« Striking at NYU | Main | Take A Deep Breathe on Trade »
November 09, 2005
Post Tuesday Election Thoughts
So, let's sort through yesterday's elections. I'm not buying into the conventional wisdom that the Democratic Party should be dancing in the streets, or that labor should be celebrating.
Positive: in California, the trend over the last few weeks held--and everyone of Arnold Schwarzenegger's propositions went down to defeat. The vote was not overwhelming but not a squeaker either. A lot of credit should be given to the labor movement, particularly the AFL-CIO, the AFT and SEIU, to name a few, for turning around the numbers from a few months ago that showed the propositions passing. The defeat of Proposition 75--which would have prohibited public employee’s labor organizations from using dues or fees for political contributions unless each employee provides written consent annually--was particularly sweet.
Caution in red flashing lights: my sense was that a significant number of people voted No because they were particularly pissed that the governor spent $50 million on this special election, not necessarily because of solid opposition to the substance of the propositions. Remember, this numbskull was elected governor comfortably in 2002 partly because the Dems had lost the voters, albeit because the head of the ticket was the deeply unpopular Gray Davis. But, before people start predicting the demise of the governor in 2006, the Dems better come up with a real program.
Positive: Dems took the two governorships in New Jersey and Virginia. I thought the interesting point that arose from voter interviews was how many voted for Democrats as a vote against the Iraq war. In New Jersey, some voters who were not thrilled by the appalling negative attacks (who cares what Jon Corzine's ex-wife thinks or whether Forrester had an affair?) said they cast their vote for Corzine as a thumbs-down on the war. The Iraq war will--and should--become a defining issue in the 2006 elections.
Caution: in my humble opinion, it's not clear to me that those of us who live inside the labor movement should be rejoicing...after all, the newly elected Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine is a "centrist," a label that does not auger well for workers. Here's an example of my point--a labor leader reported to me that he attended a Democratic Party election rally in Old Town Alexandria, VA for Kaine. John Sweeney was introduced in a rousing manner by none other than Rep. Jim Moran, who was the first half emcee for the event....and one of the CAFTA 15 and an avid Democratic supporter of the bankruptcy law that is devastating millions of working families. Kaine was one-half of an administration--term-limited Mark Warner being the previous gov--supporting the privatization of almost 10,000 state worker jobs, refusing to even acknowledge the existence of public sector union rights (there are none in Virginia), and have done zero to support private sector unions in the state.
And, then, there is New York City...well, we know how that turned out. Labor split, and many large unions supported Republican Michael Bloomberg--it's a mess.
November 9, 2005 in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b76269e200d834255bae53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Post Tuesday Election Thoughts:
» Bush gambles, loses on Va. governor's race from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
Iraq, Katrina, CIA leak, Harriet Miers. Things couldn?t possible get any worse for President Bush. W [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 10, 2005 8:35:08 AM
Comments
I think Kaine will do okay. I'm actually from the DC area and yesterday I spent some time on the phones with people prior to the vote (in the SEIU trailer truck, actually). So I think the real impetus now lies in holding Kaine's feet to the fire. I can do my part by getting on my friend's ass if I find that Kaine isn't doin what he said he'd do (my friend is a staffer with the campaign, so I can always bug him/her about his position), but SEIU then has to be the same way about his decisions as well.
A better question is what other people will do to keep the people in their state accountable.
Posted by: Reece Chenault | Nov 9, 2005 10:26:44 AM
Kaine did make a point during his victory speech to acknowledge all the organized labor in the room and that he couldn't have won without them and he did call out Danny LeBlanc of the Virginia AFL-CIO by name.
Kaine's campaign also did a low dollar fundraiser last year with SolidarityDC, a DC based labor friendly get-up, with a Kaine call-in.
Of course they always like to take our money and give us lipservice and then don't do a damn thing once elected, but I'm willing to give Kaine the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise.
Posted by: LaborDude | Nov 9, 2005 11:22:09 AM
True, they do love to take the money. But the sad truth is that we let them get away with doing dirt.
I see lots of comments on the board about the bad things done, but when are we going to see some street theatre? How about a little solid protest, Hoffman-style?
Just a thought.
Posted by: Reece Chenault | Nov 9, 2005 11:58:45 AM
The defeat of the Schwarzenegger initiatives in California is a major victory. But it's not just the AFL-CIO, SEIU and AFT that deserve alot of credit for the win. An alliance of unions outside and inside the AFL-CIO, led by the Cal. Teachers Assn, Cal. Nurses Assn., firefighters' unions, AFSCME, and building trades unions worked tirelessly (and spent alot of money) to stop the attacks on public employees. Labor in California is strong and united, and hopefully will be emboldened to take the lead to push for a living wage initiative, single payer health care, and more.
But our centrist Democrat State Senate leader Don Perata has now offered to work with the governator on a bipartisan 'reform' agenda! He's willing to play nice with the incompetent, anti-worker corporate shill who just wasted $50 million of taxpayers' money on an unecessary special election! There's absolutely no reason to go along with Schwarzenegger, and hopefully labor will reject the buffoonery of Perata. He's a good argument for rejecting term limits, as he rose to his position only because former State Senate leader John Burton (an aggressive champion of labor) was termed out.
Posted by: Paul Burton | Nov 9, 2005 12:28:12 PM
If you're for record not party, the record shows that Bloomberg has been a pro-labor mayor; the anti-union referendum in California went our way at the end, and Bush's political capital is waning fast-- seems like a good day to me. If we acknowledge that Virginia has a very low level of union membership (5.3%, 6th lowest in the country--a case for doing some organizing to help the political program), then I think electing a DLC type Democrat like Kaine in VA is a good deal. Here is something I fished up on Kaine's labor record...
Lt. Governor Kaine was quoted by the Coalfield Progress newspaper as describing his efforts at securing the UMW endorsement as “a sign of respect.” Kaine commented that his success in winning that coal miners’ endorsement indicated “the approval of hard-working folks.” He added, “I wasn’t born here [in southwestern Virginia], but I’m not a stranger. I understand union labor is proud labor.”
The son of an iron worker and union representative himself, Kaine has fought for ordinary workers his whole adult life.
Regarding the coal miners specifically, Kaine said:
Achievements in workers compensation or employment safety helps everyone who works in Virginia. The union believes in broader issues for working people. And mine safety initiatives help everyone. Safe conditions benefit everyone. The union pushes for issues for all working people.
Posted by: pw | Nov 9, 2005 12:40:16 PM
Regarding California: I agree that blanket opposition (based on a waste of money, initiative overload, etc.) bolstered the NO vote to an extent. But I also think it worked the other way: blanket opposition depressed turnout, which made our jobs (turning out the no vote) harder!
I think this was part of the Arnold strategy: get people so disspirited & overloaded that they register their opposition to this absurd exercise by not showing up. Meanwhile, the GOP could (presumably) count on their sub-rosa work in the churches on Prop 73 (abortion) to get their people out on single-issue, and, oh yeah, while they're in the booth, they'll vote a straight GOP line.
Fortunately, this didn't work.
Also, I totally don't buy the idea that the Dems lost the voters. Arnold was elected because of the circus that was the recall election (and the anomolous election rules that went with it), because of celebrity, and because of promises of transcending parties.
Posted by: Josh H. Pille | Nov 9, 2005 1:38:27 PM
Why would John Sweeney even let himself be introduced by someone who had supported CAFTA and the bankruptcy law?
Posted by: Stephen McArthur | Nov 9, 2005 2:07:27 PM
Just want to note a couple of things about CA. First I agree with JT on the note that the Dems need to come up with a program. Some of the more prominent bloggers (I think I read them at MyDD) are saying that one thing Kaine's election might indicate is that if you give people a reason to vote for Dems, then they will. Whether or not I agree with that analysis vis a vis Kaine, I still think it is perhaps the most important lesson of today's electoral politics.
My analysis of Wellstone's 2.5 election victories leads me to the same conclusion. People will vote for you even if they disagree with parts of your program if they believe you believe in your program. In other words, they have a reason to vote for rather than against.
Anyway, it would be a mistake to say that in 2003 the CA Dems lost voters, since in 2002 the only reason Davis won was because he had enough money to strategically weaken his most feared challenger in the Rep primary and outspend his final opponent into the ground while pummeling his reputation. In other words in that go-round he/the Dems didn't really have the voters; he had the majority of the lesser of two evils vote. Which totally dissapated in 2003.
Arnold won in 2003 because as a previous poster suggests, he was able to make a believable case for both transcending politics as usual and his ability to stay above the fray by refusing "special interest" cash. His betrayal of these two key parts of his image is key to his current unpopularity.
Which brings me back to the point: the Dems aren't going to automatically gain points because he's lost them. They have to present a clear alternative, otherwise Arnold wins again.
Posted by: NathanHJ | Nov 9, 2005 4:15:32 PM
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this comment,
"If we acknowledge that Virginia has a very low level of union membership (5.3%, 6th lowest in the country--a case for doing some organizing to help the political program"
But I think the idea we organize to help politics is very erroneous. We should organize in Virginia so workers there have better lives. People may join unions for their own self interest - raises, benefits, and respect at work. Once in the union class, race, gender consciousness is often raised when folks begin to see fellow union brothers and sisters as their equals and their fights as all of ours' fights.
Voting for progressive labor candidates who support that agenda maybe one outcome we can hope for. But I hope we aren't looking at organizing as an opportunity to pump the democratic machine and elect more dems. I view our involvement in politics - at least until we start running our own rank and file union candidates - as almost a deal with the devil. Clearly most politicians don't feel accountable to working people. If we focus on organizing and someday Virginia has 30 - 40 - 50% union density than we won't have to go to politicians looking for them to do the right things. With that kind of density we would have a movement that could demand respect, universal health coverage, and living wages. If we decided we needed politics to achieve those ends - then we would have the power to demand it or run our own.
Organizing is not a means to politics - Organizing is a means unto it self.
Posted by: Teresa Tobin | Nov 9, 2005 4:21:39 PM
To throw some more dirt on the grave of Gray Davis: he had lost the Dems by the time he was reelected. He was wedded to polls, not principles, refused to deal on straightforward terms with the Democratic Legislature (vetoing bills for reasons he never bothered to disclose, to take one example), and (unlike that other Democratic centrist and pollwatcher) had no people skills. As one wag put it, after Davis announced that the Legislature's job was to carry out his "vision," whatever that was, this was the first time in recorded history that someone had tried to build a personality cult around someone with no personality.
The recall was a depressing scene out of recent Ecuadorian politics: we elect someone who portrays himself as a progressive, then remove him when he betrays us, only to put another faker in his place. Let's hope that the third time is the charm.
Posted by: Henry | Nov 9, 2005 7:29:18 PM
Time will tell. Trying to get a public sector union here at UVA has been grueling, hard work. No collective bargaining, no strike rights. No recognition from UVA-they won't even meet with us. Warner was a big pro business guy. He refused to sign our executive order for meet and confer. I'm not sure what he did for labor after millions FROM labor were spent on his campaign. Then we have the restructuring bill where we got alot of concessions from UVA but now are stuck with a two tiered workforce which Warner supports. I hope Kaine will be better. I've met with him, worked on his campaign. We will have a seat at the table with him in office. With Warner it was like pulling teeth. And Kilgore would have been a nightmare for labor. We deal with the hands we are dealt but I believe Kaine will be good to labor here in this right to work for less Virginia. But, we'll see.
Posted by: Jan | Nov 9, 2005 9:30:33 PM
Just trying to speak lightly about the whole chicken and egg organizing and politics debate. From what I know of VA politics and organizing, both need attention. We have a state fed that really gets some leverage out of the percentage of the work force that is organized, though.
Posted by: pw | Nov 9, 2005 10:45:22 PM
Danny LeBlanc, Jim Leaman and Doris Mays are the best here.
Virginia isn't a big union state due to the draconian laws but the AFL here works hard for all unions. They have been especially helpful to me since we're new and still organizing.
I can't say enough good things about them. The do alot in a very very tough climate.
Posted by: Jan | Nov 10, 2005 7:51:52 AM
The fact that Guv-elect Kaine in Va. is able to recite UMWA ( miners) boilerplate language cribbed from a union pamphlet is what ....? Surprising ? No. Encouraging ? No. Not by any level-headed standard. If the Clinton's can hold their noses & show up for a New York minute at union halls to collect swag .. so can the dimmer stars in the Dem line-up.
I think the best explanation for feeling gratitude at being patronized by DLC types like Mr. Kaine & the rest is that desperation( or boredom ) has displaced common sense in way too many pro-labor pro's . And no, I don't think this has much to do w/ the hard working miners who are still union in Va.
Thanks T.Tobin for switching the high beams on here! The early morning fog was getting so thick it's hard to see straight down here in the valley...
- J.Joslin IBEW Local #58 -Detroit. Mi.
Posted by: John A. Joslin | Nov 10, 2005 8:10:34 AM
For Jan (and others):
Tim Kaine is the genuine article. He's a true friend of workers and, as noted previously, went out of his way election night to say that he wouldn't have won without the support of "organized labor." Talk to any unionist who knows Tim and they will tell you that he's one of us.
Jim Ellenberger CWA/TNG - Virginia.
Posted by: Jim Ellenberger | Nov 10, 2005 11:39:53 AM
I hope you are right Jim! I'm feeling hopeful and good about the Kaine administration.
We Virginians all just need to thank GOD Kilgore wasn't elected.
Posted by: Jan Cornell | Nov 10, 2005 12:15:14 PM
Love him or hate him no one confuses Arnold Schwarzenegger with a good actor. Yet there he was on stage conceding defeat and smiling the smile of a winner.
Did his advisors not tell him he lost? Or does he think he won?
In the recent special election, Proposition 75 got the most media attention and helped defeat Governor Schwarzenegger’s alleged reform agenda.
Proposition 75 pulled back the curtain on Governor Schwarzenegger’s agenda, exposing it as punishment for those of us who opposed him.
Proposition 75 increased the difficulty for Unions to effect the political process—corporations spent $24 for every one unions spent in 2004.
Unfortunately our efforts were defensive and our victory on November 8—while monumental, decisive and hard-won—didn’t improve the circumstance of any of our issues or the lives of a single Californian.
We predictably devoted our resources to defeating Proposition 75 to be able to fight another day. We were predictably unable to devote any resources to support Proposition 79—the only Proposition that improved California.
Proposition 75’s effect on the political process was debated. The fact that in the 2005 special election Unions were tactically prevented—if not legally prevented—from political spending in support of Proposition 79 is beyond debate.
The spending history of Propositions 78 and 79 testifies to the consequences of corporations’ ability to act unchallenged in the political process.
Drug companies budgeted $80 million to support 78 and attack 79. According to Nielsen Monitor-Plus (an advertising tracking firm) the drug companies bought 18,000 television ads attacking 79 and 11,000 television ads supporting 78 through Oct. 16.
Supporters of Proposition 79 mounted a television ad campaign with a $500 production titled “Drug Companies Think Californians Are Idiots”. The ad ran on cable television systems in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area thanks to a $5,000 media buy made by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. That was the entire media campaign for 79.
Drug corporations spent $80 million (2 percent of California’s annual MediCAL drug spending) to protect their profits while organizations advocating for more affordable prescription drugs for millions of low income Californians spent $5,500.
That is a corporate spending advantage of $14,454 to one.
Proposition 79 would have improved health care for as many as 10 million Californians by reducing the cost of their prescription drugs—the single largest driver of increasing health care costs—at no cost to taxpayers.
Proposition 79 would have required drugmakers to participate in a discount program for low-income Californians or have their products removed from the preferred drug list for MediCAL recipients—a $4 billion-a-year market.
Proposition 79’s backers included Health Access California, Consumers Union, California Association of Retired Americans (AARP), Congress of California Seniors, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, League of Women Voters and the California State Federation of Labor.
The drug company sponsored Proposition 78 allowed them to provide smaller discounts to fewer Californians—with no enforcement policy. Drug companies don’t need a state law to provide discounts to low-income Californians.
Proposition 79 failed and Californians—not just recipients of MediCAL—all Californians lost.
The drug companies’ Proposition 78 failed, but their goal to maintain the status quo is achieved. The drug companies and their Governor won.
Damita Davis-Howard, Executive Director
SEIU Local 535
Posted by: Damita Davis-Howard | Nov 10, 2005 1:24:04 PM



Working Life's ongoing special section devoted to holding the Cafta Fifteen accountable.
Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95
