugging at EPI and Hamilton, respectively.

In other words, there is an unbridgeable divide between corrupt politicians and progressives, and a fight needs to happen there, but we can get over the rest. Rubin's already there on most of our issues.

by Matt Stoller on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 02:43:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a very good thing (3.00 / 1)

Matt, I think that you're glossing over serious ideological differences between the Hamilton Project and Shared Prosperity.

The fact is that they represent different consituencies, and this follows into the policy proposals they make. The Hamilton Project is funded by Rubin and investment bankers, they want policies that favor people who make their living in through corporate profits. Shared Prosperity is funded by labor groups through the EPI (if my understanding is correct), and as a result wants policies that favor people who live by wages. This is in conflict.

The most prominent conflict that I can pick out is one trade issues. The Hamilton Project doesn't favor a strategic pause in trade agreements and the renegotiation of treaties to include labor and environmental protections.

They think that the answer lies in retraining and education, but for what? For call center jobs, being shipped to India. For nursing positions, being undermined by Mexican nurses brought in under Chapter 16 of NAFTA and Filpina nurses brought in other ways? I find it insulting to suggest that the reason that American workers are suffering is that they are uneducated, and that is implicit in the arguments made by the Hamilton Project (HP after this) in reference to trade.

Where the HP is reactive, Shared Prosperity is proactive. Saying that we must question the veracity of claims that "free trade" benefits the US rather than suggesting we deal with the consequences of unconstrained trade after the fact.

There's a recommended diary up on the right now about Shared Prosperity. It's a good read. Read the piece on globalization, and see if you think that there are only minor differences between HP and Shared Prosperity.

by ManfromMiddletown on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 03:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a very good thing (none / 0)

I basically agree with most of what you've written, especially your point that these are different constituencies. That said, there is a lot of common ground between them. Rubin is with us on progressive taxation and income inequality, and my guess is that we can convince him fairly easily that he won't get free trade without large concessions on what he wants to help redress structural imbalances. There's no conflict between long-term fiscal balance - what Rubin wants - and a progressive economy.

Trade is a difference but it's not that important compared to, say, universal health care and progressive taxation, both of which contribute more to outsourcing than having labor or environmental standards in trade pacts.

by Matt Stoller on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 03:26:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a very good thing (3.00 / 0)

Matt -- would you agree that erecting trade barriers is a worthwhile stopgap measure, but not a long term solution?

by mermzilla on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 04:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a very good thing (3.00 / 1)

No, I wouldn't. There are already huge trade barriers in our so-called 'free trade' agreements. Those need to be eliminated so that corporate interests don't dominate our trade pacts. This includes the protectionism accorded to our health, agricultural, and military sectors, which incidentally form the backbone of the Republican economy.

Protectionism is bad, we need to get rid of it. And that means that Republicans will have to compete for once.

by Matt Stoller on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 06:16:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you hit the nail on the head (none / 0)

I'm really glad to hear you say something like this. I'm also for "fair trade" rather than "free trade," but think it's a mistake to view guys like Rubin as the enemy. He's wrong about some important things, but I think he is generally progressive and is definitely someone that liberals can work with.

By all means it's fair game to discuss policy differences with folks like Rubin, but demonizing that camp of the progressive movement isn't really the answer. Glad to hear you think there is at least some common ground.

by HSTruman on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 12:09:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's about time! (none / 0)

I've been musing over the possibility of a real well-organized effort to change the party through primaries, and this seems like the perfect time to start it.

We can change the party through primaries, and the new party will be much more competitive, and much more responsive to the people. I can't wait.

Progress is Personal | Connie Brennan | My opinions are mine alone

by msnook on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 02:25:47 PM EST

watch convention wisdom change (3.00 / 1)

Yesterday:

Could Tauscher suffer Lieberman's fate, or are liberal bloggers getting too big for their pixels?

Conventional wisdom is firmly on Tauscher's side: Booting an incumbent in her own primary requires a trifecta of cash, a viable opponent and burning issues. [...]

And despite past clashes with party leaders over ideology and district boundaries, there's no sign that top Democrats share the bloggers' hostility. [...]

So, does Tauscher have a problem, or have cocky bloggers overstated their powers as kingmaker, or in this case, queenmaker?

No one knows.

Today:

Rosenthal founded America ComingTogether, a political organization that mobilized Democratic voters in the 2004 presidential election.

In addition to Rosenthal, the two groups are led by some of the most influential organizers in labor and liberal politics, including Anna Burger, the secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union; Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, and Linda Lipsen, a senior vice president at the American Association for Justice, formerly the American Trial Lawyers Association.

Those cocky unions and activists and lawyers just targeted Tauscher as #1.

- John McCain

by Bob Brigham on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 02:34:18 PM EST

Re: watch convention wisdom change (none / 0)

Those of us working on Tauscher are thrilled to see institutional supprt from TWFU for a primary challenge. It will help with encouraging potential candidates to step up to challenge Tauscher and legitimizes our efforts to a degree.

Tauscher knows what we are up to and is worried, as she should be.

by juls on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 02:41:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: watch convention wisdom change (none / 0)

This really is like a Dream Team, those are some of my very favorite national organizations.

This isn't a story about those dirty hippie bloggers, this is now a story about cream of the crop in progressive organizing.

Boots on the ground.

- John McCain

by Bob Brigham on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 03:04:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who to target (3.00 / 1)

Kos notes

The first three targets? Three Democrats we already know and love -- Ellen Tauscher, Al Wynn, and Henry Cuellar.

This is a potent alliance, and one that will have real muscle as we look to target not "conservative" Democrats, but Democrats who are out of step with their districts...

So who else should be on the list? I nominate Dan Lipinski (IL-3) -- a primary I would gladly get involved in, if a serious challenger could be found. (In 2006 two weak challengers, one running from the left, the other from the right, ensured Lipinski's renomination; in 2004 he was given the seat by his dad -- who waited until after the primary to announce his retirement.)

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 06:08:05 PM EST

Re: They Work For Us (none / 0)

If you just read the post, you could wonder "why is someone trying to be anotother MoveOn?" But in fact MoveOn has gone after other issues than trade and so this looks like a good thing. If they figure out how to buck the lobbies that are now descending upon the Senate to try and gut the minimum wage stuff that Pelosi's hous has turned out, we who work with MoveOn will be taking careful notes.

Good luck to us all.

How many mosquitos does it take to empty an elephant?

by greensmile on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 09:43:49 PM EST

Re: They Work For Us (none / 0)

Yea, well here's a little different view on TWFU:

http://www.streetprophets.com/storyonly/ 2007/1/22/214425/435

by Andre on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 10:28:31 PM EST

Re: They Work For Us (none / 0)

All I can say is thank you, thank you bloggers. I don't know who the hell you are or where you came from, but I truly appreciate you giving a voice to America. We have been nothing but mules for the party. Take our jobs, health care, money, taxes, social security, etc. Then show up every two years, take our vote, and disappear. It is so time to take our party and our country back. Thank you, thank you bloggers.

Follow the money

by dkmich on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 06:40:38 AM EST

DLC counter measure? (none / 0)

UPDATE: I've posted about this here, here and here trying to find out if anyone else has heard about this possible DLC counter measure to TWFU, but nobody has received the same call I got apparently ...

I got a call yesterday from Eric from the Democratic Action ... something or other (Network? Coalition?). He was fundraising for them. He started off by asking "aren't you tired of Democrats caving in to the Republicans?" which I thought was strange, because wasn't that what this last election was all about? Then he got to name dropping who was behind this organization. He mentioned James Carville, Tom Vilsack, Dick Durbin and a few others whose names I don't remember.

I wasn't going to let this pass. So this poor guy got to listen to me rant.

After all, the Democratic Leadership Council's strategy of pandering to the middle, backstabbing, rolling over to the Republicans and only challenging a few Republicans is what brought us the Congressional victories of '94 through '04 and the Presidential victories of 2000 & '04. Those would be Republican victories. They do not have a winning strategy.

I picked on Cueball as an example of the pundit/consultant class of Washington, DC that is what's wrong with Dems in Washington, the DLC and if Carville is involved, that's not a good thing. Carville is part of the problem and is not going to be part of any solution involving standing up to the Republicans. His war to oust Howard Dean failed and no Dem who wants to succeed will listen to him.

After venting my spleen at this poor fundraiser, I read on dKos that a new organization has just come into being ... They Work For Us which is a coalition of labor, the netroots, trial attorneys and progressive politicians who want to hold Democrats accountable.

I did some searching, but couldn't find anything on "Democratic Action" or "Democrat Action" or anything similar. I'm wondering if this is the DLC's answer to They Work For Us. If anyone has more information on this Democratic Action Thing-er-ma-jiggy, please illuminate me in the comments. I think it's pretty suspicious ... I wish I'd have taken notes.

"still afloat out of sheer distraction on the part of fate" Gabriel Garcia Marquez

by The Big E on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 10:51:39 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.