The Labor Vote
One of the interesting statistics from the Iowa caucuses is how union members voted. They gave most of their votes to Obama, with Clinton coming in second and Edwards, third. Obama, who has less organized labor support than any of the top three candidates, captured the imagination of union households just as he captured the imagination of other Iowans.
Whether he can continue this trend could be key to his winning the nomination. It's something to watch as the primaries continue, but it's also something for the unions to consider.
Obama needs to bring along the white working class and lower-middle class even as he gains support of independent and more well-off social liberals. If he can forge a multi-colored coalition from the top to the bottom of the economic ladder, that would be formidable. And it could be a good sign for the labor movement too, that their members are ready for new ways to think about the global economy, for young people to join in an effort to change the way we think about work and family, income and equality in a world that often feels like it is spiraling out of control.
The possibility raised here that should be discussed much more is the future evolution of the strategy(ies) of organized labor, who have no particular reason to favor HRC on the substance (though betting on a winner has its ... rewards), nor Edwards with his rhetoric of populism (especially now that, as I read the Iowa results, one key result of them is that it is NO LONGER a three-way race seriously, which it would remain if Edwards had come in first place) who really has little more chance of success than 2d tier candidates did prior to Iowa. This is speculation that is anything but premature: particularly in MI, where of course the main candidates are officially verboten to campaign, unions rethinking their position (possibly with a little help from connexions in the Obama camp) might at least begin a major shift to Obama.
There have been some points made in recent weeks especially about tensions between Obama and unions, especially over 527s, but it would seem to me that there is at least a step-wise ripeness for a change. There are a LARGE number of unions (who despite the old adage that the unions never forget, are adept at strategically selective amnesia) who WELL remember NAFTA and other aspects of policy where unions were among the traditional progresive constituencies that it has long been a hallmark of Clintonism to betray; unfortunately, the sense of worry about HRC may lead many union leaders and others to be MORE solicitous towards HRC's candidacy -- not out of hope but out of a much stronger political impulse: fear.
It would seem that those at the netroots who are concerned about the well-being of organized labor, and who see the danger posed EVEN BY VICTORY of Clintonian primacy continuing in the Democratic Party, and the possibilities, despite some particular recent perturbations, of Obama as at least NOT a Clinton Democrat -- we could be looking in that direction and weighing intelligently the benefits to the unions of backing Obama.
Even if they back Obama in the primaries and HRC wins (and remember, by the analysis I've put forward about the structuring and scheduling of the primaries -- that still seems to be the likelihood, even if Obama wins in both NH and South Carolina) then HRC as Democratic nominee would need the unions, and they would have every wise reason to oblige, to go FULL STEAM against the GOP in the general election.
But in the meantime, and this too even if Obama were to be outpaced by HRC, there is the issue of union leverage within the Democratic Party. It seems that from their standpoint, that leverage WITHIN the party is MAXIMIZED vis-a-vis the Clinton's by their demoonstration of strength in opposition. (Unlike individuals, there is little wiggle room for vendetta when you really need a broad interest group's support in the general). And then, as the remaining possibility, a victory for Obama would be better for labor, it appears clear, than an HRC victory in the primary season.
This is especially true for those worried about the huge number of voters who might otherwise vote Democratic who will be tempted to either stay home or to vote GOP if HRC is the nominee. Some have pointed out that a LOT of HRC's unpopularity in widely varying circles is grossly unfair (been there done that!), but it is in any case quite deeply rooted and real, and not merely scarfed up as a social duty. In any event, regardless of the WHY many potential Democratic voters simply won't vote for HRC as nominee, I am one observer who sees -- not just in the obvious ways but as a candidate over time, better known by voters -- Obama as the stronger CANDIDATE to take on the GOP in Nov 08.
So again, the question of how labor might line up from here on out -- the arguments for Obama, for locals as well as for whole union internationals, is extremely compelling, at least from the standpoint of this observer.
January 5, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
One point I managed to leave out of that lengthy post was that unions should also pay heed to what their rank-and-file are doing, as a union backing one candidate when the rank and file are voting for another can undermine support among the rank and file for the union's organizational leadership.
at any rate ...
January 5, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
cloudy:
Thanks for your thoughts. I really do appreciate the time you obviously spent addressing issues that deserve much more consideration, both the role that the American labor movement has been playing in the Democratic nomination process and, as Jo-Ann addresses, the role that the labor movement should consider playing going forward.
Please accept this respectful observation that I think you unfairly assume that: (a) organized labor has not been appropriately deliberative in connection with endorsements of either Clinton or Edwards; and (b) organized labor has not and will not be responsive to the voting patterns of the members.
Bruce
January 5, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've hit upon the $64K question: WILL organized labor in fact BE more responsive to their grassroots? Obama, prior to Iowa, had by far the LEAST union backing of the three top candidates. Will that change in Obama's favor?
I think, in terms of values, it SHOULD, but whether or not it will is really an unknown.
What if Obama wins in NH also? Organized labor's leadership might very well wait until after Feb 5, when the TT (Tsunami Tuesday) of primaries poses are REALLY formidable challenge to Obama's insurgent candidacy.
January 5, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards finishing behind Clinton among Union households is not surprising, given the dominance of public sector employees among union households. Many of the (small numbers of) industrial sector households that would have been union households at one time are now ex-union households, but we'll never get figures on them from entrance or exit polling.
Clinton finishing behind Obama among union households, though ... that's surprising, and something that could very easily have an impact in the near future, after NH when Culinary in NV decides what to do.
January 5, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
oops
January 5, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
so is obama really gonna cross the wga picket lines to do the daily show monday night like people were saying here the other day?? i don't think i ever saw anything to confirm that rumor.
January 5, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Labor interests and groups have endured a withering erosion of rights, protections, and bargaining power since the Reagan administration, with one brief minor but notable reprieve during the eight years of Clinton governments. Under Bush labor rights and peoples rights have been ruthless dismantled and reengineered. Note the recent UAW appeasements here in the US. The unions, workers, (re: middle class Americans) have no bargaining power, and absolutely ZERO representation in the government, hence the popularity of Edwards populist platform, and Obama's promise to give voice to the voiceless. Under the current fascist panjandrum of the Bush government, the richest Americans 1-5% of the population depending on the study, are the ONLY Americans who benefited in any way from the Bush governments corporatist economic policies. The rest of America, 95-99% depending on the study have and will contine to suffer from a radical loss of bargaining power, a savage assault on, and erasing of the peoples core rights, freedoms, protections, and privileges, massive increases in core cost of living expenditures, particularly health, housing, food, and fuel costs, a college degree is becoming increasingly more unaffordable for middle class Americans, and the people have no one - NO ONE speaking to, addressing, or correcting the many crisis facing middle class America.
Giving voice to the voiceless is the hope we all hold, and the candidate that best articulates and allays the dread concerns of middle class America's brutal pounding, lack of government support, and total absence of representation in the processes of the government will win the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans.
Pain is coming. Bush's pathological lying cannot prevent the economic pain that America and the world must endure, as the markets correct as a result of the subprime debacle and the tectonic shifts that will unravel amongst the worlds financial oligarchs. A few of the more exposed major institutional banks are likely to desolve or be consumed. Many billions more are likely to be written down, as in written off, as in gone - as in erased. The reverberations of these massive reductions in wealth will ripple through economies of all the world nations, and hit hard and most, those nations, like America that are highly leveraged, and deeply in debt. Pain is coming for all of us. The superrich, and the fascists will be less impacted, - but the poor and middle class everywhere, and particularly here in the land of Oz will be squeezed and brunted in many ways.
A candidate who will give voice to the voiceless is our only hope.
"Deliver us from evil!"
January 5, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Lining up to believe".
I read this by Bob Herbert and I became very sad.
Now they are comparing Barack Obama with JFK. I'm sad that young people put that kind of enthusiasm, place so much hope, in a politician again. Most of all it makes me sad to see them "fall in love" with a political leader. I been there, I done that. It still hurts.
When I was a kid in high school I worked for the Cook County Democratic Party's campaign for JFK in 1960. I worked the telephones, I ran the mimeograph machine, I made coffee, stuffed envelopes. The night he won was one of the happiest moments of my life.
I remember before the Democratic convention, former President Truman going on national television to warn that JFK was too inexperienced to lead the country. I felt betrayed by Harry S, Truman.
Now most historians think he was right, that his presidency was failing when he died. Many say that if he hadn't been killed he would have been a one term president. That instead of being vigorous he was desperately ill, that instead of Jackie and he being the ideal couple... why go on? We had "lined up to believe" and by God we believed.
The day Kennedy died was for me, like for most young Americans of the time, one of the saddest days of my life and no revisionist can ever touch that. It seems to me that nothing has really gone right for America since that day.
Time has passed and the kids are lining up again.
Nobody is going to "bring Americans together" with stirring speeches.
How hollow that all sounds today, at least to anyone who lived through the sixties and seventies. The problems we have today, at home and around the world, have been brewing for a long time and no president is going to fix them, much less "heal" us, with wonderful speeches. In fact, sadly enough, America like most other countries, no longer can set a course for itself and hope to sail it against the wind and the tide. No words no matter how "healing" are going to change that. The changes have to come from the society itself, not from the leaders.Frankly, I don't think any of the candidates this year are very impressive, but after eight years of Bush, the bar isn't very high. I would be amazed if any of those running could do a worse job than he has. I would also be amazed if any were too successful either. It is no longer in their hands to be so.
But please, please, don't let the children fall in love with a politician again, the disillusionment is not worth the enthusiasm and does terrible damage to an entire generation.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 5, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Seaton.
A speech like Obama's isn't meant to "heal", but to galvinize and energize individuals to become partners in "healing".
I was a semi-close bystander to the effects of a somehow similiar speech given by an unknown math student by the name of Mario Savio in Berkeley's Sproul Plaza. Even my fellow privileged apolitical Bay Area whitebread high school compatriots felt the reverberations that catapulted "student activism" into overdrive.
It's almost impossible to describe how, unlike diminishing ripples in a pond, a seemingly endless series of tsunamis kept spreading wider and wider and wider; then beyond America's borders to Mexico City and Paris and on and on and on......
The reactions to Obama reminds me of those amazing days so many decades ago.
My hat's off to you and all the others who put idealism to work and planted so many seeds. Some, like those of certain desert plants, will only emerge from their long dormancies when conditions warrant.
Our collective deserts could use another good cycle of bloom right now.
If Obama is the catalytic agent, so be it.
January 5, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, an update of this column would be interesting, taking into account the following letter from WITHIN the leadership of AFSCME in response to McEntee:
Letter to AFSCME President McEntee
January 4, 2008
Gerald McEntee
International President
AFSCME
1625 L St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dear President McEntee:
We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign
that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama. We do not believe that
such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was
ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made its
decision to endorse Hillary Clinton.
In fact, when the vote to make a primary endorsement was taken by the
IEB, there appeared to be widespread agreement that we had a strong
field of Democratic candidates all of whom had made a very positive
impression on the IEB Screening Committee. The argument for endorsing
Hillary Clinton was not that her positions were better than those of the
other candidates or that she would be the better president for working
families, but rather that she was the clear frontrunner, the most likely
primary victor, and the strongest general election candidate.
While some of us did not agree with the decision to endorse Sen.
Clinton, we all recognized that once the endorsement was made, AFSCME
would have to expend a certain amount of resources on her behalf in
order to give weight to its action. While the Board was informed at
that time that procedures for independent expenditures had been
established, there was never any discussion of how those expenditures
would be made.
None of the information presented to the International Executive Board
suggested in any way that AFSCME intended to utilize its resources to
attack the other Democratic candidates. In fact, a number of IEB members
stressed–either privately or in their comments at the meeting-how much
they respected and admired Sen. Obama. And at least one Board member
spoke passionately against the Democratic candidates attacking each
other, arguing that such negativity would damage Democratic prospects in
the General Election.
We were therefore shocked and appalled to learn that our union-through
“independent expenditures”–is squandering precious resources to wage a
costly and deceptive campaign to oppose Barack Obama. As Barack’s
standing in the polls has soared, according to numerous press reports
AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out
mailings and run radio ads whose sole purpose is to undercut his
candidacy. And now AFSCME has even registered a website with the
explicit purpose of “opposing Barack Obama.”
While we would not approve of attacks on any of the Democratic
candidates in this race, all of whom have good relationships with our
union, it is worth noting that AFSCME has chosen to attack only one of
those candidates, Barack Obama.
It is also worth noting that the campaign that AFSCME is waging against
Sen. Obama is fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with past
positions of our union, i.e. attacking him for not forcing individuals
to purchase health care even when they can’t afford it. The ads are
misleading in attempting to give the impression that they are associated
with John Edwards rather than Hillary Clinton and in their claims that Sen. Obama’s health care plan will exclude 15 million people when in fact every person will have the opportunity to participate. This dishonesty is giving our union a “black eye” among many in the media and
the progressive community.
But even if the ads were not deceptive, we would object to the use of
our union’s funds to attack a long-time friend of AFSCME members, a
candidate who has stood up strongly in support of workers’ rights from
his earliest days as an elected official, a candidate who included the
importance of the right to form unions in his announcement speech, a
candidate who has been a forceful advocate for working families.
Supposedly, we are involved in this primary because we’re concerned
about “access” to the next Democratic president. So why would we want
to develop a hostile relationship with the man who could be that next
president?
And supposedly, our union’s fundamental commitment is to electing a
Democratic president in November. So why would AFSCME’s national
political director threaten to dilute AFSCME’s efforts in the General
Election if Senator Obama is the nominee? We were stunned to see these
kind of threats being made in the national media by one of our union’s
primary spokespersons.
It is our understanding that this attack on Sen. Obama is being carried
out through independent expenditures which are not under your direction,
but that of two members of the International staff. As we understand
it, because of the legal “firewall” that exists, those two staff members
have essentially undertaken this assault on Sen. Obama entirely on their
own initiative without direction from or even consultation with you.
Certainly there has not been any direction from the International
Executive Board regarding this course of action. And we do not believe
that AFSCME members would expect or want their PEOPLE dollars spent in this manner.
We are calling on you to take whatever action that is within your legal
purview to immediately end AFSCME’s attack campaign against Sen. Obama. In the event that you are not able to legally compel these staff members to cease these actions, we are calling on you to immediately take action to discontinue such independent expenditures in order to ensure that no further attacks occur. And we also urge you to ensure that no funds are
utilized to wage such “attack campaigns” among our own members.
The behavior of these two individuals-so clearly inimical to the
interests and allegiances of AFSCME members, as well as to institutional
democracy-arguably constitutes chargeable offenses under the
International constitution. It also calls into question the role of
such “independent expenditures” in our organization. We believe that
the IEB needs to carefully review the role that such expenditures play
in our activities in this election season and beyond.
At the last IEB meeting, when we all gathered for dinner, you raised
your glass in a toast to organizational unity, assuring us that we would
all come together to defeat the Republican candidate in November. Today
the actions of a few unelected union staff are placing that unity in
jeopardy and degrading the reputation of our great union. We urge you
to take whatever actions are necessary to see that both are restored.
In solidarity,
Ken Allen, International Vice-President, Oregon
Henry Bayer,International Vice-President, Illinois
Greg Devereux, International Vice-President, Washington
Sal Luciano, International Vice-President,Connecticut
Roberta Lynch, International Vice-President, Illinois
George Popyack, International Vice-President, California
Eliot Seide, International Vice-President, Minnesota
cc: Paul Booth
Lee Saunders
Larry Scanlon
International Executive Board
January 6, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink