The Problem with Warner
Since Garance at the Prospect mentioned I was one of the bloggers to meet Warner "up close and personal" at YearlyKos, I thought I give my reaction which is both more positive and more negative than Matt Y's "where's the beef" reaction.
Bloggers are becoming more horse race-oriented than the worst of the old campaign journalists so let me generally ignore the tactical evaluation. (Although given the media coverage of the Stratosphere party, I give a thumbs up to the big party bash; no question Warner got his money's worth; and better it went to union hotel workers to deliver chocolate fountains to weary bloggers than to ten or twenty seconds of a random ad buy.)
But to substance:
On the positive, Warner's speech to the convention was more than a list of talking points. It was a narrative about bringing Virginia together around expanding health care for the poor and delivering jobs to communities suffering from deindustrialization. He also made the case that energy-efficiency at home is a job creator, far better than buying overseas oil which creates few jobs at home-- and that's one of the smartest themes any candidate should be making.
But let me return to his argument about bringing jobs to rural Virginia. He painted a nice story about education and retraining leading to software jobs springing up in rural towns, especially if supported by strong investments in broadband locally.
All to the good as far as it goes. But the story hides one of the big lies of DLCish economic policy, which is that the key to improving wages is just more education and more training. While that's ONE good thing to do, the hard reality is that a large portion of new job creation in the future will not be high-tech jobs but traditional service jobs. Warner had essentially NOTHING in his speech about how to raise wages for those in traditional service or remaining manufacturing jobs, no mention of the minimum wage or other policies to help the workers who will make up the vast bulk of new jobs.
In the blogger followup session, I pointed out to Warner that the Las Vegas region is the fastest growing area in the country, its middle class growth founded on good unionized jobs in its core hotel-casino industry. Warner punted on that question and said that not everyone could move to Vegas, where he should have been advocating bringing the wage standards of Vegas for basic service jobs to other regions. For most Americans, it's the wage standards in these basic non-tech jobs that will matter for the future of the middle class, not a few high-profile software jobs recruited to a few towns.
As this Bureau of Labor Statistics projection outlines, very few projected new jobs will be in what people think of as "high-tech" jobs like software. Here is the key sentence:
Employment in professional, scientific, and technical services will grow by 28.4 percent and add 1.9 million new jobs by 2014.
This is the category for what most people think of as high-tech jobs, and it'll add just 1.9 million jobs in the next decade. Of course, many other jobs will become more technically-oriented, so education and training is still a good thing, but it's a mirage to argue that you can retrain a bunch of ex-autoworkers or ex-textile mill operators and replace them with software engineers.
In fact, by occupation, the largest total number of jobs that will be added in the next decade will be retail salepersons (i.e roughly 800,000 new Wal-Mart clerks et al). Registered nurses are also supposed to do well, so more training there will be helpful, but in the top ten occupations with numerical job growth, most of the jobs are basic service jobs such as customer service representatives, janitors, waiters and waitresses, food preparation including fast food, home health aides, and nursing aides.
Warner needs a policy that addresses the hopes and aspirations of the millions of people who will take these new jobs, which in most areas of the country pay very badly. But they are not inherently "bad jobs"-- janitors in New York City and a number of other unionized towns make a living wage for their families and in towns like Vegas, cooks and food prep workers make good solid union wages that allow them to buy homes for their families.
Warner threw a big party in Vegas where his largesse went to fuel the middle class lives of those Vegas service workers. Maybe he can learn a lesson from that and think about how strong wage standards can assure that all money funnelled into services can build a middle class life for working families across the nation. Words like "minimum wage", the "freedom to form unions," and "wage enforcement" will have to become a more regular part of his stump speech.
But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. If he can combine his jobs and environment rap and expanded health care story with a real commitment to raise wages for the tens of millions of workers who will never get a high-tech job, he might end up with a winning stump speech-- and maybe even the Presidency. But he has a bit of a way to go right now.
"Warner threw a big party in Vegas where his largesse went to fuel the middle class lives of those Vegas service workers."
By that logic, should we say that Dennis Kozlowski is the patron saint of labor?
---
I've got nothing against Mark Warner. I think he could be a winning national Democratic candidate, and that ain't saying nothing.
But I think Johnny Edwards is a much better horse for lefties to ride.
June 17, 2006 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
...the hard reality is that a large portion of new job creation in the future will not be high-tech jobs but traditional service jobs. Warner had essentially NOTHING in his speech about how to raise wages for those in traditional service or remaining manufacturing jobs, no mention of the minimum wage or other policies to help the workers who will make up the vast bulk of new jobs.
I think you'll be waiting a long time for Warner to deal with that critical part of the picture for the bottom 80%, since such things as good wages and greater unionization are what it's all _not_ about for the DLC's corporate sponsors.
It's also important, but politically incorrect, to note that massive illegal immigration is part what has caused de-unionization and wage destruction for the working class and working poor. And finally free trade, another thing the DLC loves, which exports US jobs to race-to-the-bottom-on-wages nations.
June 17, 2006 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I think you'll be waiting a long time for Warner to deal with that critical part of the picture for the bottom 80%, since such things as good wages and greater unionization are what it's all _not_ about for the DLC's corporate sponsors."
Bill Clinton did OK by the bottom 80% despite the DLC's corporate sponsors.
June 17, 2006 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton did OK by the bottom 80% ...
Not really. The disparity between rich and poor and the de-unionization got worse. The stock market bubble, based on corporate report lies enabled by a do-nothing DLC/Republican Congress, did temporarily boost growth rates, especially for those in the top quintile.
The long-term stats show the first 25 years after WWII were much better than the next 30. Which party was in command was not important.
June 17, 2006 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we must vote for a rich guy who made a mint in high tech, why don't we go for the real deal and draft Bill Gates.
June 17, 2006 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prematurely focusing on individual candidates for electoral office is a good way to split the left. I think it would be better to concentrate on issues and leave the horse race discussions until 2008.
For example the different perceptions over the causes of wage stagnation and job loss by blue collar workers are an area where education now may resonate later at election time.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
June 17, 2006 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, pretty much any Virginia candidate who has experience in the state government will brag about new jobs in high tech. Virginia, due to its proximity to D.C. has long been a vibrant but often overlooked region that has been a strong and growing part of the "New Economy" that started in the 1990s. Local bragging by politicians is just an understanble attempt by candidates of either party to take credit for the fact that, due mostlyto geography, their state has been rewarded by the tech boom that, the major correction in the stock markets aside, has delivered a whole lot of ecnomic growth. Virginia is, basically, the California Bay Area that doesn't get the press.
Still, you're right that while retraining workers has its merits, the high tech industries in the US simply lack a demand for labor and so it can't be an economic panacea.
Also to be fair, I don't know a lot about Warner. But I do fear that the blogging community, which has influence that has to be noticed by the mainstream press but which also lacks influence when it comes to swaying voters and influencing party choices, could find itself a bit too enthralled with candidates like Warner who are cagey enough to show up at blog events and to throw parties once they're there.
I honestly don't know whether or not Warner is a "net roots" type of candidate. But I do fear that, whether he is or not, he's managed to charm the Net Folk into giving him a blannket endorsement.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 17, 2006 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
newman == bagman propagandist for the overclass. he already showed his colors during the overclass's recent immigration propaganda putsch disguised as a national debate.....
My documentary/book in progress is at http://www.leftwingmediamachine.blogspot.com
June 17, 2006 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
newman == bagman propagandist for the overclass. he already showed his colors during the overclass's recent immigration propaganda putsch disguised as a national debate.....
My documentary/book in progress is at http://www.leftwingmediamachine.blogspot.com
June 17, 2006 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Not really. The disparity between rich and poor and the de-unionization got worse. The stock market bubble, based on corporate report lies enabled by a do-nothing DLC/Republican Congress, did temporarily boost growth rates, especially for those in the top quintile."
Median wages went up for the first time since '73 during the Clinton administration.
June 17, 2006 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes, the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, and most major progressive groups supporting immigrant rights all represent the "overclass" with hardy cryofan the only true hero of the proletariat :)
June 18, 2006 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
newman wrote:
Ah yes, the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, and most major progressive groups supporting immigrant rights all represent the "overclass" with hardy cryofan the only true hero of the proletariat :)
Anything having to do with "progressive groups" is almost certainly funded by large nonprofit organizations that were set up and funded by monies from the upper class yuppies and plutocrats and megacorporations. Do anyone really expect these organizations to act against the best interests of those who fund them? Hellllooo? Real World calling! People act in their own best interests. And the identity politics-oriented, multiculturalist PseudoLeft is funded and run by the overclass and the upper class and those who strive to emulate them. Do you think the plutocrats and megacorporations give all that nonprofit money away for nothing? Yeah, I got some ocean front property in AZ to unload. You interested?
Of course, as for the NAACP, anything having to do with identity politics and multiculturalism is a HUGE help to the overclass (plutocrats, upper class yuppies, buiness lobbies, megacorporations, etc) because anything that divides the working classes into identity groups helps the overclass dominate the ideological agenda. And the PseudoLeft of America helps to alienate the white working class from leftism, for which the plutocrats are eternally grateful.
You really think that the overclass gives all that philanthropy-money away out of the goodness of their hearts? If so, are you in the market for a secondhand bridge for sale in the New York City area? Cheap, just for you!
As for the big labor unions, the people at the top control them, and all they want is more, more and ever more union members to pay dues. That is why they have sold out the members and supported mass immigration. America is run by the overclass who control institutions, and those at the top of these institutions want always ever more cattle like us. More more more...ever more. Cram 'em in, round 'em up, head 'em out!
Yeehah!
The overclass is ranching da sheeple. Same as it ever was.
As for cryofan being all alone, yes, all alone on the net, for the most part. Oh, there are a few radical centrists/TrueLeftists iconoclasts around, but most of the REAL leftists-radical centrists are out there fixing cars, digging ditches, farming, installing plumbing, etc.
Working.
THe blogosphere and the the media and website punditry is infested with rightwingers, cryptoRightwingers, and PseudoLeftists, the grotesque "Jeffersonian Democrats," and the PseudoLibertarian-CryptoRightwingers, and various combinations thereof. Some of these pundits get paid overclass monies via nonprofit foundations. Others get their blood money from magazines and newspapers and pseudoLeft websites. Are your ears burning, newman?
But most of them on the blogosphere are just meat-puppets, adherents of the two nearly identical political religions that the overclass has foisted upon us via mass-media-driven ideological hegemony.
Sad. But, yet, if I need a cheering up, if I need inspiration, I just go to some European political websites. They really have their stuff in one sock, at least compared to us.
/////
My documentary/book in progress is at http://www.leftwingmediamachine.blogspot.com
June 18, 2006 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Ah yes, the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, and most major progressive groups supporting immigrant rights all represent the "overclass" with hardy cryofan the only true hero of the proletariat"
Don't feed the trolls, Nathan.
June 18, 2006 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cryofan raises an interesting issue. There are many on the right and quite a few in the labor movement who feel that big unions are corrupt or self-serving bureaucracies. The number of cases of union insurgencies by dissident members also adds support to this perception. The recent split also indicates that there is disagreement at the top as well.
So promoting unionism without addressing the current (and historical) faults is not adequate if public attitudes are going to be changed.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
June 18, 2006 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I briefly touched on the immigration and 'free' trade topics because the Newman's essay was about economic policies that will really help the bottom half of the population in the long run. (Sorry to brag but) if Cryofan wants to know how to widen a debate without being even a little bit trollish, look up at my posts.
Finally, in case any of us have forgotten or never knew, for the _real_ troll experience go to the Yahoo message boards.
June 18, 2006 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
funded by monies from the upper class yuppies and plutocrats and megacorporations.
Too repetitive and alarmist. "Megacorporations"? What the hell is this, some new kind of dinosaur? You're driving at a good point, that there's no good reason to trust any national leftist organization any more than we would trust the DNC. But best I can tell right now all you're saying is: "these people are falling short of their ideals". Which is true, but it's not really valuable as a competing viewpoint.
June 18, 2006 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I recognized already that there was a minor and temporary boost to bottom half wages near the end of the nineties. However, too little, too temporary.
As for my other points, I'll add some numbers about the Clinton years. Union membership for all workers declined 1993 to 2001 from 15.8% to 13.5%. For private sector workers, the decline was from 11.1% to 9.0%. See http://www.trinity.edu/bhirsch/unionstats/.
On increasing income inequality and the _real_ reality of the Clinton years, I'll get lazy and just paste the following (at http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/2000/usa.htm):
Despite low unemployment and the longest uninterrupted economic expansion in US history, the incomes and wealth of middle-class and poor families are falling further and further behind those of wealthy households, according to a new report released here Sunday.
Indeed, adults in most families are working harder than ever just to stay in place, according to the report, 'State of Working America,' issued by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). It found that an increase in the number of hours that families, especially middle-class families, worked each year was the primary factor contributing to income growth over the past decade. ...
Perhaps most dramatic ... was the 62.7 percent rise in the real wage of the median corporate executive officer (CEO) between 1998 and 1999 alone. The typical CEO earned 107 times than the typical worker last year, according to EPI - almost double the difference of a decade ago.
Real incomes of low-income families grew at a 1.9 percent annual rate from 1995 to 1999; those of middle-income families grew at a 2.3 percent rate; while those at the top grew by 3.2 percent.
Over a longer time span, from 1979 to 1999, however, real hourly wages for high-wage earners increased 17.6 percent, while wages for low-wage earners fell during the same period by 9.3 percent, according to the report which noted that those in the middle saw real wages stagnate.
What gains have been made in family income were largely due to a sharp increase in family working hours, according to the report. The average middle-class, married-couple family, which increased its income by 9.2 percent from 1989 to 1998, worked 182 hours more per year over that period, roughly equivalent to a full month of work.
fairleft.blogspot.com is my blog.
June 18, 2006 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
THat is not the issue I raised. I think the ideas of unions is a great idea. Collection action is where it is at. Our ability to act collectively is a characteristic trait of humanity.
But I distinctly said "these institutions." I said that the people at the top of these institution --unions AND institutions LIKE unions-- run them not for the people that they purportedly benefit (the members, the voters, etc), but for the people at the top.
The real issue is that all our institutions have betrayed us on a number of fronts. The question is what are we going to do about it? I call for these leaders to be jailed for life. Our politicians, our labor leaders, our media talking heads, our politicial pundits, our religious leaders, our philathropists, our university presidents, etc. They are traitors and we should treat them as such.
My documentary/book in progress is at http://www.leftwingmediamachine.blogspot.com
June 18, 2006 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Real incomes of low-income families grew at a 1.9 percent annual rate from 1995 to 1999; those of middle-income families grew at a 2.3 percent rate; while those at the top grew by 3.2 percent."
Did income inequality increase during the Clinton administration? Yes, as it's consistently been doing for almost 40 years now.
However, the Clinton administration is the only administration since the LBJ administration where real wages of low-income and middle-income workers increased.
That ain't nothing.
It's obviously not everything, either. But when the house has been on fire for such a long time, it's worth noting when someone at least starts dousing it with water.
June 18, 2006 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, of course, between the EITC increase and the higher tax rates on the wealthy, the Clinton administration at least took some meaningful steps to ameliorate income inequality.
June 18, 2006 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Cryofan raises an important point. It echoes my own worries about a left which seems reluctant to reform itself and get its act together but which spends most of its time reacting to salvos from the right. Can we, for example, let go of unions as vast national organizations? Are there more effective forms of unionization? How much of this is about making sure the minimum wage isn't minimal but actually promotes the kind of growth we want everyone to share in? Can we find a way to make sure "trickle down" dies a quick death, never to be revived?
There's no reason why an American left can't be as together and effective as the European left. Perhaps we should be a little more aware of who our bedfellows are and decide who we really want to sleep with. If you haven't seen it yet, you might want to take a look at Matt Stoller's piece on DC Democrats. Let's ask ourselves how we can have a leadership in Washington which doesn't compete with Republicans in the corruption stakes. I see no reason why we can't achieve a cohesive party of the left which attracts votes from beyond the "tent" because it is open, articulate, self-assured, and competent. I think most Americans would grab for a leadership which promises to leave behind the inarticulate anger, the lies and divisiveness of the past six twelve years.
June 18, 2006 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Things got worse for income inequality and union membership, and there was a slight uptick in bottom two-thirds family incomes based on people working more hours. And that slight improvement was founded on a stock market bubble, a one-time ruse rooted in stock investment misinformation sanctioned by a Clintonian/Repub coalition in Congress. When it played out, Clintonism didn't work except for bubble stock fund managers and CEOs.
The Dems will not make a comeback on the Clinton message (i.e., "We'll make things only a little worse for the majority, but the Repubs will make things a lot worse.")
June 18, 2006 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"There's no reason why an American left can't be as together and effective as the European left."
As together? Maybe. But as effective? Probably not.
The American electorate is significantly more conservative than the European electorate.
The strong Church influence in America compared to Europe means a secular left will have trouble forming majorities around economic interests.
And, of course, the extreme bias in Senate representation in favor of rural voters, and the more mild rural bias in House representation, are both additional impediments to an effective American left.
-----
"If you haven't seen it yet, you might want to take a look at Matt Stoller's piece on DC Democrats."
Stoller makes several good points. But he also makes a multitude of wildly dishonest ad hominem attacks.
For just one example, he notes that Joel Johnson advised Dems that Medicare Part D is polling decently. Stoller correctly notes that Glover Park does work for Big Pharma, but he declines to note that multiple other pollsters have reached similar conclusions about Medicare Part D. Instead, he implies that Johnson's analysis is a result of corrupt influence, not the numbers. That's called a "smear" in my book.
June 18, 2006 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
petey wrote:
The American electorate is significantly more conservative than the European electorate.
Do tell? Do ya think so? You learn something every day!
Anyway, how about an analysis of WHY the American electorate is more conservative? Maybe it has something to do with the CULTURE? And maybe, just maybe, that culture has had forces applied to it over many decades in order to make it more conservative? Maybe, just maybe, if the American people were to watch some video infotainment about how certain factions of American have influenced the American culture, that would make them more aware of what is going on?
Or we can just return to stating the obvious. I'm sure that works fine for you!
My documentary/book in progress is at http://www.leftwingmediamachine.blogspot.com
June 18, 2006 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is Clinton and his neoliberal economic policies also hurt a lot of people. You know things like NAFTA, his refusal to stop off-shoring, telecom degregulation, his support for increasing levels of H1-B and L1 visa workers that harmed the American high tech workers.
For most working class Americans, especially those harmed by NAFTA and off-shoring he was no friend at all. Then again most liberals were cheering this crap on when Clinton signed NAFTA into law.
And lets not forget he turned the Democrats into a minority party with his triangulation and corporate friendly, worker hostile agenda.
June 18, 2006 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
pw said:
There's no reason why an American left can't be as together and effective as the European left.
There are some pretty good reasons why we cannot be as together and effective as the European Left. And guess what? I am gonna tell you why I think so. Didn;t see that coming, did you?
First, the European left is not about helping poor people or being compassionate. The EuroLeft is about helping the MAJORITY. Ya see, people are selfish, for the most part. And we should be. We all want to survive.
The EuroLeft is structured around providing welfare state benefits for the middle class majority. The American Left is structured around providing welfare state benefits for the poor and minorities. Evidence for this is found easily on all these Netroots forums, what with every other "leftist activist" caterwauling about the poor and compassion and the uninsured and the homeless and the minorities.
Gee, I wonder why the American white middle class is reluctant to embrace the left? Gosh, could it be because there is nothing in it for them?
Solution? Hook the middle class on welfare state benefits (not tax rebates etc) via universal healthcare funded by higher taxes on the rich and upper income earners. That makes it hard for the overclass to demonize the welfare state when the middle class is right there in the trough.
Second, the American Left has been evolved over the past few decades so that it centers around Identity Politics and race and race guilt and white racism. A huge unspoken tenet of the American Left is the idea that white people, especially white males and even more so, rural and blue collar white males, are responsible for the race crimes of slavery. This leads to the American left unspoken axiom that these whites are incorrigibly evil and that white racism is the Ultimate Evil.
This aspect of the American left has alienated from Leftism most whites and the vast majority of white males. Can you see why Limbaugh has such easy pickings with this huge demographic? The American Left has given up on demonizing the Overclass and instead has concentrated on demonizing Bubba Joe. Umm....blue collar white males were the single largest voting bloc in the 2004 election. Do the math....
Solution? Rehabilitate the left with the white lower middle class. How? By creating and disseminating video infotainment that explains a revisionist history of America that will illuminate the true class divisions. What does that mean? For example, explain the largely unknown history of white slavery from the American colonies of the 1600s. Tell the story of how the British overclass enslaved thousands of white people and sold them at auction in America to work in the tobacco fields. Show them how blacks and indians also owned slaves. And how only a small fraction of white Americans could afford to buy even one slave. It would cost the average working white man about 3 to 5 years of income to buy just one black slave. That would be $100-160K in today's dollars. Cash on the barrelhead, as it were.
White people didn't own slaves. The upper class owned slaves. The upper class owned the vast majority of slaves, and some of those upper class were indian and blacks. ust look at the US Census for proof of that.
And explore the idea that DNA tests and statistical calculations that show that 20-30% of all white Americans have a recent African ancestor.
These are the sorts of ideas that can break the back of the American pseudoLeft that is centered around race and Identity Politics.
But this sort of propaganda is not going to come from the likes of Nathan Newman,et al. They are too busy climbing that get-rich-and-famous ladder.
We are going to have to do it ourselves. From the bottom up.
I have more on this at the link below.
Or we can just argue about political trivia and politicians. And hasn't that just worked out fine?
My documentary/book in progress is at http://www.leftwingmediamachine.blogspot.com
June 18, 2006 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The anarchist ideas faded out around 1905. One of the reasons is that nothing is not a replacement for a bad something. For change to happen there need to be policies promoted which have a chance of being adopted, even if they are imperfect.
The world has progressed to where almost everything is now controlled by large social organizations. This is not going to change. So what is needed is a way for various interest groups to be able to check the excesses of each other, what Galbraith called "countervailing forces." This is missing in the US. There are no countervailing forces to the big business/big government alliance.
However, keep at your efforts, there is too much uniformity of opinon these days and a little passion injected into discussion can only serve to liven them up.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
June 18, 2006 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, while I deeply respect Nathan's concern for lower income workers, and he makes good points that lower income jobs are likely to show a lot of growth, he seems to always leave out an large and cricitically important segment of the economy: office workers. People like clerks, claims processors, procurement agents, salespeople, account managers (where "inside sales" and customer service meet), website administrators, project managers, etc. You may not be able to train an ex-millworker to be a software engineer, but you can quite effectively train him or her to be a industrial salesperson - especially if s/he has some sort of college education.
Unions have lost membership as workers that left union sectors (and their children) did not bring unionism into white-collar, corporate workplaces. Organizing lower income workers around traditional union principles is great, and I'm all for it, but unless they figure out how to crack into office workers in a big way, unions will again erode away as the children of the janitors etc. go to college and join white or pink collar sectors. In office settings, advancement is far more dependent on education and skills development than sectors with more rigid job divisions. After all, who pays a janitor more because she studied Plato for 4 years?
There are a lot of office jobs where workers could use a hand in negotiating for themselves, but aren't well served by the confines of a union, particularly not if they have any job that bridges the gap between "labor" and "management". That gap just isn't the same in many office environments as it is in service or manufacturing and the general posture of antagonizing the upper management is not clearly the best strategy, even when office workers are getting screwed. You don't want to piss off a club you hope to join.
I'd like to see professional societies take a role in negotiating for workers while preserving those workers' autonomy in their workplace, as well as allowing workplaces to adopt their own management strategies. This kind of union/professional society hybrid could step in when individual managers are being unfair or when unfair company-wide policies are instituted and help workers negotiate better terms or help ensure legitimate grievance and arbirtration procedures. I don't know exactly how it would work, but I know unions need to be selling something different for uptake in the corporate workplace.
June 18, 2006 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a note about Medicare Part D, mentioned above. If there's new polling on the program towards the end of the year (and Greenberg should arrange for this!), that's about the time most participants in the Part D plan will be hitting their first "donut hole." That's when you walk up to the counter to pick up your prescriptions and find you're paying full Pharma asking price on top of the plan's premiums automatically deducted from your Social Security (deductions in addition to what Soc.Sec. already deducts from your check for your participation in Medicare.)
The new plans pay up to a limit, then you pay the next thou or so until the plan kicks in again. Only one plan ( I believe it's only one, and ironically it's Frist's Humana) will see you through. So all those who thought Part D was just jimdandy in April may have a different view altogether in September. We'll see how all this plays out.
And about slaves:
.I have a copy of the big heavy 1790 PA census up on a shelf right here and there were many slaveholders who were small farmers and small business people, not generally regarded as wealthy upper class. And in those days, slaves were also held by middle class families in the north, in states one doesn't associate with slavery. If you read slave narratives, you'll find that quite a few belonged to what we'd think of as ordinarwhite middle-class families.
June 18, 2006 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
somone wrote:
I have a copy of the big heavy 1790 PA census up on a shelf right here and there were many slaveholders who were small farmers and small business people, not generally regarded as wealthy upper class. And in those days, slaves were also held by middle class families in the north, in states one doesn't associate with slavery. If you read slave narratives, you'll find that quite a few belonged to what we'd think of as ordinarwhite middle-class families.
Oh, I should read some slave narratives, huh? From the looks of your posts, I would warrant I've read more slave narratives than you've read books in toto.
Oh, well. Here goes:
Slave prices were "from $600 each in 1810 to $1,000 in 1840 to $1,200 and $1,800 for a prime field hand on the eve of secession."—William C. Davis, ed. The Civil War: Brother Against Brother: The War Begins (Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1983), p 32. "The price of a slave typically represented ten times the yearly earnings of a free worker."—Porter, Encyclopedia of Am Econ History, Vol II, supra, p 556.
and from DIXIE'S CENSORED SUBJECT:BLACK SLAVEOWNERS
By Robert M. Grooms:
In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states. The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
My documentary/book in progress is at http://www.leftwingmediamachine.blogspot.com
June 18, 2006 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, now that was really not a negative review, mr newman. In fact, they say that all publicity is good publicity. And you certainly are giving Warner some publicity.
Here are some excerpts from an interesting story about bloggers being paid by Warner, from the NY Times, which I got to from slate.com:
Politics as Usual in the Blogosphere
Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner is deemed a darling of the liberal blogosphere — and the “runaway winner” of the “pre-Iowa caucus” that was the YearlyKos convention, in the words of Arianna Huffington — largely because of his relationship with Jerome Armstrong, a pioneer among Democratic bloggers who founded MyDD.com and who inspired Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos to become a blogger. Warner hired Armstrong to serve as his liaison to the Democratic “netroots,” and it seems to be working.
But many observers have pointed to the relationship between Moulitsas and Armstrong — they once formed a political consulting firm together, and they co-authored the recent book “Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics” — to explain why the antiwar Moulitsas speaks so highly of Warner, who is a blank slate on the Iraq war and who is affiliated with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council that Moulitsas claims to loathe. “In the comments section of several blogs, readers have charged that Armstrong has traded on his reputation — and his friendship with Moulitsas and other bloggers at MyDD — to further his political consulting business,” Michael Scherer wrote in a Salon profile of Armstrong last month.
Warner’s nascent presidential candidacy is not the only instance online commenters have pointed to. The netroots movement for Iraq veteran Paul Hackett as a U.S. Senate candidate in Ohio “was shattered,” Scherer writes, “when Sherrod Brown, an outspokenly liberal seven-term congressman from Ohio, announced that he would run for the seat. Armstrong, who had been working as a consultant for Brown, encouraged an online rebellion against Hackett. Before long, Moulitsas and other bloggers had abandoned their once-favorite son, arguing, along with Democratic Party leaders, that Brown was more electable.”
Armstrong and Moulitsas also worked as consultants to Howard Dean’s presidential campaign, and Dean’s former head of Internet outreach, Zephyr Teachout, sparked a blog tizzy last year when she wrote on her (now defunct) personal blog that the Dean campaign paid the two men in an effort “to buy their airtime.” Teachout wrote:
....
The problem is that Warner is giving Jerome money to get favorable coverage from Markos on his blog and in his role as a talking head. The problem is that Warner is giving Jerome money to get a special platform at Markos’s convention.
....
But it’s still corrupt as all hell.
more here:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/
and here:
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=read&id=2143479
Same old story of dirty electoral politics. To you activists--don't get involved in electoral politics. Instead, work on creating infotainment that contains political ideology. Ideas are not lying, conniving, greedy, powermad egomaniacs, like all these politicians are.
So, back to the issue at hand: I guess the question is, Mr. Newman, have you been paid any monies or anything of value by Mr Warner or anyone connected with him?
Are you a consultant for Warner?
Have you been promised a position or some employment or consulting connected with the Warner administration, should there be one?
Inquiring minds want to know!
My documentary/book in progress is at http://www.leftwingmediamachine.blogspot.com
June 18, 2006 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes- please launder the rightwing talking points. Kos and Jerome have been quite clear for years about being consultants for Dean at points during that campaign-- and it didn't stop Kos from slamming Dean for various stupidities.
As for the "special platform for Warner", every candidate was invited to the exact same platform. The others declined the invitation, so it's pretty ridiculous to accuse Kos or Jerome of some special deal for a deal that was offered to all of Warner's competitors.
And it's hilarious that you think I'd be shilling for Warner, which shows how really out to lunch you are-- and a water carrier for the rightwing noise machine on top of that. (No is the answer for the slow).
June 18, 2006 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
newman wrote:
And it's hilarious that you think I'd be shilling for Warner,
Yeah, I must be out of my mind to think that a political writer would write for money. What was I thinking? :-|
which shows how really out to lunch you are-- and a water carrier for the rightwing noise machine on top of that.
Now, which rightwing are we talking about? The PseudoPopulist Rightwing, i.e., the GOP, or the PseudoLiberal Rightwing, i.e., the democrats?
Cuz sometimes I get confused about that.....
////////////////
My documentary/book in progress is at http://www.leftwingmediamachine.blogspot.com
June 18, 2006 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for the "special platform for Warner", every candidate was invited to the exact same platform. The others declined the invitation, so it's pretty ridiculous to accuse Kos or Jerome of some special deal for a deal that was offered to all of Warner's competitors.
Well, now that is a very interesting point. Not too long ago, I thought the Democratic blogosphere was the Great White Hope of American politics. Now I see that it is probably a counterproductive force, and mainly a conduit for overclass ideology. So, I guess it is a good thing that the other Dem candidates are apparently not going to pay fealty to the lords of the pseudoLeft Blogosphere.
..............
My documentary/book in progress is at http://www.leftwingmediamachine.blogspot.com
June 18, 2006 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with getting the middle class "into the trough" is that it's already there. Tax cuts, Social Security, and deductions on home mortgages funnel money to the middle class in amounts that dwarf the programs of the traditional "welfare state." It's just that in this country, we choose to define anything that helps low-income people as "welfare" and anything that helps the middle class and upper class as a well-deserved benefit. But I agree that universal health care is the cause of our times, and should be the centerpiece of any Democratic campaign.
June 18, 2006 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Did IQs just drop suddenly while I was away?"
You didn't see in my post where I specifically SAID "NOT TAX CUTS"? What is it with you PseudoLefties? Willful disregard of what is written?
Tax cuts and deductions are fundamentally DIFFERENT from welfare state benefits. In the former, you are getting to keep what you earned and worked for. In the latter, you are getting some from the commonweal, and hopefully something from the overclass.
The overclass has been very succesful at demonizing the welfare state because the white working class, the bulk of the voters, do not get welfare state benefits. But if universal healthcare in instituted, that will no longer be true. THAT is why the overclass fought so hard (and successfully) to stop the clinton healthcare plan. Of course in retrospect we can see that the overclass picked the right man in clinton-he was on their side all along.
/////////
My documentary/book in progress is at http://www.leftwingmediamachine.blogspot.com
June 18, 2006 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards/Obama??
June 19, 2006 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really off the main topic but:
Cryofan uses an article by Robert M Grooms that is mainly quoted on ultra-conservative and rascist websites to make a point about the history of slavery. Grooms' main point was that since Blacks owned Blacks, it was only a matter of time before slavery ended Blacks were "equal" since they could own Black slaves). Grooms emphasizes the story of an ex-slave named Ellison who became wealthy through slave ownership, had a pew installed on the first row of a white church, and supported the Confederacy. What a "great" role model for young men whether they be White or Black. Of course there were other Blacks who used the Underground railroad to free family members and other enslaved Blacks, but why even talk about them? I guess it's futile to point out that many people who did open books, were aware of this part of history. On an episode of the Bill Cosby offshoot TV program "A Different World", a light-skinned Black female main character (Whitley played by Jasmine Guy) learned that her family owned slaves. That's how underground the information has been.
It is always interesting to hear about a suppressed or hidden history, at a time when history courses, in general, produce students with a lack of knowledge of American history.
The Grooms article, though often quoted by the ultra-right, is probably not the best vehicle to be used to try to bring different ethnic groups with similar economic interests together.
The statement about 20-30% of Whites having "recent" African-American DNA data can cut both ways. It can either speak to a unity in the country along racial lines, or be a reminder that liberties were taken with female slaves by White slave-owners. Transgressions by Black slave owners would not account for the diversity of skin colors seen in the Black community.
Given the selection of the Grooms article and the DNA info, in choice between a cryofan Democratic party or a Hillary Democratic party, I'd choose Hillary.
For all our sakes, hopefully we'll have better choices in 2008.
June 19, 2006 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
WHAT IS WARNER'S POSITION ON IRAQ??????
also they ABSOLUTELY MUST get rid of that OBNOXIOUS ad for syriana -- i say boycott them if that thing isn't taken down quick!
June 19, 2006 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
newman wrote:
And it's hilarious that you think I'd be shilling for Warner, which shows how really out to lunch you are-- and a water carrier for the rightwing noise machine on top of that. (No is the answer for the slow).
Frankly, I do not believe you....
/////////////
My documentary/book in progress is at http://www.leftwingmediamachine.blogspot.com
June 20, 2006 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally and fully disagree with your opinion on Mark Warner. Let me say first that he is not the Democrat I am going to support in 2008, but I would gladly support him if he won the nomination. As Warner says "Results do matter," and the results Warner delivered in Virginia are amazing. There is a reason he won the Education Annual Award for his work to reform and better the education system, there is a reason he was named one of the top governors by Time Magazine, there is a reason his state was rated best managed state in the nation, and there is reason that he is considered the "anti-Hillary because Mark Warner is the real deal. He offers progressive, results oriented approach that delivers. He improved Viriginia in so many ways by balancing the budget, expanding education nad health care, and making his state the most prepared for a terrorist attack. Although he is a moderate and I am a left wing Democrat I like and would support Mark Warner because at the end of the day positive results are postive results. He will be one of three Democrats that can win the nomination: Edwards, Hillary and Warner. We all know that Clinton is too conservative to be President and it only leaves the former Gov. of Virginia and former Senator of North Carolina. Tgossard put Edwards/Obama up above and all I have to say to that is: Hell Yeah!
June 20, 2006 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink