July 3, 2014

NYT Op-Ed: The War on Workers

Unions have never been uncontroversial in American society, but the battles over labor have grown fiercer in recent years: Witness the fight over public-employee unions in Wisconsin, or the 2012 decision by Michigan voters to join the ranks of “right to work” states.

On Monday a 5-to-4 majority of the Supreme Court fired its own salvo in the war on unions. Though its decision in Harris v. Quinn was narrow, saying that, in some cases, unions could not collect fees from one particular class of public employees who did not want to join, its language suggests that this may be the court’s first step toward nationalizing the “right to work” gospel by embedding it in constitutional law.

The petitioners in Harris were several home-care workers who did not want to join a union, though a majority of their co-workers had voted in favor of joining one. Under Illinois law, they were still required to contribute their “fair share” to the costs of representation — a provision, known as an “agency fee,” that is prohibited in “right to work” states.

The ability of unions to collect an agency fee reflects a constitutional balance that has governed American labor for some 40 years: Workers can’t be forced to join a union or contribute to its political and ideological activities, but they can be required to pay for the cost of the union’s collective bargaining and contract-administration activities.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/opinion/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-harris-v-quinn-is-a-blow-for-unions.html?_r=0

July 3, 2014

The answer is yes-unless corrected by democratic institutions and public services

that serve the common good. And even then, history has shown that that has only temporarily reduced inequality and poverty, not eliminated it.

Sadly, the vast majority of the capitalist class and their supporters sneer at the very concept of "the common good." Maybe it's time for a new system outright that serves all the people and overturns the fundamentally corrupt, anti-human, unjust system that we have today.

-My $0.02.

July 3, 2014

Another great FDR quote:

The true conservative seeks to protect the system of private property and free enterprise by correcting such injustices and inequalities as arise from it. The most serious threat to our institutions comes from those who refuse to face the need for change. Liberalism becomes the protection for the far-sighted conservative.

Never has a Nation made greater strides in the safeguarding of democracy than we have made during the past three years. Wise and prudent men — intelligent conservatives — have long known that in a changing world worthy institutions can be conserved only by adjusting them to the changing time. In the words of the great essayist, "The voice of great events is proclaiming to us. Reform if you would preserve." I am that kind of conservative because I am that kind of liberal.

-President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his Address at the Democratic State Convention, Syracuse, New York (29 September 1936)

July 2, 2014

Some powerful and wise words from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 SOTU address...

I realize that I have emphasized to you the gravity of the situation which confronts the people of the world. This emphasis is justified because of its importance to civilization and therefore to the United States. Peace is jeopardized by the few and not by the many. Peace is threatened by those who seek selfish power. The world has witnessed similar eras— as in the days when petty kings and feudal barons were changing the map of Europe every fortnight, or when great emperors and great kings were engaged in a mad scramble for colonial empire. We hope that we are not again at the threshold of such an era. But if face it we must, then the United States and the rest of the Americas can play but one role: through a well-ordered neutrality to do naught to encourage the contest, through adequate defense to save ourselves from embroilment and attack, and through example and all legitimate encouragement and assistance to persuade other Nations to return to the ways of peace and good-will.

The evidence before us clearly proves that autocracy in world affairs endangers peace and that such threats do not spring from those Nations devoted to the democratic ideal. If this be true in world affairs, it should have the greatest weight in the determination of domestic policies.

Within democratic Nations the chief concern of the people is to prevent the continuance or the rise of autocratic institutions that beget slavery at home and aggression abroad. Within our borders, as in the world at large, popular opinion is at war with a power-seeking minority.

That is no new thing. It was fought out in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. From time to time since then, the battle has been continued, under Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

In these latter years we have witnessed the domination of government by financial and industrial groups, numerically small but politically dominant in the twelve years that succeeded the World War. The present group of which I speak is indeed numerically small and, while it exercises a large influence and has much to say in the world of business, it does not, I am confident, speak the true sentiments of the less articulate but more important elements that constitute real American business.

In March, 1933, I appealed to the Congress of the United States and to the people of the United States in a new effort to restore power to those to whom it rightfully belonged. The response to that appeal resulted in the writing of a new chapter in the history of popular government. You, the members of the Legislative branch, and I, the Executive, contended for and established a new relationship between Government and people.

What were the terms of that new relationship? They were an appeal from the clamor of many private and selfish interests, yes, an appeal from the clamor of partisan interest, to the ideal of the public interest. Government became the representative and the trustee of the public interest. Our aim was to build upon essentially democratic institutions, seeking all the while the adjustment of burdens, the help of the needy, the protection of the weak, the liberation of the exploited and the genuine protection of the people's property.

Full address here: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15095

July 2, 2014

IMHO, this is where selfish individualism comes into play

And the zero-sum game thinking that goes alongside that.

No sense of solidarity or empathy with others like you. All about advancing your own incredibly narrow and short-sighted self-interest, at the expense of everyone else. That underlies much of the rationale for why too many marginalized, politically threatened, and/or poor people-of ANY group-appear to "buy into" the dominant culture and its oppressive social structures.

Of course, good ole-fashioned bigotry helps, too.

July 2, 2014

That's it exactly

Look at economic status, for example. There are a disturbing number of people who are one job loss, one medical emergency or other catastrophe away from total financial ruin who vote Republican. Why? Because they think of themselves as the "deserving" poor, or the "hard-working taxpayers."

And these same people often call themselves "Christian" too, which gives them moral justification for hating on the gays, the feminists, and anyone else not like them.

When you think of politics, economics, and social mobility as a zero-sum game, then you will deeply resent anyone less fortunate than you who you perceive to be getting a "handout."