This article originally appeared at TomDispatch. To receive TomDispatch in your inbox three days a week, click here .

Photo: Matt Baran / Flickr.
The post-mortems and prognostications began just minutes after Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s recall election victory, and they’re still flooding in. His win, goes one talking point, bodes well for Mitt Romney’s efforts to flip Wisconsin red for the first time since 1984. Bummed-out Democrats, suggests another, spell trouble for President Obama in November. Obama’s got no reason to worry, claims a third, because 17% of the Walker recall vote came from Wisconsinites who claim they will go the president’s way in the fall.
Such futurology is now the essence of what we think of as political coverage (along with the flood of opinion polls that make it seem like realism). Yet such crystal-ball-reading is a fool’s errand. Gubernatorial recalls in particular are utter rarities, outliers brought into being by a unique set of local circumstances.
You can bet on one thing, though: Walker’s win has emboldened the Republican Party. And here’s another likelihood: Republican governors and state legislators nationwide will emulate Walker’s “divide and conquer” agenda — his own words — in the months and possibly years ahead. Tim Phillips, president of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, said as much in Wisconsin on the eve of the recall: “Today every other governor in the country and every state legislator in the country is watching Wisconsin. Because the Wisconsin approach to changing and making state government better is the new model for the country.”
Behold the Walker model: Kneecap public-employee unions; slash government spending for education and services for the poor and elderly; lower corporate taxes; implement controversial — and potentially discriminatory — voter identification legislation; redraw your state’s political boundaries to benefit the GOP (and then wait for the election contributions to pour in by the multimillions from enthused right-wing billionaires and corporate “individuals,” with a blitz of the airwaves to follow).
Divide and Conquer. It’s like a bad action movie coming soon to a state near you — or your own. The need to counter this deep-pocketed Republican steamroller couldn’t be greater. But as we’re fast learning in this era of super-PACs and billionaire bankrollers, locking yourself into a remarkably broken electoral system, writes TomDispatch Associate Editor Andy Kroll, may be the mistake of the decade. A crucial lesson from Wisconsin’s recall rumble drawn by no one but Kroll is that, oppositionally speaking, a direct plunge into electoral politics may no longer be the best option for stopping that GOP juggernaut. (To catch Timothy MacBain’s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Kroll discusses what Scott Walker’s recall win means for the future, click here or download it to your iPod here.) Tom
Getting Rolled in Wisconsin
Why Electoral Politics Sold Out the Popular Uprising in the Badger State — and Why It’s Not All Over
By Andy Kroll
The revelers watched in stunned disbelief, cocktails in hand, dressed for a night to remember. On the big-screen TV a headline screamed in crimson red: “Projected Winner: Scott Walker.” It was 8:49 p.m. In parts of Milwaukee, people learned that news networks had declared Wisconsin’s governor the winner while still in line to cast their votes. At the election night party for Walker’s opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, supporters talked and cried and ordered more drinks. Barrett soon took the stage to concede, then waded into the crowd where a distraught woman slapped him in the face.
Walker is the first governor in American history to win a recall election. His lieutenant governor, Rebecca Kleefisch, dispatched her recall challenger no less decisively. So, too, did three Republican state senators in their recall elections. Democrats avoided a GOP sweep with a win in the sixth and final senate recall vote of the season, in Wisconsin’s southeastern 21st district, but that was small consolation. Put simply, Democrats and labor unions got rolled.
The results of Tuesday’s elections are being heralded as the death of public-employee unions, if not the death of organized labor itself. Tuesday’s results are also seen as the final chapter in the story of the populist uprising that burst into life last year in the state capital of Madison. The Cheddar Revolution, so the argument goes, was buried in a mountain of ballots.
But that burial ceremony may prove premature. Most of the conclusions of the last few days, left and right, are likely wrong.
The energy of the Wisconsin uprising was never electoral. The movement’s mistake: letting itself be channeled solely into traditional politics, into the usual box of uninspired candidates and the usual line-up of debates, primaries, and general elections. The uprising was too broad and diverse to fit electoral politics comfortably. You can’t play a symphony with a single instrument. Nor can you funnel the energy and outrage of a popular movement into a single race, behind a single well-worn candidate, at a time when all the money in the world from corporate “individuals” and right-wing billionaires is pouring into races like the Walker recall.
Colin Millard, an organizer at the International Brotherhood of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers, admitted as much on the eve of the recall. We were standing inside his storefront office in the small town of Horicon, Wisconsin. It was night outside. “The moment you start a recall,” he told me, “you’re playing their game by their rules.”
From Madison to Zuccotti Park and Beyond
A recap is in order.
The uprising began with Colin Millard. The date was February 11, 2011, when Walker “dropped the bomb,” as he later put it, with his “budget repair” bill, which sought to gut collective bargaining rights for most public-employee unions, Later that day, a state Democratic Party staffer who knew Millard called him and pleaded with him to organize a protest. Millard agreed, even though other unions, including the AFL-CIO, urged him to back out. Don’t make a fuss, they advised. Let’s call some lawmakers and urge them to oppose Walker’s bill. “Fuck off,” was Millard’s response.
On the Sunday after Walker unveiled his bill, Millard rounded up more than 200 people and marched down Lake Street, past the John Deere factory and Dannyboy’s Bar, to the home of Republican Jeff Fitzgerald, the speaker of the state Assembly and a Walker ally. Fitzgerald lived a mile or two from Millard in Horicon. “I’ve got a message for Scott Walker,” Millard told the crowd outside Fitzgerald’s house. “This is my union card and you can pry it from my cold, dead hand.”
As rumors spread of more protests, Walker threatened to call out the National Guard to deal with the protesting public workers. That’s when popular outrage erupted. Students marched on the state capitol, and then a local teaching assistants union led the effort to take over the capitol rotunda, transforming intermittent protests into a round-the-clock occupation. Organizers provided food, shelter, health care, day care, education, and a sense of purpose for those who had taken up residence inside the capitol.
In support of the occupiers, the daily protests outside the capitol grew into crowds of 10,000, 25,000, then upward of 100,000. People marched in the snowy streets to challenge Walker, Wisconsin Republicans, and their political donors. Tractors circled the capitol in protest, as did firefighters and cops, even though their bargaining rights had been exempted from Walker’s “reform” proposals. By now, Madison had captured the nation’s attention.
A two-week occupation of the capitol and months of protests didn’t, however, deter Walker and Republican lawmakers. He signed his budget repair bill, known as Act 10, into law in March. But that doesn’t mean the Wisconsin uprising had no effect. For one thing, the “Walkerville” occupation of the grounds outside the state capitol helped inspire the “Bloombergville” protest in New York City targeting Mayor Michael Bloomberg. That, in turn, would be a precursor to the Occupy Wall Street events of the following September and later the Occupy movement nationwide. Without Wisconsin, without the knowledge that such things could still happen in America, there might never have been an Occupy.
Hijacking the Uprising
By the time Occupy Wall Street took off, the Wisconsin uprising had swapped its come-one-come-all organizing message for a far narrower and more traditional political mission. Over the summer of 2011, the decision was made that the energy and enthusiasm displayed in Madison should be channeled into recall elections to defeat six Republican state senators who had voted for Walker’s anti-union Act 10. (Three Democratic senators would, in the end, face recall as well.) By that act, Democrats and unions hoped to wrestle control of the senate away from Walker and use that new power to block his agenda.
The Democrats won two of the 2011 recalls, one short of gaining control of the Senate, and so the Republicans clung to their majority.
What followed was more of the same, but with the ante upped. This time, the marquee race would be the recall of Walker himself. Launched last November, the grassroots campaign to recall the governor put the populist heart of the Wisconsin uprising on full display. Organizing under the United Wisconsin banner, 30,000 volunteers statewide gathered nearly one million signatures to trigger the election. The group’s people-powered operation recaptured some of the spirit of the Capitol occupation, but the decision had been made: recalling Walker at the ballot box was the way forward.
The Walker recall effort would, in fact, splinter the masses of anti-Walker protesters. Many progressives and most of the state’s labor unions rallied behind former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk who, in January 2012, announced her intent to challenge Walker. Tom Barrett, who had lost the governor’s race to Walker in 2010, didn’t announce his candidacy until late March, his entry pitting Democrat against Democrat, his handful of union endorsements pitting labor against labor. Unions pumped $4 million into helping Falk clinch the Democratic nomination. In the end, though, it wasn’t close: Barrett stomped her in the May 8th primary by 24 percentage points.
By now, the Madison movement was the captive of ordinary Democratic politics in the state. After all, Barrett was hardly a candidate of the uprising. People who had protested in the streets and slept in the capitol groused about his uninspired record on workers’ rights and public education. He never inspired or unified the movement that had made a recall possible — and it showed on Election Day: Walker beat Barrett by seven percentage points, almost his exact margin of victory in 2010. Democrats and their union allies needed to win over new voters and old enemies; by all accounts they failed.
And had Barrett by some miracle won, after a few days of celebration and self-congratulation, those in the Madison movement would have found themselves in the same box, in the same broken system, with little sense of what to do and, in a Barrett governorship, little hope. Win or lose, there was loss written all over the recall decision.
The Fate of the Uprising
The takeaway from Walker’s decisive win on Tuesday is not that Wisconsin’s new populist movement is dead. It’s that such a movement does not fit comfortably into the present political/electoral system, stuffed as it is with corporate money, overflowing with bizarre ads and media horse-race-manship. Its members’ beliefs are too diverse to be confined comfortably in what American electoral politics has become. It simply couldn’t be squeezed into a system that stifles and, in some cases, silences the kinds of voices and energies it possessed.
The post-election challenge for the members of Wisconsin’s uprising is finding a new way to fight for and achieve needed change without simply pinning their hopes on a candidate or an election. After all, that’s part of what absorbed the nation when a bunch of students first moved into the Wisconsin state capitol and wouldn’t go home, or when a ragtag crew of protesters camped out in lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park and wouldn’t leave either. In both cases, they had harnessed the outrage felt by so many Americans for a cause other than what’s usually called “politics” in this country.
And they were successful — even in the most traditional terms; that is, both movements affected traditional politics most strongly when they weren’t part of it. The Occupy movement, for all its flaws, moved even mainstream political discourse away from austerity and deficit slashing and toward the issues of income inequality and the hollowing out of the American middle and working classes.
Avoiding politics as we know it with an almost religious fervor, Occupy still managed to put its stamp on national political fights. Last October, for instance, Ohioans voted overwhelmingly to repeal SB 5, a law that curbed collective bargaining rights for all public-employee unions. Occupy’s “We are the 99%” message reverberated through Ohio, and the volunteers who blitzed the state successfully drew on Occupy themes to make their case for the law’s repeal. Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, which spent $500,000 in Ohio fighting SB 5, told me at the time, “Every conversation was in the context of the 99% and the 1%, this discussion sparked by Occupy Wall Street.”
The money that flowed into Walker’s recall fight speaks loudly to the disadvantages a Wisconsin-like movement faces within the walls of electoral politics and the need for it to resist being confined there. On the post-Citizens United playing field, the unlimited amounts of the money that rose to the top of this society in recent decades, as the 1% definitively separated itself from the 99%, can be reinvested in preserving the world as it is and electing those who will make it even more amenable. The advantage invariably goes corporate; it goes Republican.
Historically, the Republicans have long been the party of big business, of multinational corporations, of wealthy, union-hating donors like Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and Amway heir Dick DeVos — and in recent decades the Democrats have followed in their wake sweeping up the crumbs (or worse). And here’s the reality of a deeply corrupt system: unless Congress and state legislators act to patch up their tattered campaign finance rulebooks, the same crew with the same money will continue to dominate the political wars. (And any movement that puts its own money on changing those rules is probably in deep trouble.)
In the wake of the recall losses, the people of Wisconsin’s uprising must ask themselves: Where can they make an impact outside of politics? The power of nonviolent action to create social and economic change is well documented, most notably by Jonathan Schell in his classic book The Unconquerable World. The men and women in Schell’s invaluable history — Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and his civil rights fighters, the Czech dissident Vaclav Havel, and so many others — can serve as guides to a path to change that doesn’t require recall elections. Already mainstays of the Madison protests have suggested campaigns to refuse to spend money with businesses that support Walker. “Hit ‘em where it hurts. Pocketbooks,” C.J. Terrell, one of the Capitol occupiers, recently wrote on Facebook.
Wisconsinites could also turn to one of their own: Robert “Fightin’ Bob” La Follette. He created his own band of “insurgents” within the late nineteenth and early twentieth century Republican Party. Together they formed the Progressive Party, which fought for workers’ rights, guarded civil liberties, and worked to squeeze corruption out of government.
Ultimately, however, the decision on what comes next rests in the hands of those who inspired and powered the Wisconsin uprising. And with an emboldened Governor Walker, there should be no shortage of reasons to fight back in the next two years. But success, as Tuesday’s election made clear, isn’t likely to come the traditional way. It will, of course, involve unions; it might draw on state and local political parties. But in the end, it’s in the hands of the people again, as it was in February 2011.
The future they want is theirs to decide.
Andy Kroll is a staff reporter in the D.C. bureau of Mother Jones magazine. He is also an associate editor at TomDispatch.com. He has covered Wisconsin politics since the first protests ignited in February 2011. To listen to Timothy MacBain’s latest Tomcast audio interview in which Kroll discusses what Scott Walker’s recall win means for the future, click here or download it to your iPod here.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch, join us on Facebook, and check out the latest TD book, Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050.
Copyright 2012 Andy Kroll



15 Comments

With little knowledge and no direct political experience other than voting, I have to believe that the only way to change anything currently occurring is to elect (and work to elect) progressive congressional candidates.
But then you got the gerrymandering to f#@$ you up.
We are so screwed…
Is there really an answer?
I believe there is an answer, and we are in the process of finding it.
Gosh. I haven’t noticed any such characters in Occupy or any other popular movement of late.
It almost seems like anarchists have hijacked the movements to prevent leaders and a meaningful platform that will appeal to 99ers from getting organized.
The answer is the same as it has always been: revolution. It won’t be pretty, nor easy, nor safe. But it’s inevitable. Our owners are making sure of that, because their greed will not be restrained as long as anyone else has any rights, property, or human dignity left. They will continue to inflict pain on the people until they finally erupt. And all the plans, diatribes, and websites in the world will be meaningless until that happens. Wait for the moment, and it will come.
Old Tom Jefferson said it best: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Our tree is long overdue.
Tom Engelhardt–
As a former DOD (Dept of Army and Dept of Air Force) Union Steward (AFGE–American Federation of Government Employees), I agree with much of your analysis.
On the other hand, I believe that joining an union today is pretty much an useless endeavor, unless sell-outs like Trumka, etc., are purged from the national leadership. IMHO, it is nothing short of a crime if it is true that union and Democratic Party “leaders” in Wisconsin co-opted the grassroots movement (steering it into Democratic Party electoral politics) in order to avert a general strike. And in the end, how many of these hard working union folks are going to turn out for Obama in November, after this Democratic Party-created fiasco? Probably, very few.
Does anyone believe that “card check” legislation will ever be passed by a Democratic or Republican congress? Unions as they exist today, simply do not have the leverage to bargain for much of anything. It’s time for unions to start thinking WAY out-of-the-box, and consideration a major reorganization.
Recommended.
Blue
You have no idea how much I agree with this.
I had contacted Norman Goldman and Thom Hartman to see if they would interview me on this. After all, part of the discussion is the Diebold Voting machines that counted the “victory” of Scott Walker. I was in Ohio in 2004 as an Official in the Re-Count.
Norman Goldman and Thom Hartmann did not get back to me. Wonder why?
Michael Cavlan RN
Candidate US Senate 2012
Minnesota Open Progressives (right next door to Wisconsin)
Actually, from what I understand, both from John Nichols (who told our own David Dayen back in February 2011 that any attempt to recall Walker would fail) and my talks with people connected to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, the top Democratic leaders in Wisconsin not only did not ‘hijack’ the movement to direct it all into recalling Scott Walker, they stood well away from it as they knew it was a doomed effort.
It was mainly the unions and various progressive outfits that pushed for the recall — and the unions are the ones going after the Dems for not doing enough (when in fact the unions couldn’t even make a dent in the usual 30 to 40% union member/household GOP defection rate).
It’s fascinating that on the one hand I’ve been seeing diaries by people like Bill Perdue blaming the Wisconsin Democratic leaders for not doing enough during the recall, and now we’re seeing diaries like this one that accuse the Wisconsin Democratic leaders of hijacking the Wisconsin uprising to do the recalls when the recalls were the unions’ and the progressives’ idea in the first place — and that the same sets of people are praising both types of diaries, apparently without seeing or caring that these diaries are contradicting each other.
Let me get this straight. The Wisconsin Dems highjacked the recall by not supporting it from the beginning.
The recall election was an obvious tactic and folks threw everything into it but came up short. Stop the recriminations, reunify and consense on another tactic. Or is the destruction of the Democratic Party too high on the agenda to do that? IMO, worrying about the parties is a major distraction from what has to be done.
Get the folks who worked their butts off together, regroup, and focus on how to change the corrupt political culture that keeps that 30% union defection rate that high. It’s not just 30% of union households voting against unions but 30% of union households effectively voting against unions. There’s a failure of leadership in there somewhere. Maybe some local action can put some life back into Wisconsin politics.
Sadly, I agree. We are toast. We need to throw all the bums out. Government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.
Phoenix Woman–
Agree with you on a lot of things, but not on this one. There are so many articles written by unionists (both here and at numerous other progressive media sites) which place the blame for the diversion from union activism (i.e., a contemplated general strike) to electoral politics, squarely on the Wisconsin union leaders, in conjunction with the Wisconsin Democratic Party.
You refer to John Nichols (who’s a bit of a Democratic Party shill) who’s “officially” the Washington Editor for The Nation magazine (or something like that), right?
Reference David Dayen’s quote: “The Nation’s John Nichols is often so sunny on TV and in print that he can seem out of touch, but he told me in February 2011 – during the occupation of the Capitol – that Walker would likely survive a recall. He understood the shift in the power dynamic here. The unions were punched in the gut by Act 10, and they had a series of poor choices, which they bungled in their own right. This may have been a wake-up call to the left, but that should have happened the moment that Walker stripped workers of their collective bargaining rights.”
I honestly don’t see where Nichol’s very vague statements absolve the union leaders, or the WI Dems, of any fault in this fiasco. As I read this, Nichols doesn’t make mention of the consideration of going on a general strike, but that’s not proof that it didn’t happen. It simply doesn’t address the charge, period.
And, yes, according to many of the unionists, the Democratic Party did run away from this whole exercise, although they stood behind it, initially. Alan Maki wrote a diary describing how across a several hundred mile swath of WI (seems like 300 hundred miles) he observed almost no Recall Walker signs, but scores of Stand by Walker signs. (I’ve not got time to check out the diary, right now, but I believe that Maki states that the WI Democratic Party even insisted that, before a Barrett sign could be put up, a recall sign had to first be removed. In other words, they would not allow anyone to put these signs, side by side.) If anything, it appears to me that the WI Dems may have been trying to use the unions for their own means, but at the same time, were also attempting to insulate themselves from being “too closely associated with” the unions. This is the same game that Democrats have carried out for years. Nothing new here.
And as for your WI Democratic Party connections, I certainly can believe that some Democrats were against the recall. Certainly most corporatist Democrats were against the recall. (Heck, I even saw President Clinton “dis” the idea before the election, I think at Pete Peterson’s recent shindig). But let’s not forget that a couple of Democratic politicians actually regained their seats as a result of the two recall elections. And, I’ve heard numerous WI Democratic Party State Senators come on with Ed Schultz repeatedly, enthusiastically supporting this effort.
I’m sure that you’re aware that Walker was not the preferred union gubernatorial candidate. I’ve read repeatedly that the national Dems recruited Barrett to run. Apparently Barrett’s reputation regarding public employee collective bargaining, and public vs charter schools in Milwaukee alienated many of the unions. (I did do some checking, and Barrett clearly fits the definition of a corporatist Democrat). And the charge about him being recruited by Establishment Dems to run against Falk, seems feasible. I checked the dates, and she announced on approximately Jan 18, 2012, and Barrett didn’t announce his run as a gubernatorial candidate until March 30, 2012, AFTER the progressive Falk had gained a decent lead in the polls.
Anyway, I certainly was not there, and can’t claim to know for certain what happened. But from all that I’ve read, especially after the DNC chair (is it Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?) described this exercise as “a dry run,” I can believe that the unions were encouraged to pursue the electoral politics route. This “dry run” surely helped the Dems in their voter registration efforts for this November, and most likely allowed them to identify any weaknesses that might exist in their Wisconsin GOTV network. What could be more convenient?
Blue
TarheelDem–
I have a great deal of respect for you, and thank you for all that you do with Occupy (Chicago, etc). You are a very courageous person.
Frankly, I have to disagree, because the diversion, IMHO, is trying to pin the recall efforts on the Citizens United decision (as much as I detest it, and believe that it may even be unconstitutional), and the idea that the “recall” concept was flawed.
If the concept was flawed, it was at least partly because Barrett refused to explain to the populace why the unions resorted to the recall effort. He should have made certain that the issue of collective bargaining was well understood. Had he done so, I believe that we well may have seen a different result. Instead, he and the Democratic Party establishment were worried about the effect that the recall would have on Obama’s reelection. And as usual, because of their fixation on the magical “centrist independents” that they constantly pander to, they’ve probably alienated significant numbers of their so-called base.
If the Democratic Party does not take an honest look at itself now, it will only continue to shed former Democratic Party activists (like myself) to third parties. The PTB of the Democratic Party must understand that, at some point, rank and file trade unionists will not continue to be “used.”
Thanks again for all you do.
Blue
That’s what some folks would have us believe, even though it’s self-contradictory.
Observe those people who favorably commented in both this diary and the one by Bill Perdue, one of several that blamed the Democrats’ not helping out for the recall loss — even though the two diaries contradict each other. What’s the common thread among them – and the diaries? Yup, that it’s all the Dems’ fault somehow — either for hijacking or for not hijacking or, well, any reason will do for those folks, apparently, even if it makes no sense.
A-yep. There are lots more ways to effect change. Having the patience, mental fortitude and stick-to-it-ive-ness, ability to work (and play) well with others, and general calmness and sanity to, say, implement something like the Mondragon Corporation in Spain, is one way.
Exactly. Granted, a portion of these folks are in the police and firefighters’ unions, which Walker tried with some success to buy off and which nationwide tend to side with Republicans (and are as in Wisconsin often bought off by Republicans). But that in itself doesn’t explain why the Wisconsin unions, in a life-and-death struggle, could not get at least 75% loyalty out of their members when they are constantly sending their members literature, e-mails and the like.
The impression given from exit polling and other measures is that while the first set of recalls, done in the first flames of anger against Walker et al, succeeded in flipping two of three senate seats (enough so that only one flipped seat was needed this time around to flip the state senate out of GOP hands, which is a big deal as now Walker can’t hold his precious special session like he did last year to ram through some craptacular bills), the fifteen months that passed between February/March of 2011 and May/June of 2012 were enough for people to cool off and to buy into the tens of millions of dollars’ worth of mailings and radio/TV ads and the like.
Those who are dissecting the recalls should look at the one recall that was won — in Racine, the one that took Scott Fitzgerald’s senate leadership gavel away from him. (And if you don’t think that’s a big deal, notice how uncharacteristically nicey-nice Walker’s been talking since the Senate flip: Instead of his standard arrogant we-will-crush-you talk, he’s been all reconciliation and fake bipartisanship and all that sort of thing. It won’t last, but it’s still quite telling.) What circumstances were different there that allowed for John Lehman to win where all the other Democratic challengers did not?
Phoenix Woman–
I failed to make my main point, so I’ll take the opportunity to do so now.
The unions need to concentrate on “saving themselves”. They have spent years propping up the Democratic Party machine, largely at their own expense. They will soon become “extinct” if they don’t take drastic measures soon, to reorganize and center their energies and resources on building a workers’ movement/organization outside of political parties, of all stripes.
Blue
Remember at the height of the Madison protests last year when rank-and-file public sector union members were talking of initiating a general strike? That talk was dispelled by union hierarchies, who have hitched their wagon to a Democratic Party that is in disarray, especially under Obama, who is not a real friend of organized labor. A shame that labor leadership argued with their members about a general strike, which could have ultimately led to a much more robust recall effort.
In this spring’s primary, remember that Karen Falk was a pro-labor leftist who lost to Barrett, an anti-labor centrist, who had lost to Walker in 2010. Ultimate loser: the liberal/progressive wing of the Democratic party, which may foreshadow more of the same this November nationally. Ultimate winner: “unionized” corporations with their divide-and-conquer strategies and their obscene wealth willing to turn this country into a nation of peasants and serfs.
Kroll’s analysis should be read along with Matt Stoller’s dissection of the Wisconsin recall effort over at Naked Capitalism – both pieces come close to understanding the wreckage left in the wake of the recall and what it portends for the future of labor and the Democratic party.
The leaders of AFL-CIO are veal penned.
From what I have read General strikes targeting specific businesses operations and the government with civil disobedience, not being nuisance to the public whose support they need, would be playing to their strengths. They should have never gave up their occupation with the union told them to go home.
Also the GOTV canvassing the Democrats arranged was irritating, they should have driven people to the poles instead said one union commenter here:
http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=36963
Democrats have a program to thwart activists anyway. They refuse to move the left, they would rather have a split.
http://thirdway.org/publications/489