Why Labor Needs To Push the Democratic Party Harder

Again, What Digby Said.

It is a great post on what the Centrists are doing to fracture the Democratic Party.

And here is the post that sparked Digby's post...

Robert Cruickshank's post on coalitions.

Good Policy & Good Politics

The National Journal headline:

Wisconsin GOP Gloats Over Massachusetts Collective Bargaining Bill

Nothing happens in a vacuum.

And, for all those who want to consider themselves as centrist, or serving the interests of moderation... remember that the master of centrism, Bill Clinton, repeats over and over that what a President decides to do must be both good policy and good politics. The Wisconsin GOP has suffered some disastrous public relations... and the Mass Speaker just made them look a little better.

Massachusetts House Threatens Labor Rights

The Speaker of the Massachusetts House wants to take away some collective bargaining rights for municipal workers. Claiming that healthcare costs are too high for towns, Speaker DeLeo wants to give town managers the ability to completely design the healthplans of the town workers, no matter what contract was agreed to.

Massachusetts labor unions have rounded up support from 50 House lawmakers, including six members of House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo’s leadership team, in a push to fend off the speaker’s plan to limit collective bargaining rights for teachers, firefighters, and other local government employees.

DeLeo has pitched his effort as a high priority to help curb escalating municipal health care costs, saving jobs for government employees and services for residents.

In one sense this is not nearly as bad as Scott Walker's attempt to pulverize unions. But in another sense, when one considers how Massachusetts bucked the Red Tide of 2010 with Democratic wins in all State & Congressional races, and it has a House that is 80% Democratic, it is surprising to see a Mass. Democratic Speaker fall in line with the Republican idea that public employee unions can't be dealt with, and should not have a say in what their healthcare benefits should be.

This only goes to show that it is not enough to have Democrats in office, nor just strong union membership. A political atmosphere needs to be created and maintained to protect the right of people to have a say in their working conditions and healthcare.

More can be read about it here.

The Boston Red Sox As The Current Democratic Party

I'm still on John Kerry's e-mail list from 2004. I usually just delete the e-mails, but today I received one entitled "Vote for Youk." Knowing he was talking about Red Sox 1B Kevin Youkilis, who is one of 5 players on the ballot for the last AL All-Star spot, I thought I'd take a look.

Kevin Youkilis of the Red Sox is an All Star in anyone's book. He plays the game the way it's supposed to be played, he hustles, he has a great bat and a glove to match, and he brings with it the kind of intensity we respected for years in guys like Trot Nixon. Youk deserves to be in the All-Star game -- while the team has grinded it out in spite of injury after injury, he's been a rock. But now he needs to win a fan vote to make it to Anaheim next week.

The stakes are also just a little personal: in the fan voting, currently Nick Swisher of the Yankees is in first place. Swisher's having a fine year, but Youk is better in just about every category, batting average, slugging, homeruns, everything and he plays Gold Glove defense to boot. Please don't let anyone say that Swisher beat Youkilis because Sox fans have gone a little soft after '04 and '07. Let's show we're still the most ravenous fans in baseball.

I've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the New York Yankees are the Republican Party of baseball and are, along with the Republicans, one of the 2 most evil entities in the United States. But is there any question that the Red Sox are equivalent to the modern Democratic Party. They are very rich and privileged, but just not quite as rich as the Yankees. They benefit from free market baseball more than anyone than the Yankees, but like the Democratic Party, we are supposed to believe they are the team of the little guy.

Meanwhile, as the AL ballot battle is a popularity contest between Red Sock Youkilis and Yankee Nick Swisher, the real little guys, Michael Young of Texas, Paul Konerko of Chicago, and Delmon Young of Minnesota, are forgotten about by both parties.

Specter switches parties!!!

I have two Democratic senators for the first time since I lived in Massachusetts (and was too young to appreciate Kerry & Kennedy). Arlen Specter has jumped the fence--and not only ditched the GOP, but joined the Democrats.

I'll have more on this later, but here's the dirt:

"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

His full statement is here. Some more juicy bits:

It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
...
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

Cleaning house

Roland Burris needs to resign.

What possible benefit is there to him staying on as a U.S. senator?

The downside is obvious-- an unelected appointee, placed in power by a tainted governor, who is now changing (or, at the very least "massaging") his story about his involvement with said governor. All to fill a seat vacated by a new president that is trying to put out about a hundred fires and keeps getting set back by the personnel problems (and yes, I know the setbacks are largely due to media spin on what have been mostly minor issues, but that really doesn't matter, since it's out there and people are noticing). My question remains-- what possible benefit is there to keeping him? Loyalty? Forget it. We had eight years of government operating like a fraternity on academic probation. There is little reason not to pressure him to resign-- seriously, I don't even care if he did or did not do anything inappropriate. The problems we face that demand the Obama administration's full attention and public support are much larger than Roland Burris. Being in the Senate isn't a right, especially since he wasn't elected anyway. There mere whiff of impropriety is enough for me-- that he's singing a different tune this week is enough.

The Republicans lost in 2006 in large part due to scandals-- Cunningham, Foley, Craig, Abramoff, Delay, etc. Lately, there have been far too many democratic scandals. If it keeps up, even Obama's squeaky-clean reputation is going to suffer. No single elected official's job is more important that the economic recovery, healthcare reform, or green energy. If kicking Burris to the curb saves one union job in Wisconsin, it's worth it. There can't be second chances because the stakes are too high. Burris fucked it up by not disclosing everything to begin with, and now is a distraction. If he really cares about the kinds of changes Obama campaigned on, he'll do a Daschle and bow out. Otherwise, he needs to be forced out by his own side, publicly, loudly, and with little mercy.

I'm just wild about Harry... or something...

Harry Reid has never been my favorite person. He is less so today; the lack of leadership that he and his Senate pals have shown on the automaker bailout bill is damning. I just don't get the logic from an economic standpoint-- less so from a strategic standpoint.

From an economic perspective, it makes little sense. The sum was $25 billion. An unfathomable amount of money, sure. But in the context of $700 billion, what's the difference, really? To put it in terms I can roughly deal with, if I'm going to give $700 to save the asses of some irresponsible jerks in hopes of staving off a ripple effect, why can't I cough up the extra $25 to help save the asses of a few stupid jerks who employ hundreds of thousands of people and provide an economic engine for thousands of small businesses?

The ridiculous part is that the $25 billion is already there, earmarked for helping the companies retool for producing more fuel efficient cars. But the Democratic leadership in the Senate said 'no'.

But there was little sign that Democratic leaders would go along.

"We have to face reality," Reid said.

They are vehemently opposed to letting the car companies tap the fuel-efficiency money — set aside to help switch to vehicles that burn less gasoline — for short-term cash-flow needs.

Fat lot of good the retooling will do if the companies go under. Or is the plan to let them go into Chapter 11 and then sell of the parts of the companies to the Japanese and Korean automakers? So they can operate more non-union plants in North America? If this is the case, the Senate Democrats are complicit in some Reagan-style union busting.

This is bad for Democrats from a perception standpoint. No one will remember that the worst anti-bailout vitriol came from the Republicans. They will only remember the party in the majority. The Democrats finally just welcomed hard-hit, blue collar states like Indiana and Ohio into the Blue State Club-- if they aren't careful, they are going to piss it all away. The biggest problem Democrats face in these areas is the perception that the national Democratic Party is out-of-touch and elitist-- the Republicans (who are the real out-of-touch elitists) were able to foment this distortion and use it to win elections. Now finally over that hump, Reid and friends aren't helping the cause going forward. Couple that with the challenge John Dingell is facing from Henry Waxman for chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and union autoworkers might be getting pretty impatient with a party that already makes a habit of talking more about labor than actually helping it.

Questions about those first 18 months...

From conservative blogger Rick Moran's recent post:

The math is frightening. With 28 seats up for grabs in 2008 on top of the 18 seat majority currently held by Democrats, there is a very good chance that Democrats, for all practical purposes, could win enough seats this year that the GOP would be a minority party for the next decade — and perhaps beyond. When 98% of incumbents in the House are victorious and redistricting looms in 2012, the chances of Republicans overcoming a 40 or 50-seat Democratic majority in the next couple of election cycles are slim.

Before I raise my glass of champagne (thus completing the stereotypical elite liberal image), I must say that I really like Rick Moran's writing. He is a thoughtful conservative, and though I ardently disagree with him on, well, most everything, I respect his reason. I don't necessarily agree with the above passage; I have significant fears about the impatience of the electorate come the midterm elections in 2010 (assuming Obama wins the election, which he should handily). Those first 18 months are so important to a sustainable Democratic majority.
Not only does the far-reaching, long term agenda have to be set in motion, but several immediate and palpable changes (the kind that people see and feel in their lives and pocketbooks) have to came to the fore immediately. Unfortunately, we Americans aren't a patient lot, and the Democrats would be wise to remember that.

My question is, then, this-- what kind of action can the Obama Administration take that will have the most immediate effect for people? Problems like Iraq, energy policy, healthcare, etc., will likely take a few years to deal with properly (in the case of energy/environment, that is an even longer term commitment). And the economy? How can he immediately help poor and working class people in the first 18 months? This is so important to the Democrats, both in the Congress and the White House. The left seems to be gaining ground on social issues and the environment, but without some kind of change in the economy, I worry. Any ideas?

Primary Concerns (a bit on the nose, I know)

Now that the primaries are over and we have all had a chance to purge thoughts of superdelegates, caucuses, Michigan and Florida, etc. from our heads, I wanted to think about the Democratic primary system in general.

Does it strike anyone else as insane?

The idea of superdelegates is astoundingly undemocratic. The idea that the party would give a rat's ass if Michigan or Florida cut in front of The Anointed States strikes me as stupid as well. What, if anything, should be done about all of this?

I understand that the capital-P "Party" can do whatever it wants-- it is a private cabal and has no responsibilities toward the people. If everyone really hated the system that much, there would exist a viable option besides the Party. But there isn't. Do we not care? Or are we paralyzed with fear that challenging the slightly left of center party will result in the election of the far right party (a fear that is, I might add, a real one in wake of 2000)? I would rather see the Democratic Party change its primary system than have the left splintered, of course. But perhaps I am being too hasty-- is there value in the system at hand?

There are good arguments for having spaced out primaries-- with a national primary (think Super Duper Tuesday, where everyone votes on the same day), we would lose the season-long vetting process for the candidates. We would also lose the attention that many smaller states get from the candidates, as with a national primary most of the campaigning would be done in large population centers. We also can't underestimate the significance that now, after a 50 state primary, Obama has infrastructure on the ground in all 50 states-- Mr. Magoo does not. However, letting Iowa and New Hampshire go first every cycle doesn't work for me. If the DNC is going to have spaced out primaries, why not rotate? One year it's Iowa and New Hampshire first, then next time, they go last and maybe Missouri and Alabama go first. Spread the love, if you will.

And what of the superdelegates? Screw them, I say. Straight up popular vote, like a real democracy. The only thing superdelegates could do is muck it all up by overturning the will of the people. Again, I get that it's the Party's party and they can do what they want, but if they want to keep people like me in the fold long term, it would be wise to re-democratize the Democratic Party.

A Great Day to Be a Democrat

What a great day to be a Democrat. No, this isn't a shot at Hillary Clinton. But with the race all but over, we can all sit back, think about all the great things that have happened to Democrats in 2008, and plan for the fall.

I must disagree with Trend a bit here. He writes, "As I suspect many people do, I wish this were over - I'm just tired of it." I too was tiring of it all, but with little to be decided, I very much now hope Hillary sticks it out. Why? Because this campaign has been the greatest thing for Democrats in my lifetime. Sure, it's been brutal at times. But Democrats across the nation have been inspired. We've signed up new members in droves. A lot of these people are going to stick around for the general election. People in nearly every state have had a voice. Hopefully, the absurd primary system has been blown up in the process. Clinton is almost assured of winning West Virginia by a large amount. Fine. Then it goes onto Kentucky and Oregon. If it ends officially in Oregon, as many are predicting it will, every state but Montana and South Dakota, as well as Puerto Rico, will have had a chance to vote on their candidate. That's just fantastic.

To top it off, we are looking at a potential landslide in the Congressional elections this fall. You may remember that Dennis Hastert's seat went to the Democrats earlier this spring. Now, the seat for Louisiana's Sixth District, which represents Baton Rouge, went Democratic for the first time since 1974 and we are about to pick up a seat in a special election in Mississippi. If we are winning special elections in Louisiana and Mississippi, where can't we win? Awesome.

The Republicans are completely lost. I died laughing when I heard about the House Republican pep rally scheduled tomorrow to get everyone excited about Bush's policies. Would you all please do this every day? Please remind us all of your president and his amazingly successful policies!

So be happy today, regardless of who your candidate is. We had 2 awesome candidates (well, really probably 4 or 5). Only 1 could win. That is Barack Obama. With lots of hard work, he is going to lead us to a huge victory in the fall, not only for the presidency, but downticket races as well. I can barely contain my excitement.

Democrats and Foreign Policy

I agree with Yglesias' Los Angeles Times editorial where he argues that Democrats lack a coherent foreign policy to counter Bush. As one would expect from an expert on current politics, Yglesias focuses on the policy plans of current Democratic candidates. He claims that

"Unfortunately, this sort of muddle on the part of the front-runners has been typical of the Democratic performance on national security ever since 9/11. One sees, repeatedly, little inclination to face the issues squarely."

He's right but the issue is greater--Democrats have had this problem since Vietnam. Since 1973, Democrats have tended to fall two ways on foreign policy--isolation and Republican-lite positions on trade and intervention, i.e. the Clinton administration.

The party, and especially its base, have largely refused to discuss seriously just what exactly the US role in the world is, and particularly the role of the U.S. military, for the last 35 years. Now I'm at least theoretically OK with acknowledging a foreign policy with a greatly shrunken military and severely limiting the situations in which that military will be used. But a real policy of what our foreign policy badly needs to be articulated.

As for the present, what is the Democratic policy on terrorism? To say we would not have invaded Iraq is not enough. This fact should be stressed repeatedly for the next two decades, but it doesn't tell us anything about how to fight terrorism, deal with North Korea, provide the environmental and economic protections for workers at home and abroad that many Democrats want. Specifically, what should we do about Afghanistan? Pakistan? Israel-Palestine? Trade? Climate change and environmental problems? The only response from too much of the Democratic base toward any kind of US role in the world is "NO!" and perhaps vague platitudes toward "peace" however defined.

Until Democrats, and not just the politicians but the rest of us too, think about, discuss, create, and articulate a real foreign policy, we remain vulnerable to the Republicans on this issue. Moreover, this vulnerability will allow the kind of quasi-Republicans that dominated foreign policy during the Clinton years to play major roles in the next Democratic administration too.