Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why unions won't commit to Democrats. Good reason.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:42 PM
Original message
Why unions won't commit to Democrats. Good reason.
I think Howard Dean is keeping a relationship with the unions, or trying. I know he and Andy Stern are still friends. I know DFA affiliates with SEIU a lot. But it will be a uphill battle after our Democrats failed to stop CAFTA and NAFTA before that. I doubt they know who to trust. Stern and other union heads have stated they are not going to automatically endorse Democrats....and I don't blame them.

Here is why. Since the 80's one set of Democrats whose initial are DLC have sought to make unions irrelevant, and I think this paragraph will explain a lot.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

"At its founding, the DLC's chief emphasis was on reconnecting the Democratic Party to white working- and middle-class class voters, who, the DLCers feared, had been increasingly attracted by the Republican Party's social conservatism, especially among northern ethnics and southern Protestants. To the DLC of the 1980s, that meant a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic issues--in other words, less liberal generally. The DLC thundered against the "liberal fundamentalism" of the party's base--unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally."

That is why unions won't commit to Democrats. Dean has spoken at 3 conventions, made calls in behalf of union leaders at times. But we have another wing undoing all he does.











Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. The DLC are corporatists.
It's impossible to pander to big business and be loyal to long term labor support at the same time.

This is yet another reason why I'm convinced the DLC has been controlled by GOP strings all along. No sane Democrat would turn on unions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillZBubb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. That's a great point.
We have this one bloc that is Repug Lite, pro business interests. There is simply no way to reconcile that with support for labor interests. The two are many times at odds.

I do think, though, that the Democratic agenda should not be the union agenda. Sometimes the unions get it wrong. But they are totally right about CAFTA and the whole free trade scam that the sheeple are getting corralled into.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillZBubb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. 95% of Dems voted against CAFTA, 95% Repugs for...
Even a dullard should be able to figure out which party supports the union position. Geez.

If the unions delivered us majorities in congress, maybe they'd get some of their objectives attained. They won't get squat supporting the Repugs, or by the same token, not actively supporting the Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Didja ever ask yourself why just enough D's peel off to pass Bushco agenda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillZBubb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. No.
The answer is pretty obvious and it predates the latest Bush mis-administration.

The Democratic party is undisciplined and doesn't enforce even minimal restrictions on its members. Everyone gets a free pass on every vote. The Democratic party also, as someone else (Sirota?) recently wrote supports the "big tent for the sake of the big tent". That's why we end up with whack jobs like Zell Miller, Holy Joe, and the 15 fools who voted for CAFTA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. enforcing ideological discipline is needed
Workers before corporations must be mandatory. Boot the offenders out of the DNC, yank the DNC campaign funding, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Exactly right, EXACTLY right
We need to understand something I didn't until recently, and that is when the votes are lined up to achieve a particular end (support OR defeat, as the case may be), it gives permission to everyone else to do as they want to to APPEAR to support a particular position. (Does that make any sense? I know what I'm trying to say, not sure I've achieved it.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Well, if Pelosi and Reid would quit catering to Democrats for Life...
And sending them to Howard to align himself with, they could have been worrying about CAFTA's defeat.

This group did not even support Kerry last year, he was not anti-abortion enough for them. Yet they were sending them to Howard to meet with this week, when they could have been worrying about CAFTA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. "not anti-abortion enough for them" .... Y'know, every time I read ...
... phrases like this, I get this image of some malevolent police state that's forcing women to have abortions. I ask myself, "Who the f*ck is forcing these people to have abortions and making them so angry?"

I then remind myself that these are people who have enjoyed choice in their reproductive matters, but who apparently have these bizarre hallucinations about parades of promiscuous women (they're like that, they think, when not 'properly' supervised by husbands or fathers) visiting these cackling, ghoulish abortionists who rip intact babies from their wombs and eat them. In other words, they're fucking batshit!!

Can we PLEASE stop calling these freakazoids 'anti-abortion'?? Can we PLEASE call them, at a very minimum, 'anti-choice'??? (Nofuckingbody is 'pro-abortion'.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Ok, try this.
They did not think Kerry was good enough for them. They call themselves Democrats, yet they refused to support him. But that is off topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillZBubb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Sometimes what you are saying is true. But mostly not.
Don't you think someone in the Democratic caucus would be screaming bloody murder if they knew the leadership had made sure enough Democratic votes were lined up to pass CAFTA? If that information came out, the whole party would be in shambles.

Let's not go tinfoil on our own leadership just yet when there are other, less sinister and more plausible reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Why would the Dems not whip the CAFTA vote?
By not whipping CAFTA, Democrats, in a way, are able to enjoy the best of both worlds. They are still exerting strong influence within the caucus, but not in an official way that might scare away Republicans.

“They did not make it a caucus position, but they did make it very clear that they would not take kindly to Democrats’ supporting it. They made that clear to me,” said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), who supports the pact.

“There is no confusion on where the leader and I stand on this issue,” Hoyer said yesterday in defending the decision not to whip the bill formally. “If you are interested whether I have talked to people, I have talked to people; you know, you wouldn’t believe I have talked to people about it. I have. Do we have a formal whip opposition? ... The answer to that is no.”

<>The decision not to whip the bill formally may also play well for Hoyer personally. He has cultivated a reputation as a member of Democratic leadership who is friendly to business interests. Hoyer’s support of this year’s bankruptcy bill, however, triggered criticism from some progressives in the House.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/072005/tale.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. That article is from several years ago.
There are other quotes in it that they turned to business to make up the votes lost by the China deals. I will find it you can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. If you have to win by embracing the agenda of the other party, why bother?
Once you start down this road, you are f*cked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveinMD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
15. unions
support anyone that support their cause. They need to endorse Republicans from time to time so they have someone to go to as Democrats are out of power. It has nothing to do with the DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Geek_Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
16. Well I kind of agree with them
If I was a labor Union I'd support a pro-labor republican over some one like Lieberman.

They need to support their own interest regardless of political party. It's a shame but until democrats start voting the Lieberman's out of office I think democrats will continue to loose support from the labor unions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillZBubb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. There is a pro labor Republican?
The only labor they support is that which happens because they stopped a woman from getting an abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hidden Stillness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-29-05 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
18. The DLC Pushed the People Out of the Democratic Party--We Want It Back
I grew up in a union household, so I know this is true. Once upon a time, wanting a strong government to keep greedy corporations under control, pay good wages, make sure products were safe before they were brought to the market and pay a price if this law is violated, "Buy American" and keep jobs here, make corporations and rich people pay their fair share of taxes, etc., was considered middle-of-the-road, middle class, non-corporate thinking. The commonsense assumption that the middle class, not the selfish rich, was the important group and the majority, didn't need or receive a label; it was ordinary fact.

Legislation was geared toward the protection of workers, because this is where we have to turn--not to lawyers and lobbyists, but to unions, government, the law. It was our country. The kinds of people who ran for office were generally middle-class like most people, and who didn't need "the problems of ordinary Americans" explained or "framed" to them; they probably had the same problems themselves. It was like a unified structure then.

Then during the '90s especially, I heard "Democrats" talking in a way that I had never heard before, with exclusive concern for corporate profits, investment, stock returns, "opening markets," and a whole new world of jargon I had only heard from Republicans and capitalists before--and for the first time, the concerns of the middle class, poor, and unions were shoved aside quickly as if they were ashamed of us. Ordinary opinions were now being labelled "liberal" so they could be attacked, and these ordinary opinions, favoring people over their bosses, never questioned before, are still the majority today, although you never hear them. Our pay is never referred to, our jobs are never referred to, but stockholders and corporations are always taken care of.

The DLC, the Clintons, and all the rest, took control of our Party away from the middle-class and its world of unions and the PTA at school, seeking consumer protection and a raise to the minimum wage, prosecution of corporate criminals and price-gougers. Now, because of the influence of the corporate DLC, only lobbyists, capitalists, stockholders, management, influence legislation, and we have been sliding further and further into poverty, ignored.

They made us and alien, hated group in our own Party, and did it by a word game of calling all working, middle class concerns "liberal," "extreme," "special interest," where once it had been obvious--supported, not attacked--common sense of the country and the Democratic Party. Now we can't even get a hearing in our own Party, which no longer even tries to fight for us (except for the great ones, like Ted Kennedy), and it was all because of this phony, corporate/Republican-funded DLC, which joined Republicans, attacking us for trying to bring law to capitalism. Where do you turn, when the enemy (Republicans) attacks you, but when you turn to what was once your own, the Democratic Party, for help, all you hear are opportunists jeering at you. Read the posts on this website--these DLC types have no clue who we of the middle class even are anymore.

When the DLC took over the Democratic Party and only supported Republicans, it allowed Republicans to force us all into their worst, most vicious, incompetantly managed, hell. All the biggest threats of Republican economic ideology, always fought before, are now happening, like a nightmare, because there is no one there to stop it--and the middle class and poor suffer worst. Everything is completely unbalanced and only capitalists win, where once the vast middle class determined policy as a matter of course. This is why I hate the DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC