SEIU's Grover Norquist Strategy
According to the NY Times, it appears that the Service Employees International Union is developing a strategy to hold Democrats accountable to pro-working-class policies once in office:
"In a move likely to upset some Democrats, the delegates approved an "accountability plan" in which the union would spend $10 million to pressure or punish political candidates who made pro-worker, pro-union promises, but broke them after being elected."
This is straight out of the Right's playbook--and exactly what progressives should be doing.
The conservative movement has been famously successful in eliciting promises from Republican candidates and then punishing them when they renege. The most well-known is Grover Norquist's (Americans for Tax Reform) National Taxpayer Protection Pledge against any tax increase (which includes voting against repeal of a prior tax cut). With this strategy, progressives just might be able to push the Democratic Party similarly to the left (and hold it there) on health care, Social Security, the environment, and consumer protection.
Advertisement
Comments (31)
Finally!
June 7, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right on! About time!
June 7, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Politicians famously get elected by making promises they can't keep...because a desperate public endlessly seeks to deny unpleasant reality. You're not going to change that.
June 7, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that just what they intended?
They punished elected officials who broke their tax promises because the tax cuts benefitted the rich Republican base.
They never bothered to punish anyone for breaking their spending promises because they could instead redirect that spending to the rich Republican base via contracts.
They never bothered to punish anyone for breaking their "anti-abortion amendment" pledges because that was just for the rubes to get their votes.
And so on...
June 7, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Running up the deficit is the entire goal of the Norquist wing of the Republican Party. Everything they do is calculated to so exhaust Federal resources that it will, by sheer budget overload, kill every Democratic social program and reduce the Federal government's role to the defense department, social security and the debt they have run up. Norquist is famous for saying he wants the government's role to be so small that you can drown it in a bathtub.
June 8, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 11, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This will depend on the promise made. Following a GOP strategy right now doesn't seem to be a wise move. Unless you're expecting the GOP to rise from the ashes that is all that remains of their ill-guided policies.
Let's not get too approving here until we know the promises made and not kept.
June 7, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
A couple things here...
First, you're not going to be able to push elected Dems too far to the left without costing them their offices. Their likely replacements will be Republicans rather than fellow Democrats, as the great majority of the American electorate lives in the center.
Second, this is work best done behind closed doors. Arm-twisting is not a pretty sight, and best left to the professionals to administer and the recalcitrant to receive. Let's not make it a spectator sport, it only helps the opposition.
June 7, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree - keep the arm-twisting behind closed doors.
June 7, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the defining principles of the modern, "progressive" Left is ever increasing transparency in governing and markets. Have I missed something...or are you advocating one principle for your opponents and another for your allies?
June 7, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not necessarily a "modern" leftist.
I do lean left, true. It's also a fact that I grew up in Daley the Elder's Chicago, and thus have a well-instilled understanding of practical politics. I see no honor in "losing pure", I see no value in airing dirty laundry in public, I see nothing gained from face-spiting nose cuts.
Those are basic truths of American politics, and while transparency is fine for financing and input, internal party operations are really something best treated as a family matter. Such public airing of internal disputes gains nothing, and is a most unwelcome side effect of the Dr. Phil school of going public with everything as a first step.
I, on the other hand, do sometimes yearn for the days of unexpressed thoughts.
June 7, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know that if you push them too far to the left they will lose their offices? Given that such a thing has not been done---ever, I think you're just parroting the common wisdom with no evidence to back it up.
Second, the arm twisting is always behind closed doors. What they are proposing is to shed light on the cowardice of the typical DC Dems who gut and abandon the programs they say they are for becuase they are serving their corporate masters instead of the people.
This is an excellent strategy. Expose the hypocrites and make them pay for their duplicity.
June 8, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right now, unions ain't as popular as tax cuts. That wasn't always the case and it may not be the case in the future. But I think I'd work on getting unionization more popular before I started making too many promises. The right spent decades popularizing the tax issue before it started making promises about tax cuts. Build the case first--get the polls behind you--then start making the promises.
June 7, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This guy gets it...
June 7, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I spent a lot of time in Chicago too.
June 8, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Union participation can't be legislated like tax cuts. It's not a politicians job to promote union membership.
June 7, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why haven't unions regained their popularity? With employers' raising health care costs, cutting pensions, limiting wage growth, and moving jobs to all sorts of foreign countries, why aren't workers organizing? Seems funny to me. Here's my guess--most Americans like to think of themselves as "white collar workers" not "blue collar"--and unions are maybe irreversibly branded as blue collar. Someone needs to rebrand the union as something else more appealing to office workers. How about a "professional association" or something like that? If we all joined a professional association to ensure we got what we deserved, maybe employers would have to listen.
June 8, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unions don't protect you from any of the things you mentioned, Purple. Look at GM's announcement this week. This is why people don't want them. They take your money every month, put it in the pockets of rich union lawyers who do very little to earn it. Sign me up for that, will you?
June 8, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of admiring the Republicans, I'd refer back to the original Progressive movement. Politicians are opportunistic, and when enough people raise enough hell, it starts to look like an opportunity.
June 7, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
@maddograckham
The more cynical ones intended to force an end to social spending by bankrupting the government. They thought Democratic irresponsibility was sufficient justification.
If you want to build things, make things, and not just redistribute wealth, you have to contract with those who can do it - mainly Republican-owned companies.
First, you're wrong. They did get punished. Second, the Republican base - the rubes you call them - are the Christian right and, when it suits you, you say they are all-powerful.
But, you apparently believe Republican rubes can be endlessly suckered and manipulated while Democratic rubes either don't exist or are much smarter. Pathetic.
@TheOldGrouch
You're talking about applying pressure to PUBLIC OFFICIALS. If that isn't legitimate public business then the public has no legitimate business.
Of course, your party would only behave that way when acting in the public interest. It's only the other guy who acts selfishly.
How sweet.
June 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
@maddograckham
My first answer to your post was not the one I intended. I let your finger-pointing distract me.
Conservatives were unsuccessful in punishing officials who didn't act in accordance with their promises because their promises were unrealistic and couldn't be kept. There is simply no way to reduce the size and cost of modern government without paying a huge price.
Similarly, Democrats will fail because universal health care, environomental and consumer protection are unaffordable, and most likely so is Social Security.
June 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) Reach into your pocket.
2) Pull out two quarters.
3) Go find a pay phone.
4) Call someone who cares what you think.
June 8, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has also made a lot of noise about NAFTA -- but when in office, he is not about to renegotiate that treaty with Canada and Mexico.
Unions don't have enough power anymore to force legislation. They are one voice among many.
Besides incumbents in the House get to draw their own Congressional districts in some states, which means only conviction of a felony or death will boot them out involuntarily -- or extreme voter disaffection. This is a huge problem that makes many House members unaccountable to the electorate and less susceptible to any public pressure. George Bush is the only reason the Republicans lost races in very conservative districts as a protest vote.
June 7, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has also made a lot of noise about NAFTA -- but when in office, he is not about to renegotiate that treaty with Canada and Mexico.
Unions don't have enough power anymore to force legislation. They are one voice among many.
Besides incumbents in the House get to draw their own Congressional districts in some states, which means only conviction of a felony or death will boot them out involuntarily -- or extreme voter disaffection. This is a huge problem that makes many House members unaccountable to the electorate and less susceptible to any public pressure. George Bush is the only reason the Republicans lost races in very conservative districts as a protest vote.
June 7, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
We shouldn't leave it up to the unions. All politics is local, it is said, and we all ought to know how our representatives have voted on issues important to us.
Most of our congressional reps are incumbents who have been re-elected. They have a voting record.
In the area that I'm most interested in, peace, there used to be a scorecard on every rep and senator which included a percentage "peace" rating based on how they voted. (Most of them had miserable peace ratings.) Unfortunately the sponsors of this website had to quit because of a lack of resources.
Until we have such a scorecard, with objective ratings, in all key areas, we won't be able to judge incumbents effectively. We must rely on what they say, which is of questionable value.
This is something we all need and it's suited to the web. But who's going to do it?
June 7, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grover Norquist's Grover Norquist strategy has been a major contributor to the destruction of the Republican Party.
By funneling millions to candidates who were stupid enough to sign his goofy no-tax manifesto we now have a crop if incompetents who have driven the nation to the brink of disaster.
Blind ideology is neither good for the country nor desired by the public--no matter which special interest is holding the purse strings. Sometimes, believe it or not, even the venerable SEIU doesn't see the forest for the trees.
June 8, 2008 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could someone move this inane Grover Norquist post to the Cafe trash bin?
June 8, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
SEIU idea is great. How many spineless Democrats have we elected to Congress?
What is the likelihood of a decent healthcare bill if Congress can play it "safe" by giving in to the insurance companies after they are elected on a reform platform?
Why did Hillary lose?- because Democratic voters insisted on accountability on the Iraq War (among other things).
SEIU, by forcing politicians to live up to their promises, will help get the change in Washington we deserve.
Unless the idea of unlimited, underpaid, temp work for you or someone in your family is attractive, getting unionized might help. Public school teachers, firemen and police are unionized and all have guaranteed healthcare- are all of your friends covered?
June 8, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should push to hold our politicians accountable. But many already view the unions as too powerful. Half their business anymore is increasing their own sway. This is going to do nothing to help that perception.
Take the teacher's union. In many instances, they are the ones blocked needed educational reforms. The question becomes, does the good outweigh the bad?
June 8, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, BrookD, but it wasn't always this way. Unions were far more effective--and beneficial to their members--in the 1940s than they are now. Is the change because of changes in government policy? Corporations "pre-empting" the need for unions by providing more generous pay and benefits voluntarily? Cultural bias against unions among white collar workers? Greater competition for workers forcing companies to be more accomodating? Or just a decline in the quality of unions and their leadership?
I don't have the answer--it just seems strange, though, that the labor movement has declined to the extent it has and that it hasn't shown signs of revival in recent years when offshoring and benefit cuts have become more intense.
June 9, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
BrookD,
Revisit the language of the Wagner Act. Promoting unions is, per the law, national policy. Taft-Hartley modified this, and the gutting has continued as a corporate friendly NLRB continues to make anti-organizing rights decisions. And then people wonder why unions have declined?
In the current economic climate, a truly pro labor administration and Congress could do wonders for union participation in the work place.
Isn't it about time that we had a pro-labor government (and judiciary) for the first time since Truman?
June 9, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink