Why all the "Left Anti-Unionism" after the Wisconsin defeat?

[OrwellwasRight]

Left Anti-Unionism?
In the aftermath of the defeat in Wisconsin, left critics attacked labor’s decision to invest in the recall. But none of them offered a realistic alternative.
by Gordon Lafer on June 15, 2012


In the days following the Wisconsin election, a number of progressive journalists responded to the heartbreaking defeat by venting their anger at a surprising target: the very unions that Scott Walker waged war on. Doug Henwood in Left Business Observer, Matt Rothschild in The Progressive and Andy Kroll of Mother Jones each have different analyses of what went wrong, but all agree that unions were guilty of what Henwood terms the “horrible mistake of channeling a popular uprising into electoral politics.”

The Wisconsin movement “began to disintegrate the moment the leaders decided to pour everything into the Democratic Party,” Rothschild explains. That decision, he argues, “destroyed the lesson that you can exercise power outside the electoral arena.” Indeed, Kroll insists that the electoral strategy would have been a “loss” even if Walker had been defeated, since “the Madison movement would have found themselves in… the same broken system, with … little hope.”

Really? The limitations of electoral politics are obvious, but the assumption that electoral strategies per se are always wrong is hard to fathom. The loss in Wisconsin is very serious. But that loss would be the same if unions had forsworn the recall. Around 175,000 employees would still be stripped of union rights, with all that entails for them personally and for the material and organizational basis for progressive mobilization. And while the electoral loss no doubt emboldened anti-union conservatives, not challenging the governor would have conveyed much the same message: It’s politically safe to follow Walker’s example—after all, the unions didn’t even have the guts to take him on! Labor leaders confronted a genuinely hard choice: roll the dice on the recall, which everyone knew would be an expensive and uphill battle, or give up.

------------
Read more here:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/opinionnation (sorry, there does not appear to be a permalink button, so you may have to search a bit for the right essay after newer ones are posted)

Bottom line is that there are no easy answers for "what labor should do," nor is the popular refrain "we don't need unions anymore: they are antiquated" correct. We won't need unions anymore when employers stop abusing, lying to, and discriminating against employees. Meaning, not anytime in the foreseeable future.

[josejimenez]

1. Unrepresented labor

There has to be a way to organize undocumented workers.

[OrwellwasRight]

3. True.

Organized labor is doing that the best it can -- unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided that undocumented laborers don't have the right to be receive back pay if an employer illegally fires them for trying to organize a union. That makes it tough because the law says you have a right under the NLRA to organize, but there is no repercussion to an employer who violates the right. Not cool, Supreme Court.

More here: https://nilc.org/document.html?id=304

By the way, welcome to DU!

[Starry Messenger]

2. This is a venerable strain in US politics.

There is a left that wants the labor movement to be anything but the actual labor movement. I have my own thoughts about the recall, but left critics of mainstream unionism often want things that are just not possible without a major mass movement. Was a recall the right battle at the right time? Maybe, maybe not. But until the left masses a battle to overturn things like Taft-Hartley, unions are going to be limited to electoral arenas.

And don't even get me started on "we don't need unions anymore". I was ready to cut a b all that week on that shit.

[OrwellwasRight]

4. Yup, the "we don't need unions" crowd are about as effective as

the "let's let the corporations write our trade agreements" crowd and the "Social Security won't be there when I retire" crowd.

Just enabling the right to do what they do faster and stronger.

[mcmurphy]

5. Union leadership has sold out

Union leadership has sold out to corporations and that is evident all over the world. It especially the case in America where it has become default to bargain away labor's hard won gains while offering themselves up to lesser evil as though historical union activism did not have an ideology and program all its own.

One third of Union members are Republicans. The moment, rather than fighting and organizing for Labor and worker Solidarity, Union leadership get's in bed with their corporate masters, and worse yet; subordinates their mandate and raison d'etre to the ideology of an openly corporatist DLC, Third Way, New Democrat neoliberalism infested party, both the institution(union) and party—having ceased to be the workers' reliable bulwark against the inherent and endemic excesses of capitalism run amok—become an obstacle to economic and social justice in their broadest terms.

The FIRE and MIC sectors of our industry own union leadership (NNU excluded,) and our the political class of flunkies and fluffers for industry interests.

The Nation is a left wing gatekeeper enterprise which has been elevated, in the public mind, to represent the outer most bounds of leftisms aspirations. It is a consumer Brand representing a marketing ploy within the catch 22 of a duopoly.

Rationality tells us that such a thing, when contaminated, differs naught from a discreet organism. But when infused with tribal politics and partisan spirit, that same realisation becomes debatable, obscured and trashed.

WTF?

The best analysis of Wisconsin, and the matter of Organized Labor that I've come across: http://mosquitocloud.net/did-organized-money-defeat-organized-labor

[MADem]

8. How would you suggest the tide be turned?

Welcome to DU, BTW.

More money? "Better" leadership?

From your link, it sounds like the unions were not "Stand on the barricades, shouting until hoarse" enthused about Walker's opponent.

The Republicans, nevertheless, outspent the Democrats 7 to 1, two-thirds of which was raised from out of state business donors who sought to turn this election into a test case for public sector union busting.
But neither did Walker’s opponent, Tom Barrett, run on a progressive platform. He never mounted a robust case for union rights and, as mayor of Milwaukee was not above invoking Walker’s Act 10 collective bargaining restrictions to increase pension and health care contributions from city workers. It is also true that Barrett was not the first choice of the labor bureaucracy. Their choice was a candidate seen by the Democratic establishment as being too progressive for the state, despite her refusal to commit to a firm stance against budget cuts and concessionary contract negotiations with public workers. The Democrats were initially pushed from below into a confrontation they were reluctant to undertake by a labor bureaucracy more comfortable with doorbell ringing and manning phone banks than with the unpredictable prospects of mass street mobilization that could easily escape their control. And, all too predictably, pollsters, consultants, advertising campaigns and Democratic functionaries came to eclipse labor’s influence. For its part, the extent of the Obama commitment could be measured by a single tweet.

Was the solution, in crystal-clear hindsight at the end of the day, a better opponent to Walker?

I don't look at the result in WI as a "bad thing." The governor may not have been removed, but he was righteously 'checked' -- and the GOP had to spend a bundle of their "Fuck Democracy" money to keep that bum in place. IMO, caged is almost as good as gone.

[mcmurphy]

10. The solution, I think, is to (a) define and be guided by our principled stances,

(b) reject the false (non)choice presented to us by the duopoly as measured by such a personal yardstick, even if only by the trajectory which their policies engender.

In my eyes the Democrat(ic) party leadership's support for wars of agression and neoliberal economic policies (social/economic justice), since both are antithetical to my ideals and principles, are entirely indefensible positions, and the binary set up a catch 22 which I, on principle, reject.

Whether you use your "fuck democracy" money to fuck it, or fail to use it in it's defense amounts to pretty much the same.

Obama finds the time to fly into Chicago for Valerie Jarrett's daughter's wedding, but could not find his marching shoes to stand with the public in Wisconsin. With friends like these...

[MADem]

12. The problem with that is that we are a Big Tent Party.

"Our principled stances" vary from member to member, from voter to voter, from region to region. What is paramount in your eyes is not as consequential to others--and we all have to get along. That's why we have to, like it or not, compromise and wheel/deal.

I would never call my party the Democrat(ic) Party. That, right there, is a nod and a bow to GOP rat fucking--it's the DEMOCRATIC Party, with no parens enclosing an 'ic.'

Obama was right not to become overly invested in what was, at the end of the day, a "state issue." The candidate was a bit of a stinker, not terribly progressive, and none of the "good" politicians (Feingold, e.g.) were willing to run against Walker because they saw how steep a climb it would be.

Don't blame Obama for seeing the handwriting on the wall. The win was a "D" Senate there--the gov is hamstrung; it's as good as a rout for all intents and purposes, and it drained a few of those GOP coffers of money that won't be available for other local races.

Further, he has a right to a private life. If he wants to go to a doggone wedding, BFD. He works more weekends than Reagan and both Bushes ever did, and takes fewer vacations.

[mcmurphy]

29. ""Our principled stances" vary from member to member, from voter to voter, from region to region."

I was thinking of anti-war, pro economic and social justice, anti-authoritarian, and most certainly anti the economic policies that have been the staple of the Republican't party.

I'm sad to hear that they do not apply to you.

[MADem]

33. How shitty--you don't even know me and you're telling me what applies to me. Keep it up.

You won't last long with that kind of baseless, accusatory attitude.

Don't let facts get in the way of your shit-flinging, now.

[uppityperson]

15. Who are you supporting for pres at this time?

[mcmurphy]

30. Planned Parenthood...

...used to donate my time to this organization until it became a, well...no matter.

No one yet. Am attempting to have the third parties consider creating a coalition platform based on but a few shared planks mostly dealing with the kleptocratic and crony capitalist aspects of the economic crisis which, if we don't pay more attention to, will find us staring at a Banana Republic economy run on debt peonage, with all social safety net aspects shredded regardless whether the Office will be held by Obama or Romney. Both of them, and most of Congress serve the neoliberal ideology of their paymasters in the Fire and MIC sectors of our economy.

[uppityperson]

34. What did PP become? "until it became a, well...no matter"?

[Doctor_J]

35. I wish people would stop saying this

I don't look at the result in WI as a "bad thing." The governor may not have been removed, but he was righteously 'checked' -- and the GOP had to spend a bundle of their "Fuck Democracy" money to keep that bum in place. IMO, caged is almost as good as gone

Ridiculous. This was a major loss. Walker will continue to destroy democracy in WI, and there is literally no end to the money the Cock Bros have to spend. Caged? Please try to get ahold of reality. If we somehow garner a string of "wins" like this one, the US will be a fullblown fascist state.

[MADem]

38. No it wasn't. Walker is now a caged animal and a target of an investigation.

He can't do shit without the Senate. That's how most governments in this country work. The governor is not a king, and if he pisses off his legislature, he's screwed himself.

You're free to see things the way you'd like. You have not moved my perspective one iota.

[Doctor_J]

56. He was already the target of an investigation

when he was voted back into office. Nothing will come of the investigation, just like nothing came of the recall. Just wait and see how much he's "screwed" when the fascist legislation rolls on.

You're free to see things the way you'd like. You have not moved my perspective one iota.

Unfortunately, too many Dems have this same attitude, which is why we never get any wins of substance. When you get trounced, and call it a win, then there is never any incentive to actually win anything. Maybe we should attempt, and lose, recalls of all right-wing governors. Think of how well off we'll be then!

[MADem]

57. If every RW governor currently in office was caged by a Dem Senate, we'd be in great shape.

Your suggestion that we should attempt, and lose, recalls of all right-wing governors is just a foolish idea, lacking in anything resembling logic. The Walker recall had very specific issues surrounding it and it was a grassroots thing--not a top-down effort. Walker also had a LOUSY opponent, and none of the Top Tier people in the state were willing to run against him. We squeezed as much as we could out of that lemon and we made some tasty lemonade with a Dem Senate at the end of it all.

And how is Walker going to push through (dramatic drum roll, portentous OOOOOOOOHing/AHHHHHing) this dire "Facist legislation" of which you speak whilst caged by a Democratic Senate? That's just a silly remark.

You've lost the bubble, there.

But go on ahead, then... roll out your googly eyed icon and play like no good was done. Be bummed out. Holler that the sky is falling. You're apparently getting something from all that negativity and nay-saying--I don't get why people like to do that shit, but then, I have a more sanguine view of life than you do, I suspect.

I'll spend my energies re-electing the POTUS while you stew about how this and that sucks.

[Doctor_J]

58. And a fine time it is to be sanguine

I have a more sanguine view of life than you do, I suspect.

Bully for you. Like I said, if you're happy about the way things are going, I am not sure what exactly would cause you alarm. When the tanks roll down the streets, you'll likely be cheering because the guns aren't actually pointed at anyone in particular. A huge reason the country had slid so far toward fascism is that people like yourself see some ray of sunshine in every resounding defeat. If devoting your energy to re-electing the president helps keep your mind off of what's really happening, . Ignorance really is bliss.

[OrwellwasRight]

11. I would say that is pretty harsh.

As someone who has worked for and with unions for a large part of my career, I would disagree. They have not sold out -- they have been sold out. Unions don't support the DLC. They rail against it. And I don't know what you mean by getting in bed with corporate masters. Unions are the only large organization fighting:

for single payer health care

against corporate directed trade rules

for tax increases on corporations and the wealthy

against buts in Social Security benefits

and on and on.

There is no other organization so large with such a sweeping working class agenda. When the Dems sold labor out and left economic issues behind, that's the same time the workers left the Dems and started voting social agenda (see What's the Matter with Kansas). Labor keeps trying to pull the party back to the left. If Labor gives up, we're all in deep trouble.

[HiPointDem]

14. judged by their actions, i think we can say that the top leadership of the unions sold out a long

time ago. that may have been because the dems sold out labor & the leadership felt like they had no choice -- i don't have the inside scoop. but their actions say they sold out (& are continuing to sell out).

[OrwellwasRight]

16. What actions are you talking about? nt.

[HiPointDem]

18. 40 years of concessions.

[OrwellwasRight]

19. That is a talking point, not evidence.

If you're just going to union-bash, I'm really not interested in pursuing this conversation any further.

If, on the other hand, you have evidence that "union leaders" "sold out" to the DLC, as was alleged, then please provide them. I provided an entire list of issues on which unions were out front advocating for the most progressive position (i.e., single payer), and all I get back are talking points on how union leadership sucks. That's an insufficient basis for a conversation.

If by concessions, you mean contract concessions, that is an entirely different question -- and again, you will have to provide evidence. Which union, which local, which employer, at which time? There may indeed be examples of times when local unions agreed to "unnecessary" concessions, but I can point to just as many times when gains have been won over the past 40 years (e.g., the Machinists in Washington state; local teacher's unions in California that fight back on concessions and DO achieve raises or reduced class sizes) -- I can also point to cases where the most extreme position was taken and the union was busted. So a simple-minded "no concessions ever" policy might certainly meet your criteria, but it is not always the right answer in any particular situation. Try watching the documentary "American Dream" to see what can go hopelessly wrong when the employer adopts a union busting strategy and the local union goes blindly into battle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream_(film)

Which does not mean I support concessions, just that I require a higher level of discussion than indicting all union leaders as "sell outs" by saying "40 years of concessions."

[HiPointDem]

26. i'm not bashing unions.

[OrwellwasRight]

27. I still don't see your point.

Less than 7% of the private sector is unionized today. It used to be 30+%. Wages used to grow with productivity. Now employers threaten to move offshore when workers demand wages commensurate with productivity. What is it that you want? More self-destructive strikes that bust the union? You didn't even address my comments about the American Dream documentary. There probably aren't even enough private sector unions today to even create a "major work stoppage."

But just because you have some random chart that says there are fewer "major work stoppages" (whatever those are--can you even take the time to define your terms here?) today than in the hey day of the labor union in America, that all labor leaders are sell outs? You put less effort into your argument than anybody I have ever met. It's intellectually lazy. But keep union bashing. It's attractive. Really.

[HiPointDem]

28. there weren't 7% in 1980. it's *because* the big unions (the company unions) didn't show any

significant solidarity as the smaller unions were picked off that so little of the workforce is unionized today. and it's because the company unions gave in time after time rather than educate & mobilize their workers that so little of the workforce is unionized.

they're still doing it today, as the sell-outs in uaw, aft & nea are demonstrating.

it's not some random chart.

[OrwellwasRight]

39. It is a random chart.

You don't post it with any explanation of how you think it answers my points--so it's a random chart. You just think you can copy and paste something and be done? As I said, it is intellectually lazy. And even when you write something, it's nonsensical. You say private sector union density wasn't 7% in 1980. No, it wasn't. And there were many more "major work stoppages" then as compared to now. So what is your point? By the way, you still have not defined your term "major work stoppages" so what are we even counting here anyway? Do we know it is a useful definition? To the extent your chart proves anything, which I don't know that it does because you have not defined your terms, is that as less of the workforce is unionized, there are fewer "major work stoppages." Um, duh.

Look, there was not the threat of globalization in 1946-1973, the period of middle class ascendency, the period of wages rising with productivity, the period of decreasing inequality. Capital largely produced here, and largely for our market, and strikes and threats of strikes were more effective because the factories weren't going anywhere. Management had to deal with labor. As neoliberalism rose, and capital became mobile at the same time it decided to break the social contract and begin a coordinated effort to union-bust across the economy, strikes became less effective. See American Dream. I'm tired of repeating myself.

To say that today's economy is unions' fault because they don't strike enough is beyond ludicrous. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics in general and the American economy in particular.

Moreover, AFT and NEA are public sector unions, so they can't be "company unions" -- do you even know what that term means? Teachers in Chicago just voted to authorize a strike -- they met a 90% threshold -- how are they "sell-outs"?

Likewise, do you know anything about the UAW? It is anything but a company union. It has about the most contentious relationship with its employers of any US union. Its reputation for pugnacity is one reason why Japanese Auto Unions (which do act like company unions, by the way), don't want to work with UAW to organize Toyota and Honda plants in the US.

Stop buying into right-wing anti-union talking points, and then we can have a conversation. 'Till then, enjoy your smugness. It's not helping American workers one bit.

[HiPointDem]

47. it's not a random chart. it's a chart showing the sharp decline in labor actions after 1980.

and it's from the christian science monitor, as anyone can see by looking at the url.

a public employees union certainly *can* be a company union. and yes, i know what the term means, both specifically and in general parlance.

uaw hasn't been a "pugnacious" union for decades. and you can get the scoop on that from the workers themselves here:

http://www.factoryrat.com/factoryrat/index.php

as for smugness, yours is very evident.

[OrwellwasRight]

51. "as anyone can see by looking at the url."

"as anyone can see by looking at the url."

Um, you didn't include a URL. Just a random, unexplained, uncited, undefined chart. It could be a Republican chart for all I know.

"a public employees union certainly *can* be a company union. and yes, i know what the term means, both specifically and in general parlance. "

Evidence? Evidence that a public employees union can be a company union? Has been a company union? Um, no. Still just assertions.

Citing a message board? Puh-leeze. Can you even point me to any posts on that cite that "prove" union leaders have sold out? I couldn't find any. I found posts about a book, the ADA, local union elections results (that people seemed proud of), the LMDRA, etc. If there is some "evidence" on that site that some poster thinks his or her "union leaders are sell-outs," you certainly didn't link me to them. Did you even know that unions are democratic organizations? If workers don't like the decisions of their leadership, they can replace their leadership.

So, I am done with this one-sided argument. If it comes across as smug that I post evidence, and that you, in the course of 4 or more posts, can't even define a the term "major work stoppages" that you seem to base your entire argument on, then so be it. Try responding to queries posed by other DUers (perhaps by defining your terms, addressing their points, and actually posting links to, and explanations of, your charts) or else expect people to respond smugly to your unsupported and overly broad assertions.

[HiPointDem]

54. anyone can see the url for graphics by right-clicking on them and selecting that option.

[MADem]

40. It would also help to stop making "The DLC" the boogie man, here.

Didn't they suspend their operations well over a year ago?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/democratic-leadership-council-suspends-its-operations/

Did they fire it up again while none of us were looking?

[OrwellwasRight]

43. I don't think so.

But I also don't think the person I am arguing with is interested in evidence, like whether the DLC still exists. Just in labeling everyone who doesn't agree with him a sell-out.

[MADem]

44. You're probably right--if a defunct organization is used as a poutrage justifier, it's all yack and

no substance.

[HiPointDem]

48. their actions are what makes them sell-outs.

[OrwellwasRight]

52. Again, no evidence.

WHAT ACTIONS?

Do you even get how debate works. Or do you just think if you say the same thing enough times it becomes true. I posted much evidence of union leaders fighting for the non-sell out position. You have posted your unsupported opinion. It doesn't advance your case.

[HiPointDem]

55. the proof is in the pudding. which is, unions are dead & have not acted as defenders of labor

rights for decades.

but, like the "reds" which no longer exists as a political force, unions are still used by the right as a boogeyman and by the "left" to justify concessions and give-aways.

[mcmurphy]

31. "Unions don't support the DLC."

Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Most national unions, to the best of my knowledge do support the D. Party. Trumka being the most visible symbolises the rot.

I make a distinction between union leadership, and union members of whom approx 1/3 are Republicans. Imagine the resentment of dues going to support a party with which, for whatever reasons, one does not agree...

The only major union fighting is the NNU. The rest have, indeed, adopted a spirit of cooperation with corporate management. The same can be seen in the EU where both unions and trade organisations, as well as most putative "socialist" parties have gone over to the neoliberal dark side.

[OrwellwasRight]

37. Im sorry but you don't know what you're talking about.

1) Union dues do not and cannot by law be donated to political campaigns. Money that unions donate must be raised separately through PACs. Members who give do so voluntarily and know what they are doing. That union members are supporting "a party with which, for whatever reasons, one does not agree..." is a right-wing talking point.

Here is an explanation on the NTEU website: http://www.nteu.org/tepac.aspx

2) "The Democratic Party" is not the "DLC." If the two were synonymous, a lot more people would be tombstoned off this website, where we are required to support the Democratic Party, but many of us loathe the DLC.

3) Calling President Trumka a "visible symbol of rot" is an ad hominem attack and not proof that he supports the DLC. I challenge you to find any speech or statement of his that supports the neoliberal agenda. He's been out there fighting it since he became President. He's gone to the G-20, to OECD, to Brazil to meet with Lula, everywhere to decry the neoliberal model.

http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2011/richard-trumka-1211
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Economy/Trumka-to-Global-Leaders-Jobs-Not-Cutbacks
http://www.aflcio.org/Press-Room/Speeches/Remarks-by-AFL-CIO-President-Richard-L.-Trumka-for-the-Global-Progressive-Forum-AFL-CIO-Washington-DC


Get your facts straight and post something other than anti-union grime and then we can have an intelligent conversation. 'Till then, I'm out.

[MADem]

41. The DLC shut down in Feb 2011. Let's blame the Whigs while we're at it, too. nt

[OrwellwasRight]

42. Thank you.

I am not sure where this "unions have sold out to the DLC" meme is coming from. It seems to be a lot of facts and no evidence. I can tell you, I have never been into a union office that had a photo of Harold Ford on the wall. John Lewis yes, Harold Ford, no. Jus' sayin' . . .

[MADem]

45. I can tell ya where it's coming from.

The same crew of nitwits who told Darryl Issa "Say, go after Holder! Try to do the "Investigations Without End" trick that Newtie et.al. pulled with Clinton! There's a cabinet position in it for you under President Rob-Me if you succeed!"

They need to "do the Google" on occasion and "keep current." But of course, that would require work~!

[HiPointDem]

49. but the third way democrats are still the party leadership.

[madrchsod]

6. so what is their solutions to this perceived problem?

professional critics of the left or right bore me.

[OrwellwasRight]

20. the author is a professor

Not a professional critic -- and I am not sure he has an answer, but he does say that union-bashing isn't it.

My answer is that we have to stop the silliness of the "we're going to win by appearing to be middle of the road and against conflict." Um, that doesn't work.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/how-republicans-cheat-democrats-and-democrats-cheat-themselves-20120612

[HiPointDem]

50. that's funny, professional apologists bore *me*.

[DailyGrind51]

7. It's a matter of picking battles.

Look, even Thom Hartmann, along with many other Progressives, have historically opposed recalls. For Labor to invest of its limited resources for a process for which Progressives find flawed, when those resources will be essential to defeating the Republicans, who will have unlimited corporate-funded resources, in November. Labor needs to invest its dollars where those dollars will yield the most benefit!

[OrwellwasRight]

9. Progressives invented the recall, so I'm not sure that is a completely fair criticism.

Last edited Tue Jun 19, 2012, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)

It's always easier to judge what would yield the most benefit after the thing is over. Had we won, this would have appeared to be a great use of resources.

Nevertheless, I'm not sure the main point of the article was to defend the recall so much as it was to defend labor and fight back against all the anti-union rhetoric from sources on the left that has arisen in view of the Wisconsin defeat.

[mcmurphy]

32. What has arisen on the left which you misread as an anti labor sentiment is aimed at the leadership.

The left—the real one—would like to see nothing more than labor doing what it was originally organized to do: strike and organize resistance to corporate driven wage and benefits cuts.

Where are the national strikes and expressions of labor solidarity?

[midnight]

24. Feingold is a progressive voice that supported this recall...

http://duckduckgo.com/?q=feingold+supports+the+walker+recall


Collective bargaining rights go to the foundation of our state... A battle that was brought to the working people, and so the battle was picked for the working people... And they bravely delivered a win to the working people.

[Doctor_J]

36. Who delievered a win?

Walker won. This was a loss.

[midnight]

46. The million people who signed the petition.... They are the winners. They stood up and were counted

Now it's time to have the votes counted...

[Doctor_J]

53. walker is still the governor

his right-wing agenda will march on. The voter purges will continue. The vote fraud will continue. Nickolaus will continue to count votes. The public schools and unions will continue to be made into scapegoats and suffer horrific abuse. The Cock brothers agenda will solidify in what was until recently a safely Dem state.

We didn't win anything in WI. As long as we continue to claim that our losses are actually wins, we are never going to actually win anything.

[Ghost of Huey Long]

13. manufactured consent

Everyone saw the revolution in Wisconsin, the activists filling the streets, quickly gathering the signatures needed through their vast connections and motivation.

Koch paid the media to come up with something, anything...to explain how although it appears Walker has no support(other than corporate propaganda paid for by Koch)...he somehow won because for the first time in history there was record turnout at the polls because people hate recalls and are mad at the Unions who should not have picked a fight with the poor Governor(LOL!)

They steal the election, then give us this stupid ass excuse how it is all the democrats fault, just 'get out the vote' next time BS. How the hell is getting out any more votes going to work when they steal as many as they like?

Glenn Beck and Limbaugh are gloating about how powerful the tea party is, yet there was no powerful tea party movement in Wisconsin, there was no get out the vote effort, no rallies, no visible demonstration of support except for Walker signs where they paid people $100 to post lawn signs. It is just amazing that the 'silent majority' turned out in record numbers to defend the governor....never before has there been record turnout to defend the status quo.

...and the only people that turned out to vote against Walker were the same number of people who signed the recall petitions. The recall signature gatherers managed to find every possible anti-Walker Wisconsin voter to sign the petition. Amazing. Amazing how stupid they think we all are the the bullshit we are expected to believe.

[OrwellwasRight]

17. Love the screen name!

Welcome to DU!

[midnight]

23. +++++1000

[ljm2002]

21. "Success has many fathers..."

"...while failure is an orphan".

Had the recall succeeded, the same people would be congratulating labor on its wisdom.

Of course the real tragedy is that labor has lost its power everywhere, largely due to the ascendance of the international corporatocracy. Anywhere that labor makes demands, they are met with the taunt "Waddaya want, you ingrates? We'll just move outta town / state / country where we can pay less, get more, where people are GRATEFUL to get any work at all!"

We need to find effective counters, and so far that has not happened. Our political parties are corrupted, and people simply don't make the connection between unions and a strong middle class. They are fearful, and rightly so, about more jobs being shipped out of their areas.

We need an international movement. With current communication technology, that should be possible. It will take the right confluence of events though. You'd think we'd already be there, but the threats and fear are still ascendant, due to the aforementioned ascendancy of the corporations.

What will it take to get people to see that the unfettered movement of capital (including the ability of the rich to move their money to external locations to avoid taxation) is unfair, especially when labor has not such mobility, given the restrictions placed on going from one country to another?

We should have the same freedom of movement that money has. Laugh, sure go ahead. Then think about it. Or alternatively, money should be more restricted. The international corporations are now dictating policy around the world, and it is not working for the rank and file around the world. We need to change that.

[midnight]

22. White House official: 'Organized labor just flushed $10 million down the toilet'

AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale responds that "labor isn't an arm of the Democratic Party."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0610/White_House_official_Organized_labor_just_flushed_10_million_of_their_members_money_down_the_toilet_.html

[OrwellwasRight]

25. I agree with one of the posters on that article.

This would not have been an issue had Dear Ms. Lincoln represented the working people she promised to represent as a candidate. Ditto the President. Votes have to be earned, and when they are not, we all pay the price by having to live with Tea Parties or whoever. I can't believe I am going to do, but I am going to cite David Frum, who was on Bill Maher Friday night and talking about the effectiveness of door to door campaigning, which has largely been abandoned in the face of corporate money. Obama, Lincoln, they'd all have people clamoring to walk precincts for them if they actually stood up for working people. But they don't. And then they excoriate us for how stupid progressives are when they don't win. On the one hand, I think human stupidity knows no bounds. On the other, sometimes we're not as dumb as Rahm Emanuel likes to think.