The Glorious Future that American Unions Walked (are Walking) Away From

[bigtree]

Fri Jan 18, 5:52 PM ET

2008-01-18

{snip}

John Edwards has spent the last four years working with unions, walking their picket lines and making their cause his. He's clearly the most pro-union of the three remaining candidates; his primary issue is economic justice and he believes that corporations have too much power. His campaign, from the very beginning, was predicated on union support.

But unions didn't reciprocate.

{snip}

. . . let's imagine a world in which labor had taken a strong stand and endorsed the candidate who was most pro-labor, John Edwards. Edwards came in second in Iowa, behind Obama by 8%. It is hard to believe that if unions had come in, say 4 months ago, and used their ground machine (still, even today, probably the best organizing machine in the Democratic party) that they couldn't have swung the election 8 points.

What could unions have accomplished for their own cause?

{snip}

. . . here's the thing--neither Clinton nor Obama, should they win now, will feel a massive debt to Labor. The endorsements were useful and appreciated, and they helped. But they weren't desperately needed. The payback will be a slightly better NLRB, but not enough to save American labor.

But an Edwards presidency would owe everything to the unions, and John Edwards would know it. And he would have campaigned with an explicitly pro-union campaign--if he won the nomination, and later the presidency (don't forget his electability numbers are far better than Clinton's and as good or better than Obama's), he would come into power with a pro-union public mandate.

Neither Clinton (experience) nor Obama (non-partisan change) will come into office with a mandate to help unions.

I can only assume that labor read too many polls and made too many political calculations. Unsure of who would win they went with the "inevitable" candidate (Clinton) instead of the one who had spent 4 years working for and with them. And as a result, if Obama or Clinton win, Unions are going to get a Democratic president who appreciates their help (just like Bill Clinton did) but who isn't really willing to go all out for them (just like Bill Clinton didn't).

The irony here is that if labor had taken a strong stand and put their own best interests first instead of triangulating and currying political favor, the strongest pro-labor candidate would be in the lead today . . .


article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080118/cm_huffpost/082241

[dogman]

1. Rhetoric does not mean action.

After observing Edwards' self-serving style, I would just as likely expect him to apologize and act to preserve his political viability.

[bigtree]

5. What do you think a president does? Bench press the constitution?

All of these politicians' currency is their ability to communicate. Whatever issues and concerns they manage to elevate as a result of their rhetoric will have a good chance of advancing in the legislature when they assume office. I'll concede that it doesn't pay to be too trusting of these candidates' words, but cynicism shouldn't prevent us from holding them to their rhetoric, when and if they are elected.

[dogman]

7. My point of view is that he can not be held to his rhetoric.

As you point out, most politicians can't. I just see Edwards as the most spineless candidate.

[bigtree]

8. heh

good luck with that.

[dogman]

10. Good luck with his next apology. N/T

[bigtree]

11. eh

what politician hasn't 'apologized' in their career?

Again, cynicism over politics and politicians is natural and healthy. I really don't think, however, that Edwards outmatches his two headlining Democratic opponents in political baggage and 'regrettable' votes and actions.

[fasttense]

2. Why is it that union households voted for repukes?

It is clear that repukes view unions as a blight on the world yet they voted for them anyway.

"Although members of labor-union households, for example, are commonly thought to be Democrats, the Republicans can expect in most elections to receive at least one-third of the labor union vote, and in 1984, the party received 46 percent of the union vote. In 2000, union households voted 37 percent Republican."

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/election04/parties.htm

It's as if they want to destroy the very unions they belong to.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

4. Social conservatives. nt

[ladjf]

12. Stupidity.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. Glorious future?

Sheesh, and I thought the *candidates* engaged in hyperbole.

[bigtree]

6. the author makes a good case in the article.

Unions need to do more than just hitch themselves behind a presumed front runner.

[elizfeelinggreat]

9. Yes

The power is presumed to come from the candidate and not from the unions themselves. It should be the other way around.