the REASON 4 FRANKS OBSERVATION: UNION WORKERS % OF WORKFORCE DOWN 66% IN LAST 50 YRS

[Bill USA]

Thomas Frank's new book Listen Liberal makes the case that the Democratic Party morphed from a party for the working class into a party for the professional class. The reason this happened is because working people lost a lot of their political power due to the decline in numbers of people in Labor unions. In 1953 the percentage of workers in unions was roughly 35%. In 2003 the percent of the workers in labor unions had dropped to about 12%. This is a 66% decline in the % of workers who were members of labor unions. Winner-Take-All Politics: by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson goes into these developments in more depth (see below). It discusses the Powell Manifesto and it's impact on our politics since it was written in 1971.

Union Membership Trends in the United States

Another important political development was the martialling of the forces of corporate interests which began with the Powell Memo (or Manifesto) to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which called on the corporate interests to start a coordinated movement against the forces attacking the free enterprise system. ALewis Powell was, at the time, a powerful corporate attorney who would soon be nominated (and approved) to the Supreme Court by, who else, Richard Nixon.

Powell inveighed against the concerted attack on the free enterprise system:

No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack. This varies in scope, intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility.

There always have been some who opposed the American system, and preferred socialism or some form of statism (communism or fascism). Also, there always have been critics of the system, whose criticism has been wholesome and constructive so long as the objective was to improve rather than to subvert or destroy.

But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.

Powell goes on:

What specifically should be done? The first essential — a prerequisite to any effective action — is for businessmen to confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management.

~~
~~

But independent and uncoordinated activity by individual corporations, as important as this is, will not be sufficient. Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.

Moreover, there is the quite understandable reluctance on the part of any one corporation to get too far out in front and to make itself too visible a target.

The role of the National Chamber of Commerce is therefore vital. Other national organizations (especially those of various industrial and commercial groups) should join in the effort, but no other organizations appear to be as well situated as the Chamber. It enjoys a strategic position, with a fine reputation and a broad base of support. Also — and this is of immeasurable merit — there are hundreds of local Chambers of Commerce which can play a vital supportive role.
(more)

"The organizational counterattack of business in the 1970s was swift and sweeping."

The Powell Memo: A Call-to-Arms for Corporations - excerpt from Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer — and Turned Its Back on the Middle Classauthors - Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson

The organizational counterattack of business in the 1970s was swift and sweeping — a domestic version of Shock and Awe. The number of corporations with public affairs offices in Washington grew from 100 in 1968 to over 500 in 1978. In 1971, only 175 firms had registered lobbyists in Washington, but by 1982, nearly 2,500 did. The number of corporate PACs increased from under 300 in 1976 to over 1,200 by the middle of 1980.[5] On every dimension of corporate political activity, the numbers reveal a dramatic, rapid mobilization of business resources in the mid-1970s.

What the numbers alone cannot show is something of potentially even greater significance: Employers learned how to work together to achieve shared political goals. As members of coalitions, firms could mobilize more proactively and on a much broader front. Corporate leaders became advocates not just for the narrow interests of their firms but also for the shared interests of business as a whole.

Winner-Take-All Politics foes into depth on how these political changes happened. But this does not mean it's all over for the Democratic Party. IF people become aware and become more active things can be changed.

[appalachiablue]

1. K & R. Devastating, and it shows. Labor unions are democracy in the workplace

and in the US were the backbone of the American middle class, the world's greatest ever seen.

Look now. From Credit Suisse, Global Wealth Report 2015.
https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=F2425415-DCA7-80B8-EAD989AF9341D47E



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027895832

[Bill USA]

2. it wasn't the DEmocratic party who turned its back on the Working class it was the Working class who

Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2016, 07:44 PM - Edit history (2)

who turned their backs on the Democratic Party (i.e. themselves).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=161102

I like Frank's work,but he did not go far enough in looking for causes. THe fact is, labor union participation in the workforce went from ~35% in 1953 to ~12% in 2003. Without the political clout of labor unions Democrats were losing more elections. In addition the Right wingers began a long term plan to increase their political clout. This included winning more state legislatures and governorships and then gerrymandering themselves into more power in Congress.

But there was something more -- and the Democratic Party can't be blamed for this. I noticed, somewhere back in the 70's through the '80s many college educated white collar types started to turn away from thinking they were "working class" people. They wanted to separate themselves from the blue collar politics and candidates who made that kind of a pitch. They weren't as solidly Democratic and preferred to think of themselves a "professional" people who were not going to respond to the 'old' political pitches which saw the 'working people' as necessarily wary of political arguments that sounded too 'management' oriented.

The result was Democrats didn't get the kind of voter turnouts as they had in the past. Additionally, the GOP started making gains through more concerted disinformation campaigns (increased ownership of radio stations spreading their anti-union, pro-"free enterprise" propaganda played a big part in this). I see the Democratic party responding to these changes rather than operating in a vacuum and just deciding on its own to become less "working class" oriented. Rather than the Democratic Party turning its back on the working class, it was the working class who turned its back on itself, wanting to think they were different than their blue collar dads.

As the Republicans were winning more elections (in part thanks to Gerrymandering, but also because of people thinking they were not "working class" people anymore) and gaining greater clout in Congress, the old fighting for the working man approach wasn't working so well for the Democrats and they had to adapt with a more subtle approach in dealing with a Republican party of greater strength than in the 1960's.

IF people don't like the current situation they need to realize that unless they are independently wealthy, their best chance of getting sensible public policy which doesn't shaft working people is to vote Democratic - not only in national elections but in State elections too.