Windows Into Populism’s Rise
A rule of thumb for understanding American politics: The federal government only reacts to popular will when the upper-middle professional class starts making noise. Everyone else’s voice falls on deaf ears. This is an unfortunate reality, but it is reality.
Consider the last few decades. Many historians believe anti-war pressure during the Vietnam War only really changed public policy when, in 1969, the draft lottery was created. At that point, a whole swath of upper-middle-class parents was galvanized because it became much harder to use loopholes to shield their kids from combat.
Business misbehavior was rarely a congressional focus when CEOs were cutting blue-collar wages while padding their own salaries. But when Enrons started undermining the retirement savings of the upper middle class, lawmakers raced to pass corporate accountability legislation. Housing affordability received little attention in Washington when only the working poor couldn’t pay the rent. But when mortgage defaults recently began roiling the stock market, the issue was quickly deemed a “crisis.”
This realpolitik lens, while an interesting historical decoder, is an even more important guide to the present.
Pundits today seem puzzled by the Lou Dobbs-ification of politics — the sudden political emergence of economic issues such as trade, jobs, wages and even immigration, and the meteoric ascendance of populist red-state politicians such as Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, and Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, also a Democrat, demanding immediate change. But on a recent trip to the iconic capital of the upper- middle class professional, it all made perfect sense.
With buzzing twentysomething worker bees and beige low-rise buildings dotting a bucolic setting, the Microsoft campus in Redmond, Wash., looks like a cross between a university and a suburban office park. The comfortably tranquil image is carefully massaged by company icon Bill Gates, who cheerily testified to Congress this month that “anyone here in the United States who has [computer engineering] skills is going to have a super-high-paying jobs.” Yet a darker reality emerges when talking to workers.
They pointed me to company documents published by the worker advocacy group WashTech, proving Microsoft salaries for mid-level full-time employees have been stagnating, even as company revenues rise. They fumed over how the company employs thousands of “permatemps” — full-time employees technically designated “temporary” so the company does not have to pay them as well or provide them benefits.
Showing how the immigration backlash extends beyond odious xenophobia and into legitimate economic worries, they lamented that wages are forced ever lower by Microsoft’s use of the H-1B visa program — a program that forces permatemps to compete with temporary, nonresident workers from other countries who are imported here by companies because they will accept low pay (government data shows tech companies pay H-1B workers $13,000 per year less than American workers in the same jobs). “They say they need H-1B’s because they can’t find a qualified American,” whispered one permatemp in the hall outside his office. “What they really mean is they can’t find a cheap American.”
Pay grades are only part of the ferment — it is also anxiety over job security at a time when 1.1 million American information-sector jobs have been eliminated in the past five years. While Gates told Congress that the demand for highly skilled computer workers “is going to guarantee them all jobs,” one 10-year Microsoft “permatemp” making $25-per-hour with no benefits told me everyone knows better.
“You can knock yourself out here and do your best and fix a thousand bugs,” he said. “But at the end of that, they can — and often do — just say goodbye. And everyone here knows that.”
Another permatemp said that while he helped build the new Vista operating system, he found not one Microsoft division that doesn’t fear showing up and having their keycards not work because all their jobs were sent to India. That concern is justified: A Microsoft slide presentation, also uncovered by WashTech, shows the company encourages foreign outsourcing in most major decisions.
WashTech has tried to convert workers’ anger into union drives. But those grinning, business-casual Microsoft executives have learned a thing or two about how to bust unions. One example: When a handful of Microsoft workers developing fledgling tax software took an initial step to unionize, the entire project was terminated by management.
As both the Microsoft story and broader government data show, wage cuts, employment schemes, outsourcing and union-busting are not isolated to blue-collar or entry-level industries: they have become commonplace throughout the economy, an enraging part of the upper middle-class’s daily life, and thus the likely reason why an increasing number of politicians are finally challenging Wall Street orthodoxies on wages, trade and outsourcing. That we must always wait for this kind of action until crises hit this specific socioeconomic class is certainly a cause for outrage. That we can now finally expect real change is nonetheless a cause for hope.
David Sirota is the author of “Hostile Takeover” (Crown, 2006).
© 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle
The main difference between our 2 political parties has long been one of enlightened self interest vs. brutal greed. Right now, brutal greed is in charge; and it’s very unenlightened, since, as Sirota points out, the policies and practices serving the interest of never-enough-consumption-behind-the-gates-crowd, are catching the attention of what was historically the “intelligentsia.” Piss off the intelligentsia and you have a problem……
I was especially happy to see where Sirota’s reasoning led, because every time I read an allusion to how the draft once mobilized people, my antenna get turned on to look out for someone who thinks we could mobilize that same energy again if we just had a draft. As if screwing the upper middle class makes up for screwing the poor; as Sirota notes, our society is not really ultimately run for the sake of those who can economically avoid military service; unless they are members of that far smaller portion of people who would still avoid service no matter what some “draft” called for. When people call for a draft out of some misplaced nostalgia for 60’s -style protest movements, I get truly pisssed–they want to, in effect, put my son’s life at risk for their little dream of social justice. In setting those priorites, they discredit their dream. So I am always grateful for those who understand the larger social dynamic; social justice is for everyone, not just the rich, but not just the poor either. The brutes in charge have their own social justice for everyone besides themselves; we all go down together….
longingforsanity: I believe that all states that have armed forces - including, of course, my own - should have universal military conscription. I believe this because I believe that no citizen, rich or poor, should be exempt from the duty to defend his or her country (if indeed there is a need to defend the country militarily. If there is not, that raises the question of why have armed forces at all. But that is another discussion). It is simply a matter of basic decency. Yes, war involves certain risks. Why should your son be exempt? I anticipate your retort: your son would be sent to Iraq. But USA would not have invaded Iraq if there were universal conscription.
Mark Marshall
Toronto
David Sirota is, as usual, right on target. Once the upper-middle-class’s ox is being gored, things start to change. But what surprised and delighted me about the article was his understanding that most Progressives are NOT on the side of working families when it comes to immigration:
“Showing how the immigration backlash extends beyond odious xenophobia and into legitimate economic worries, they lamented that wages are forced ever lower by Microsoft’s use of the H-1B visa program — a program that forces permatemps to compete with temporary, nonresident workers from other countries … (government data shows tech companies pay H-1B workers $13,000 per year less than American workers in the same jobs). ‘They say they need H-1B’s because they can’t find a qualified American,’ whispered one permatemp … ‘What they really mean is they can’t find a cheap American.’”
What’s true for hi-tech workers vs. H-1B immigrants is even more painfully so for non-college-educated workers vs. 14 million illegals. Our economy is headed for a bad patch. The best thing we can do to help poor and lower-middle-class Americans is to begin a humane, orderly removal of people who don’t have the right to work here, and impose eye-watering fines on their employers. Those jobs in factories, construction, meat- packing etc. will be freed up (at better wages) for Americans and legal immigrants. Of course, this requires serious border security — and don’t tell me the country that built the Panama Canal and sent men to the Moon cannot do this.
I don’t blame the illegals. If I suffered their wretched poverty I’d be heading north too. The problem lies with the corrupt Mexican government. With much of Latin America rejecting the “World is Flat” framework and moving to more progressive policies, Mexico stands out as an appalling example of head-in-the-sand economics. They’ve expedited the exit of their poorest people to el norte, and are now addicted to remittances sent back by illegals in the U.S. — which equal their oil revenues. The longer we let this go on, the more we delay the second Mexican revolution (a peaceful one, a la Ukraine) that is desperately needed there.
Adele,
Have you considered the impack of NAFTA and other “free” trade agreements on the poverty of our South American neighbors? Who’s pockets got lined with the profits from those deals? Now that outsourcing is starting to cause the same race to the bottom here in the U.S., isn’t it time for Americans to blame the true culprits that have caused this mess instead of the victims that came before us? It seems to me that you are trying to find ways to treat the symptoms instead of the disease that plagues us.
And by the way, the world is in fact round. If you build a fence, the folks you are trying to stop from getting to the other side only have to turn away from the fence and walk in the opposite direction. Eventually they will find themselves on the other side of the fence they couldn’t climb.
Whoa! The purpose behind restoring the military draft isn’t to make the army bigger and stronger. It’s to make it more democratic. Like Sirota says, when middle class voters get involved, things happen.
If we had a conscript Army in 2003, the conquest of Iraq would never have been attempted. Even a Republican majority would have thought long and hard before hiring out their constituent’s sons to fight as oil company mercenaries.
As for Corporate America, I think it’s time to question the patriotism of any American who hires foreigners or sends American jobs overseas. They are extracting profit from our economy they way termites extract “value” from your house.
I’m no xenophobe, but Wall Street needs to start putting the long term economic strength of America ahead of the value of their portfolios.
Further to what Adele and Rebel Farmer said about immigration: if there were no NAFTA there would be a lot less Mexican immigration to USA. The statistics bear this out. NAFTA, by impoverishing still further the Mexican population, forces ever-larger numbers of Mexicans to emigrate. And the outsourcing of manufacturing to China impoverishes Mexican workers still more. The best thing US-Americans could do to reduce illegal immigration would be to abolish NAFTA and implement a non-interventionist foreign policy whereby governments of countries like Mexico would not be penalized for economic policies that benefit their populations. You can hardly complain about immigration if your government imposes on other countries neoliberal economic policies (privatization, “free trade”, spending cuts etc) that drive up unemployment in those countries and force their people to seek work in USA in order to survive. Having said that, it should also be pointed out that if the US government would simply penalize employers who hire illegal immigrants, that alone would do much to reduce the appeal of illegal immigration, and would dramatically reduce the number of illegal immigrants the US authorities would have to remove by force.
Everyone should forget about supporting a draft until the US empire is kaput. Once our Department of Offense has been transformed back into a true Department of Defense, our overseas bases have been closed, our military spending has been slashed by 90 percent or more (which would still leave it as the largest military budget in the world), and we have signed treaties to guarantee the peaceful use of space and the elimination of nuclear weapons, then we can all start talking about the social benefits of a military draft.
Re: the idea that having a draft would make imperial war less likely; that is a tragic misreading of Vietnam. Yes, the draft upset people who went to the streets; but Vietnam could not have happened at all without a large involuntary force. Assuming a patriotic duty to serve one’s country is assuming the legitimacy of loyalty to some arbitrary national entity. I do believe we have a responsibility to each other, and that economic well-being should not buy one’s way out of that, but I don’t trust the government, which doesn’t represent public interest but corporate ones, to determine such matters of life and death. I don’t want to risk my son’s life, or anyone else’s son’s life. And it is simply too much to ask of anyone; if self defense is an accepted ground for taking another’s life, then certainly valuing one’s own life enough to not go kill others makes at least as much sense. Moreover, we do have an amendment to the Constitution banning involuntary servitude; you might argue that was meant for “slavery” but involuntary is involuntary; and a draft is in fact a form of slavery.
” but involuntary is involuntary; and a draft is in fact a form of slavery.”
Interesting point. Never thought of it that way.
Enjoyed the keen insights of longingforsanity and others. Just one observation: Police duty is not subject to draft and yet for the most part communities have no problem finding people to serve in a fairly dangerous position as a privately chosen option. Could it be that privitization of military isn’t such a bad thing? Of course to get those people, the pay, etc. has to be commensurate to the risk. It isn’t the quasi-slavery that longingforsanity describes. When you think about it, military service is a rather bizarre position within a democracy, anachronistic to say the least: You sign up and many or your normal rights are suspended, you must obey orders, etc. Strange when you think of it.
Ipenek: How many police have been killed on the job since 19 March 2003? How many police lose arms, legs or eyes on the job? How many police suffer from brain damage and/or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? How many ex-police are living on the streets? How many police have had their faces or penises burned off? How many police have had their genitals amputated because of injuries sustained on the job? http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36056
The job of police is public security. The job of soldiers is war. Not the same thing. Not even close.
Mark Marshall
Toronto
MarkMarshall March 30th, 2007 5:17 pm
“You can hardly complain about immigration if your government imposes on other countries neoliberal economic policies (privatization, “free trade”, spending cuts etc) that drive up unemployment in those countries and force their people to seek work in USA in order to survive.”
Precisely the problem! And the same multi-national corporations responsible for developing the “rules and regulations” within these trade agreements are the same ones that contribute millions of dollars to the political campaigns of politicians that insist on perpetuating these perverse agreements.
What a vicious circle!
To Mark Marshall, who wrote: “The best thing us Americans could do to reduce illegal immigration would be to abolish Nafta and implement a non-interventionist foreign policy…” I say, Amen to that, brother!
And Rebel Farmer, I agree that Nafta must go: it has made things much worse for the average American AND Mexican (Ross Perot was right when he said, “I’m not against trade agreements — I’m against stupid trade agreements.”) I’m infuriated that the Bushies are using our tax dollars to subsidize agribusinesses so they can dump cheap corn into Mexico. Tens of thousands of Mexican small farmers have gone bankrupt as a result.
As I said, I do NOT blame the illegals for coming here. It’s just that if we give millions of them a path to legalization, two things will happen: unemployment and falling wages will continue to savage low-income working families because of the labor surplus (this is Economics 101), and the Mexican government will have NO impetus for economic reform, as others in Latin America are doing.
Mike Marshall: You really describe the problems with “free trade” beautifully.
AdeleThe Czech, although you do not blame the “illegals” for coming here, you go on to blame them for depressing wages and perpetuating the impoverishment in their own country.
I am just not prepared to blame the victims of US policies. Indeed, it is the same policies of ruthless exploitation and disregard for real people that victimize US workers AND Mexican nationals who come here to survive.
Until we rethink underlying priorities that privilege profit over people, animals, the earth, then we will only be putting bandaids on the hemorrhages we create.
Mark Marshall:
I’m a little puzzled by your outrage at a comparison between soldier and police. I have a feeling many police officers would object. “Not the same thing” but “not even close”? Me thinks you protest too much.
On a deeper level you didn’t address why the military couldn’t follow a police-like model: paying its participants commensurate with the risk. There is of course the stigma of “mercenary” but there’s no reason to think that isn’t indeed just stigma and couldn’t be remedied. You seem to support universal conscription (their “duty” or some such nonsense) but not a volunteer private army. Your reasons?
Actually, the fact that there ARE mercenaries proves that there are individuals willing to see profit in the risk/benefit analysis of the horrors of war that you describe so well.
I speculate that, as longingforsanity outlined, you would like to instate conscription so that the entire populace, without regard to preference, can share in the horrors of war. Perhaps you mean that that will be a deterrence? A noble goal. But please be clear.
Ipenek: yes, I do support universal military conscription. The reason: no citizen should be exempt from the duty to defend the country from foreign aggression. It is a matter of collectively ensuring our national survival. And defence of the country from foreign aggression is the only legitimate purpose of armed forces. If there is no need to defend the country from foreign aggression, there is no need for armed forces and there should be no armed forces.
Mark Marshall
Toronto
Just want to add a few comments on this stimulating discussion:
1. to the extent that both police and military are the prime institutions for carryng out socially sanctioned violence, they are similar in many ways. Certainly the police function domestically to maintain “social order” (obedience to law) within a system in which the “social order” (structures of power and hierarchy) reflect systemic inequality and injustice. Internationally, the American military serves to carry out internationally similar functions, only without the necessary platitudes such as “to serve and to protect.” The American military is the steamroller of American imperialism. It serves to impose American power and to maintain American law (whatever “we” need to maintain “our way of life” we take because, as exceptional and superior people, we are entitled).
2. As for a draft to create a militia to protect the country against foreign aggression, we have an example in Iraq of people who are doing just that. It’s called “the insurgency.” Believe me, if this country were attacked by a foreign aggressor, we would all do whatever we could to protect our own neighborhoods. And we would see a similar turning against our own internal enemies, racial and ethnic “others, for example, as well as against those who are seen as “collaborators.”
I have to admit to a certain extent I’m playing devil’s advocate, but I still don’t get the casual invocation of “duty”. We hire police to protect our communities; we don’t insist it’s each person’s “duty” to do so. The closest thing to it is the irritating NRA insistence that each citizen must be armed.
Why the proscription on hiring an army to protect us from foreign aggression?
Hi ipenek, with regard to the problem with a “volunteer private army” I would refer you to Jonathan Scahill’s new book about Blackwater, the private army contracted to do various “functions” in Iraq. Are they “worse” than US troops? Maybe not, but they are not subject to the same transparency and oversight that a national armed forces are.
I have mixed feelings about a universal draft. I am opposed to a universal military draft, but am drawn to the idea of system of universal public service that each person would have to perform at some period during their lives. For example making doctors, who are really privileged in our society, perform two years of service caring for the poor or for people in remote areas. Likewise attorneys and other professionals whose services are beyond the reach of many people due to money.
How about a universal system of public sevice where everyone is seen as valuable, with something to contribute to others, where profit is not them prime motive, where people can gain experiences that they would not otherwise have by performing tasks that benefit everyone.
Is this silly Sunday daydreaming on a beautiful spring day, or what?
Doesn’t sound too silly to me. I like the “at some point in their lives” part. The whole notion of “draft age” is absurd to me — beyond the absurdity of “draft”. Usually some lame excuse like “lack of stamina” is given. Like a 55 year old long-haul driver doesn’t need stamina. A lot of 60 year olds I have known could walk, lift, work and drink any 20 yr old under the table. Why don’t we just admit it: we draft teens because they’re easy to boss around and don’t know enough to talk back.
HA! That’s my concession: Mark Marshall can have conscription but he’s got to take bitchy 45 year olds.
kivals…
Good response! Also, Jon Lennon said it all in: Imagine!
As to those who complain about thieving illegal immigrants, I think your vision has been artfully misdirected away from the real thieves. Where ever you see a crowd gathering, it is always best to look the other way to see what is really happening. Military misadventures, enormous amounts of money disappearing, fraud, fraud, fraud everywhere you look and it comes from the top of the oligarchy food chain. To think otherwise is only xenophobic. I have yet to have been displaced from a sandwich or a pair of sox by an immigrant, alien, illegal or otherwise.
Best Wishes and Hope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk1vEuhBuEU