Tweet
While discussing an Andrew Cuomo presidential bid and Cuomo’s “unexpected” support for New York’s Gay Marriage Law, David Weigel recalled:
New York Union Rallies 2011
…a conversation [he] had last week with a Democratic statewide elected from the Midwest. He asked me what I thought of Cuomo as a candidate in 2016; I said Cuomo would face real problems from labor unions, compared to some other Democratic hopefuls, given the deals he’s been cutting in New York — salary freezes, carve-outs for some unions and not others, etc. This Democrat told me that he liked Cuomo for exactly that reason, and that the Democratic party, going from here, couldn’t rely on unions and promise them everything they wanted.
This was a little jarring to hear. Around the same time, Joe Biden was telling Teamsters to stick with Democrats because when Republicans won in the states, they were tearing up all the contracts and gains unions had made. How many Democrats think that’s not tenable anymore? If there’s some way to fund the Democratic Party at current levels with union activism replaced by donations from grateful gay donors… no, I don’t think the math adds up. But there are certainly some Democrats thinking about this.
It does not surprise me that the elite of Democratic Party wants to break completely with labor. The labor movement in general and the unions more specifically actually have real economic demands they want met, demands which the New Democrats would not want to take up as party goals. The actions of the Obama administration have made it very clear that the Democratic Party today does not wish to annoy finance capital, to reduce the costs of empire, to reach a full-employment economy that realizes a living-wage for anyone who wants to work and to provide the social goods required to reduce the risks giving with living in the United States. The Democrat Party has not been the party of labor, and has not been such for decades. It refused this role long ago because it does not want to represent the interests of labor in general and the labor movement in particular within the various governments of the United States. It is not a or especially the party of the lower classes. The Obama administration takes the now conventional position that affirming the supply side of the economy provides the proper and realistic path to sustainable economic growth. Because it has this stance, the Democratic Party does engage in class war; it, along with the Republican Party wages class war on the “lesser people” in the United States.
Who, then, are the friends of labor in the Democratic Party? I’d expect to find them sweeping the floors, filing documents, moving furniture, etc. at Party headquarters.
This article was cross-posted to All Tied Up and Nowhere to Go
Update
David Sirota makes a similar point at Salon.com, providing his argument with greater depth than I did in mine.
14 Comments
You can’t serve the Oligarchy and the working class just like you can’t serve God and Mammon. The (new) Democrats made their choice with NAFTA. The remnant of organized labor still foolishly pays tribute to the Democrats.
If there can only be two parties in the U.S., one of them has to be a Labor Party. The alternative is revolution.
It looks to me that America’s labor leaders are moving away from the Party-centric position they had had in the past. Richard Trumka has threatened the DP. Let’s see if he follows through on his threats.
Recommended Reading!
My opinion is that the Dems no longer represent the Labor class because since 9-11, NAFTA, and other “FREE” Trade rackets there is little to NO Labor class left! Why would they go out of their way to support Labor when they know that labor is being abolished, determined extinct, and has no way of lining their coffers?
What I want to know is who will represent the new Peasant Class?
Yes. Mr. Trumka’s words have been encouraging. Lets see if he follows through.
We run into danger using a term like “labor”. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with the term, it unfortunately brings to mind large labor unions and all the baggage of their past corruption that might entail. We also limit our thinking to a very small part of the population, i.e. union workers.
When we speak of fighting for the interests of working people, we need to be painfully clear that we mean ALL WORKING PEOPLE. This includes assembly line workers, retail clerks, plumbers and electricians, and white collar professionals too. All workers are threatened by the current corporate tyranny.
We also need to “ask for more”. Merely protecting workers with negotiated contracts and giving them more rights in the workplace is not enough… not by a long shot.
Instead of handing out band-aids to workers to mitigate the ravishes of capitalism, we need to fight to empower workers. Let’s start by stripping non-employee stockholders of their voting rights and let’s rewrite corporate charters to give all corporate power to the employees of a company. With the workers in charge, maybe we wouldn’t have to worry quite as much about whether workers’ rights are being protected.
Agree. No labor aristocracy!
Just to clarify, I am fully supportive of unions. They provide an excellent organizing vehicle and they represent workers who have seen their wages, job security and other working conditions erode under the thumb of corporatism. I see no reason workers shouldn’t organize to accomplish their objectives. I certainly don’t see unions as a “labor aristocracy”.
The key point I was trying to make is that we need to think beyond the 7% of American workers who belong to unions in order to broaden our movement.
All working people? That would be the class of people who work? We could call them the Working Class.
A Labor Party represents the interests of the Working Class regardless of it’s name. How about The Peace And Prosperity Party (The PPP)?
The PPP would be friendly to unions, a sub-set of the working class. And the PPP would educate Americans about the history and accomplishments of Labor Movements and about the inherent dignity of Labor.
The cold war is over. Ronald Regan is dead. It’s past time for Americans to get over their instilled hatred and revulsion at the words “Labor” and “Working Class”.
When labor as such organizes itself to such a degree that it is not wholly inclusive of all who labor for a wage and when the organized component of labor uses its organization resources to generate a higher wage rate than that received by the unorganized, we would identify the organized sector of labor as an Aristocracy of Labor. This designation would not carry much weight if the organized component of working class would choose to extend its organizational coverage to every member of the working class, thereby bringing the wage of the whole class in something approaching equality. If the organized component of the working class fails to make this effort, fails to achieve the goal when making this effort and then adopts a conservative position with respect to its organizational achievements, it is then that the Labor Aristocracy label gains its truth content.
We always need to think beyond the limits given to us by the legacy unions in the United States. It was the older unionists who contributed into giving birth to situation labor now confronts.
The unions are no longer large enough to give the sort of money necessary to get politicans on their side….not when you are going against the money of the banks and big oil… thank you, Supreme Court!
The problem the left faces with regard to unions is that the public employee unions are quite unpopular with the mass of voters because of their benefits which most people in private employment simply do not enjoy.Since when is a cop in Bergen County,New Jersey who makes over $100,000 a year part of the “working class”?
Yes, and the public employee unions have been ardent in NOT supporting efforts to organize private sector workers. It was “we’ve got ours, forget you”. Now the “ours” is under attack, big time. Surprise!
well, in case no one noticed, the labor movement in terms of unions is certainly dead and has been for some time, and yes, a handful of gay donors could probably equal what the unions are going to come up with, but realistically speaking, the unions have neither the dough or the votes to win an election. As RoyalOak points out, corporate cash wins elections. obama’s consituency is doing just fine on this economy and will profit handsomely from the deficit or is it the debt? whether they stab obama in the back is of little consequence. as for labor, instead of cpr to the corpse, why not something different?
Voters choose the winners of elections. It helps if the voters are well informed and have worthwhile candidates from which to choose.
Money now decides elections because the United States lacks movements that contest the operations and candidates of the two legacy parties.