Union-Busting As Stated Policy of the American Government

I just concluded a paper on labor law, especially focused on the agenda-setting and policy-making processes of labor law reform, keying in on legislative and administrative changes to its application in terms of majority sign-up and the makeup of the NLRB. One thing I kept coming across was the nature and degree of change in applied policy from the federal government toward workers, unions, and collective bargaining. In short, we now have a labor law regime that is tilted against these concepts and toward their diametric opposites, management, business, and union-busting; the original intent as per the 1935 Wagner Act and for a while after its codification (even after Taft-Hartley in many respects, although that is subject to interpretation) was to prioritize and favor unionization of workers and collective bargaining as matters of good economic policy and justice for workers.

Now, we have the Bob Corkers (R-Foreign Autos, Jackson Hewitt) and Richard Shelby (R-Union Busting) talking about "getting unions off the backs" of business. There you have it, explicit confirmation that the objective of American economic and labor law policy, at least for one part and one slice of the political pie, is union-busting and anti-worker notions.

This auto industry debate has laid bare the contours, as if 50 years of politics did not do so, of how Republicans and conservatives approach workers, worker rights, and economic prosperity. Bear in mind that the favorability rating of unions stands at 68% favorable to 28% unfavorable. Find me a politician with those numbers and I'll show you a sure re-elect. Further, 53% of the American public as workers would choose unionization today. And the number keep on coming like that, if you look at opinion research from the likes of Pew, Gallup, ANES, and the like.

These folks are just wrong, and they're proving yet again how out-of-touch they are with the American people.

But don't get me started on the false equivalencies of the media, arguably worse, given their supposed role in a democracy, than the Republicans whose frames of approach they adopt. Disgusting. Just not as disgusting as the intent to codify into law and policy the union-busting and anti-worker approach of Republicans.

Are liberals the new moderates? Is the left the new center?

Please bear in mind, as party is not equal to Party, the "left" is not the "Left." If the former describes a relative position on a bi-directional, uni-dimensional spectrum of ideology, the latter describes a political movement with certain core ideological principles of political economy. They are not the same. What I am talking about below is the former, the "left."

And further, I'm not going to spend time here addressing ideological labels like "liberal" and "progressive" (as well as "moderate" and "conservative") and what they mean. As such, labels are proper nouns and things like "left" and "right" and "center" are terms of relative position on the aforementioned spectrum. And even further, I am not going to address the multi-axial, perhaps multi-directional nature of ideology in terms of both mass versions in the electorate and on an individual level. Too much for a quick exposition of ideas that seem more operative in a sense of timeliness. And I suppose, these relative and proper labels are certainly not integrative of the discontinuity of self-identification and policy preference.

I've been reading and hearing a lot that the difference between Larry Summers and say, a David Sirota, in terms of ideological approach, is much less than say between Larry Summers and a Henry Paulson. I think that this is probably true, regardless of the timing. In terms of real ideological character, I'm not so sure. But that's not my point here.

The somewhat radicalizing terms in which we live, both by virtue of the tail end of the Bush years, and the consolidation of the effects of a 30 year-plus dominance of conservatism and market fetishism, has perhaps altered the relativity of the ideological spectrum. Liberal is now the new moderate. See: regulation and government intervention into the economy for the purposes of public good. And left seems to be the new center. More on this later, but it's an idea of weight, I think.

What this means in terms of consequent action by virtue of the national mood and public acceptance of different policies and political approaches...wow. It could be drastic.

(Note: I think I spent more time explaining what I was and wasn't going to say versus saying something. That's OK. The idea itself is merely being tossed out - understanding what that idea is can be very important.)

Shape of Parties To Come

Today, the two parties in the electorate and in government represent distinct coalitions of voters largely mirroring something of a split with an ostensibly more liberal party (Democrats) and a conservative party (Republicans). But they are not uniformly aligned along an axis of ideology (I don't believe that the parties ever have been). There is not a progressive or liberal party quite like there is a conservative party. And ideological differentiations in the electorate and in those who make up government are shifting, as per demographics, geography, and socio-economic characteristics. Running through this really takes a lot more analysis and writing to cover thoroughly.

But consider this proposition in thinking about the developing contours of American politics over the next 25 years, especially in the context of the coming civil war of sorts in the GOP (whether or not they get what the civil war should be fought over - hint to the GOP: it's not tactics, it's strategy; and no one is - and god willing, will be - buying your current strategic political program):

(Note: I use ideological labels as in popular usage - this is to say that "true conservative" has little meaning outside of the contemporary definitions of conservatism...balanced budgets are not inherently an ideological proposition, they take on ideological character only the context of current economic situations and choices of priorities. Same deal with foreign affairs activity.)

The GOP will become a party marked by socio-cultural conservatism and foreign affairs militarism (as if they aren't already). Some older guard business and wealth elites will cling to the party and eventually fade away. The uniform coalition of economic royalist conservatives, socio-cultural conservatives, and foreign affairs conservatives is and has been breaking up and it will cleave in the near future.

The Democratic party (note: lower-case "p," please people!) will become a party of socio-cultural liberals, foreign affairs liberals, and business elites. The working class and unionists, holding other characteristics constant, will lean towards the Democrats.

None of this seems revelatory - but my point is that this will become the dominant narrative as these contours become written very large. There will be a disconnect between ideology and party in that the former has multiple axes (and perhaps two dimensions) while the latter is only bi-directional on one axis. What remains to be seen is if this trending continues. What will predict it is the performance of the Democratic party in government. Will they govern as progressives or liberals, or will they govern as center-right-ish "moderates," making false choices and neglecting the political economy of politics and economics both.

As always, remember that parties and ideology are not one and the same (as noted above, both in terms of axes and dimensions) and that party is not Party.

My project: build a stronger Party while at the same time working to create a more progressive party. I believe that both must include integration of consideration of political economy of class, universalist policy, and economic justice. If this is successful, the party contours as noted above, to say nothing of the ideological contours un-discussed, will be totally wrong in appraising reality.