Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Ron Paul Would Allow ‘Open Season’ on Union Organizers
Ron Paul’s showing yesterday in the Iowa Caucus—he came in third with 21 percent of votes, behind Mitt Romney's and Rick Santorum's 24.6 percent showings—wasn't the victory his passionate supporters wanted, but it makes him a force to be reckoned with throughout the rest of the Republican primary season. Paul, a longtime congressman from Texas, drew his support from an unusual combination of libertarians, conservatives and even a few progressives who supported his firm stances against the wars, opposition to the Wall Street bailout and strong support for civil liberties.
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas) and his wife, Carol, greet supporters in Ankeny, Iowa, after his third-place finish in the Iowa caucus on Tuesday, January 3. (Photo by Mark Kegans/Getty Images) But what would his civil liberty stances mean for American's workers? It appears Paul would actually like to take away a key protection Americans currently enjoy at work. He supports ending a provision of the National Labor Relations Act that makes it illegal for employers to fire workers based on their support of unions.
Several times between 2001 and 2009, Ron Paul sponsored the Truth in Employment Act, legislation that would amend the National Labor Relations Act to allow employers to fire pro-union workers (sometimes called “salts”) who join a workplace with the intent of unionizing it. Paul's office did not return phone calls from In These Times about the candidate's support for this piece of legislation.
Union activists sometimes get jobs with employers that they wish to unionize in hopes that their presence will make the union drive more successful. Sometime these “salts” enter a workplace at the urging of a union and sometimes they do it independently. The Truth in Employment Act would amend the National Labor Relations Act by allowing employers to fire any workers that they suspect took a job with the intent of organizing their workplace.
In 2001, on the floor of the House of Representatives, Paul said:
I rise to introduce the Truth in Employment Act which protects small businesses and independent-minded workers from the destructive and coercive "top-down'' organizing tactic known as salting. Salting is a technique designed by unscrupulous union officials for the purpose of harassing small businesses until the businesses compel their employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Passing the Truth in Employment Act is a good first step toward restoring the constitution rights of property and contract to employers and employees.
UE Political Action Director Chris Townsend, however, says that if passed, the Truth in Employment Act would lead to “open season” on workers hoping to organize a union.
The legislation "would allow employers to refuse to hire, or even to fire, any worker suspected of—or declared by the boss to be -- a union supporter. No worker will be safe if employers are given this license to discriminate on the basis of one’s beliefs about unions or anything else,” Townsend says.
While Paul claims he is for individual liberty, his support for the Truth in Employment Act shows that when its comes to the workplace, an employer's liberty trumps that of a worker.
135 Comments so far
Show AllYup. Of course, most other republicans support such legislation as well.
Say what you want about the spineless Democrats; at least they don't author legislation like this.
And this "salting" stuff - presented like it is some kind of widespread conspiracy is just so much bosses bullshit. A union worker, when times are slow, might take a job in a non-union shop for less pay and crappy benefits. If he does, can you blame him for promoting the union when he is there?
And yes, that what a union is all about - being forced to pay dues to work. It has nothing to do with earning $22 per hour instead of $8 per hour, with retirement and helarthcare benefits and being able to refuse to go into unshored trenches and other jobsite deathtraps without getting fired. No siree...
Indeed. As a worker who had helped to organize a workplace and was fired for my efforts this hits home. Also, not every worker joins a workplace to initially organize it: Often this comes later and such blatantly anti-worker legislation will simply mean open season on destroying what little we have left.
Democrats don't have to author any new anti-union legislation, all they have to do is take union funds and votes while doing NOTHING to repeal Taft-Hartley (even when in control of both houses of Congress and the White House) and labor is already defeated. That's 95% of the right to organize and strike gone right there.
Democrats are also behind any number of national and state initiatives to end the public schools and their unions (in states where they exist) through vouchers and charter schools and other anti-union measures. This lesser-evilism gets us nowhere.
Democrats do less than nothing for the unions ....and the unions still get right back in line to support Oblahblah and the rest of the D-cravens, as the SEIU did a few months ago ... Sez the SEIU President:
"President Obama is the only candidate for president who shares our vision of America as a land of opportunity for everyone. We need a leader willing to fight for the needs of the 99 percent, and stand with hard working families to say that the world's wealthiest corporations must pay their fair share."
"We know that something has to be done. President Obama is looking to turn things around, but he needs support from all of us to be heard over his wealthy opponents. From now until Election Day, next November, we need to dedicate ourselves to the goal of returning President Obama to the White House so he can keep fighting for more jobs and less nonsense."
"We will fight shoulder to shoulder alongside working families across this nation. We will show the one percent that they aren't the only ones willing to fight for America's future."
So are the unions like the SEIU working for Oblahblah and the D-party agenda or for their own members? Cuz it seems to me that those are two mutually exclusive objectives.
"Democrats are also behind any number of national and state initiatives to end the public schools and their unions..."
Huh? You mean like in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida and Michigan, where REPUBLICAN governors elected in 2010 have passed initiatives to end public schools and unions, which DEMOCRATS have very publicly and vehemently opposed?
Looks like the Republican dirty-tricks machine is amping up it's weasel campaign on left-leaning blogs. "actualleftist" and "socialist" may be new handles for the very same people who were selling Obama here four years ago.
I've voted for Nader four times, having had to write him in twice (in one case because Pennsylvania DEMOCRATS removed his name from the ballot). I've been railing against Obama since his War Prayer speech for Kerry at the '04 Dem convention. In '96 I wrote Nader's name in part because the DEMOCRAT Bill Clinton "went to the mat" for "fast-track" NAFTA, as anti-union as it gets.
How many states are run by DEMOCRATS which don't even HAVE teachers' unions?
It was DEMOCRAT Clinton who "ended welfare as we know it." It's DEMOCRAT Obama who is trying to kill Social Security with a so-called "payroll tax cut."
Here in Pennsylvania many DEMOCRATS do support charter schools and vouchers, both of which are pure anti-union moves. Here in Philadelphia, where almost all elected officials are DEMOCRATS, there have even been allegations of what amounts to graft in local officials turning public schools over to cronies to run as union-busting charters in sweetheart deals.
Dems make political theater out of disappearing for short periods when the GOP sponsors some legislation, but then turn right around and pass anti-worker legislation themselves. Don't be fooled.
OK, so Democrats in PA have not been strong enough for unions. Do you prefer your current Republican Governor Corbett? Did you "punish" the Democratic candidate for governor in PA by staying home in November 2010? How's that working out for you?
More to the point, you haven't mentioned Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida or Michigan, all of which have made national news on the subject you brought up: killing public education and unions. Your put down of Democrats appeared to by aimed at Democrats in those states. Do you also disparage Democratic efforts in those states to overturn anti-labor legislation and recall anti-labor Republican governors? If not, please be more careful with your rhetoric.
I've voted for Nader three times, and will no doubt vote for not-Obama, not-Republican for president again next November. That's based on Nader's rule of "not a dime's worth of difference." But that rule works both ways. When there IS a dime's worth of difference, as there often is in many state and local races, I'll vote for the better candidate regardless of party affiliation.
Pennsylvania's DEMOCRATS have disenfranchised Nader and Green voters and even tried to go after a Green candidate's house for having the temerity to run for statewide office. THEY WILL NEVER GET A VOTE FROM ME,
No, I don't "stay home" any election - I am in fact a minor Philadelphia elected elections official (wrote myself in and won), and the first time I showed up Dems and Reps worked together to try to bar me from the seat because I'm not major party and disrupted BAU.
The party is corrupt top to bottom. Corbett is largely the same as any Democrat, difference being that with an "R" after his name some liberals will actually provide a modicum of opposition. Your lesser-evilism got us Clinton and Obama - how's that working out for you?
Like I said, I voted Nader for president the last three times. So I did not get you Obama.
But, YOUR political party bigotry did destroy collective bargaining in Wisconsin — temporarily, that is, until state Democrats gather 700,000 signatures and force a recall of Governor Walker later this year. You wouldn't vote Democrat in that contest either, would you? Stupid ass.
Though as a former union member I must honor the contribution unions have made in the past toward a more humane existence, I have come to realize that today, unionizing is nothing more than concensus building for another facet of the "meet the new boss-same as the old boss" system. If it were the intention of so called democrats to continue the gains the unions of yesterday gave us, they would have not repealed Glass-Steigel and they would have repealed Taft Hartley.
The elephant in the room that so many seem to be unaware of is that virtually all regulatory legislation is devised by the most monopolistic entity in any industry and passed wholesale along with an envelope full of cash to whatever politician is to sponsor it, so that their competitors will be kneecapped, and eventually disappear.
In view of the impending economic collapse brought on by the snowballing debt through endless war system, all the rhetoric about the issues so near and dear to the heart of the people buying into the fake left right system don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the iceberg aligned with our seemingly invariable trajectory that is the hyperinflationary nightmare and resultant world war that will claim millions if not billions of lives. Our options are to break out the deck wax and get on our knees and start polishin', or we can get to the bridge and signal the engine telegraph "full steam aft" and start spinning on the tiller. As far as I can see the only politician without a rag and a bottle of linseed oil in his hand is Ron Paul and he's yanking with all his might on the handle of the telegraph while just about everybody else is cursing him and denigrating his character and motives. But he just keeps pulling on that handle, and more and more passengers are wondering why he's doing that, and when they see the iceberg that we're barreling toward we start yanking on the handle too, and when other passengers see the knot of people yanking on something, they wonder what could be causing these kooky people to be getting so excited that they don't seem to care that they are perceived to be losing their composure, so they gather around to find out what is going on. Pretty soon, with everybody wildly gesticulating and pointing at the ever approaching mountain of ice, some of them have light bulbs going on over their heads, so they too start yanking and spinning on the tiller.
Of course, most of them just say, why, don't those silly people know that this ship is unsinkable? They're kooky. They're foolishly following an old man. Why, it's crazy, we must engage with that iceberg to prove our invincibility. Our portfolio would take a hit if we were seen tobe avoiding the inevitable. He must be an isolationist! Let's see if we can come up with something to convince those others to stop helping him. Meanwhile, Smithers, I'll add a few thousand to your bonus if you can round up some rabble to push the lever back the other way."
And so it goes. It would be bad enough if our little allegory was only about national policy, but unfortunately, the implication of the looming iceberg is of global proportions. If the snoozing scotsman down in the engine room doesn't get the message, well, I'm pretty sure most of us can start wondering about the water temperature.
A must read on Counterpunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/05/the-afl-cio-and-the-colombia/
We have a country of, for, and by the rich power elite against the interests of ALL working people not in the .001%. We have a country, most of whose politicians are anti-Labor, including the faux-liberal Democrats. We have a mogul-owned media decidedly anti-Labor. And now, thanks to Wikileaks cables, we have the power elite of Organized Labor who are, wouldn't ya know, anti-Labor. A pox on all their houses.
We need a legitimate Labor Movement and a Workers Party, to reach out to every human being that works, to replace the disgrace we now have called Organized Labor. The future of work is at stake!
http://www.opednews.com/Podcast/Rocky-Anderson-Justice-Pa-by-Rob-Kall-120104-455.html
FYI -- see above to read and listen to interview with Rocky Anderson, Justice Party USA. Because of the media circus surrounding the duopoly, he is ignored and it's tough to find out about him. He would be a much better option than any of the current crop of crooks, kooks and liars in the presidential field.
Now RPs anti-labor stance is something to criticize. However, the D party passed NAFTA, so-called Financial Modernization Act and other anti-labor anti 99.9% laws - so they are in many ways WORSE than Rs. At least Rs just come out and say they are going to destroy everything and give what is left to the .001%. The Ds just lie and lie and lie while taking money from the Oligarchy and do the same as the Rs but in a much more stealthy disingenous manner..
At least RP says he is against the coming war with Syria/Iran
At least he is against imprisoning millions (mostly people of color) on petty drug charges. For that he is a racist - he does not want to bomb brown folk or put black men in prison for gram of rock. That is racist
So as always, the lesser of two evils OVERALL is Ron Paul. However the lesser of two is still evil init?
I in no way endorse RP but I welcome the DISCOURSE he brings - that is completely ABSENT in the D camp and the R camp.
It is pretty sad that it is an R who is bringing these issue up and not the puppet Emperor
Please change your screen name. It's ridiculous for you to self-identify as a socialist and shill for Ron Paul.
SR: Amen. Any socialist who cannot see that Mr. Paul is a vicious enemy of the working class and of aspirations for a better treatment not only of workers but also of nature has his/her head screwed on backwards.
Unlike SR l don't expect intellectual honesty from you however
What?. I expect intellectual honesty from you and not a knee-jerk irrational ad-hom response that lacks any substance. Please re-read my post carefully.
How do you turn this comment of all things ... "So as always, the lesser of two evils OVERALL is Ron Paul. However the lesser of two is still evil init? I in no way endorse RP..." into being a SHILL for him? That's absurd.
Socialist, you have brought up some valid point. I too appreciate that RP is bringing important issues into political discourse. Issues that the elite don't even want mentioned, let alone discussed. Like war, drugs, the constitution, class war, etc. I may not agree with RP's stand on many issues or his interpretations of the constitution, but at least he is opening a crack in the MSM stone wall to start a conversation. No matter where anybody is on the political spectrum, everybody should welcome an open discussion and the sharing of ideas in the political arena.
Socialist and Rebel Farmer, I wholeheartedly agree. For this past 1 year alone, Ron Paul has already fractured USA "left" further fractured in shambles. The rude and disrespectful attacks when it comes to discussing Ron Paul are totally uncalled for and should be ignored. The saddest and most painful lesson I learned in my life is that if I must choose between an individual with whom I disagree a lot with but is kind and respectful and an individual with whom I generally agree with but is a warmonger hell bent on trying to "split hairs" even on agreements, it would be more healthful to choose the former. As far as Ron Paul is concerned, I would not bother supporting him past the Republican primaries. Also, I would prefer articles on Rocky and Jill rather than the same old "Paul is bad" articles on stuff we already know as the former will give us healthy discussions in sharp contrast to the domestic war zone hell the latter always guarantee.
Ron Paul discussions here often seem fall into two groups, (1) people (like myself) who would like RP to be the Republican candidate so that the two candidates will have important contrasts which will be presented to the US public, and (2) people who accuse the first group of being RP "supporters." Since it's unlikely that the second group is stupid and missing the point of what the first group is saying, I guess they are frightened that Obama will look bad by contrast with Paul and that people will actually vote for Paul, more than they would for a Romney. That is probably a valid fear, but they should balance it against some other considerations.
First of all, perhaps fewer people would vote for Paul than Romney because of Paul's reactionary ideas on social issues. Obama would be able to make a stronger contrast between his positions. If Paul is such a joke and disaster, you "second groupers" should have some faith that voters will see things the way you do.
Second, consider what effect a Paul candidacy will have on the Republican party. If it makes the grass roots more like Paul, the main effects will be to alienate the Republican masses from the hawk leaders as the former become more anti-war and pro-civil liberties. They are already about as anti-abortion and anti-labor as they can get, anyway.
Third, if Paul did get elected, there's a lot to be said for having an up-front social reactionary instead of a closet one who is at the same time anti-war and pro-civil liberties. You "second groupers" won't agree with my last point and wouldn't think that that's a good trade-off, but it's one I could accept if that's the way it were to turn out, and I'm sure most people outside the US, as well as many victims of the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror", would be very happy if it turned out that way.
But that's the point the "first group" is making, i.e., getting Paul nominated so he can contrast with Obama on so many important topics, and not whether we like all his positions or want him to be President. By all means let's talk up, support, and vote for a third party candidate, or even Obama if you can stand it -- I voted for McKinney the last time and probably will vote similarly this time -- but while you're doing that, take a little time to vote for Paul in the Republican primary in your state, because the American public won't hear what Jill or Rocky says but cannot help but hear what the Republican candidate says.
Your facts are wacked, socialist. Very Rovian of you.
The Financial Modernization Act, aka the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, was authored by three conservative Republicans (Phil Gramm of Texas, Jim Leach of Iowa and Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. of Virginia). It passed the House with Republicans voting for it by 205–16, and Democrats voting for it by 138–69. It narrowly passed the Senate with Republicans voting unanimously for it by 53-0, and Democrats voting almost unanimously against it by 44-1.
Blaming the Democratic Party for a Republican bill that was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress is crap.
And NAFTA was also a Republican initiative. The treaty was negotiated and signed by President George H.W. Bush, a Republican. When Congress ratified the treaty, a majority of supporters in both houses were Republicans.
Again, you're saddling Democrats with the Republicans' treaty.
You are leaving out a lot of the story here. Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's hand picked Secretary of the Treasury, serving with him both terms, worked very hard to get the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 passed. Bill allied WITH Republicans, just as Obama has allied WITH Republicans in his administration.
And NAFTA. Bill Clinton did not push for the ratification of NAFTA? Answer, he did.
It is true, that there are still progressives who are in Congress, but their power is nil. Obama ignores them, and so did Clinton. Bill Clinton, the "third way" wonder of the DLC, CHOSE to bring the party to the right AWAY from progressives that won the battles of the civil rights and environmental movements of the 60s and 70s.
That there have been, and still are Democrats who have done, or still want to do the right thing, should not obscure the FACT, that the present day Democratic Party's center of power, its leadership, is FAR to the right of the Republican Party under Ronald Reagan. Did Reagan put the New Deal programs on the chopping block, as did the current leadership of the Democratic Party? No.
Republicans are a known commodity, that has gotten much worse.
But compare that to the absolute betrayal by the current leadership of the Democratic Party, to progressives. There is really no need whatsoever to saddle Democrats with Republican sins. The Democratic sins are enough already.
Financial Modernization Act? Commodities Futures Modernization Act? Don't you know those are two different bills? More wacked facts. It's as if the denizens of Fox News are posting here.
Hue made some excellent, indisputable points about both political parties. It's time to stop invoking rove and fox as the sole enemies of the people...the democratic machine has its propagandists too, and they post with equal fervor, infesting mainstream sites as well as alternative media, like CD.
Gramm-Leech-Bliley, or the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, passed through the Senate with overwhelming support from d's and r's by a vote of 90-8 .... it passed the House with overwhelming support from both parties as well ... by a vote of 362-57. Bill Clinton who was a big proponent of the bill signed it into law a few days later.
Exerpts from Clinton's statement on signing GLB:
"Today I am pleased to sign into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services..."
"Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act makes the most important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S. financial system since the 1930s...."
"GLB will spur greater competition, protect the rights of consumers and guarantee that expanded financial services firms would meet the needs of America's underserved communities....Passage of this legislation by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the Congress suggests that we have met that goal..."
"The removal of barriers to competition will enhance the stability of our financial services system ... it also contains important safety and soundness protections.. GLB will benefit American communities by preserving and strengthening community reinvestment...."
"The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is a major achievement that will benefit American consumers, communities, and businesses of all sizes. I thank all of those individuals who played a role in the development and passage of this historic legislation."
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
November 12, 1999
As we know now .. GLB's main purpose was not to "preserve and strengthen community reinvestment" ... but to undo the Glass Steagall act of 1933 and de-regulate the banking industry ... at the bidding of Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and his acolyte Larry Summers. Clinton called Rubin the greatest Treasury Secretary since Alexander Hamilton ...
Rubin went on to make hundreds of millions of dollars as citigroup CEO ... a small gratuity for driving the american economy off a cliff. Clinton also went on to make over a hundred million dollars as ex-president for his services rendered ... and Larry Summers? Well President Borat can answer that question for you.
It appears that you're the one who is mistaken regarding the bipartisan nature of GLB Act. Clinton used the term "overwhelming, bipartisan majority" to describe the broad coalition of support he and Rubin whipped up for GBL .... An overwhelming bipartisan majority that did not include ... Ron Paul.
First, you have not refuted a single thing I said in my post.
Second, as to Clinton's signing statement, signing statements are ceremonial, they don't make law. Neither do presidents make law. Congress and the president together make law in a complicated process that involves much compromising and posturing.
In truth, there was a long history of Supreme Court and Federal Reserve rulings weakening Glass-Steagall that preceded both GLB and Clinton's presidency, most of which dated to Reagan's term in office and appointments.
Furthermore, if you know the legislative history of GLB, you know that Clinton had first opposed and threatened to veto it. When consumer protection provisions were inserted (at the insistence of Democrats), a compromise was reached.
Despite your biased rendering (which appears to be cut-and-paste from an ultra-right website) the fundamental facts are clear: GLB was a Republican-authored bill passed by a Republican-controlled Congress. Exactly why Clinton succumbed to pressure to sign it is not known, but it was certainly not his or the Democratic Party's bill.
Contrary to your claim that Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, "drove the American economy off a cliff," the economy was robust during the Clinton years with the fastest rate of job growth since the end of WWII, unemployment at a 60-year-low of 3.8%, the 20-year fall in real wages halted, and 12 years of Reagan/Bush's massive budget deficits turned into surpluses.
The economy went off the cliff in 2008 during W. Bush's term, nearly nine years after Rubin left office. If GLB had been a "Democratic bill" or Rubin's bill (as you imply) Bush and the Republicans certainly could have repealed it in those intervening years.
Repeating a fabrication over and over again doesn't make it fact. The fact is that Clinton enthusiastically signed GBL into law and remarked that it had passed through congress with "overwhelming bipartisan support."
So what that he was against it before he was for it? That stinks of conventional cockamami democrat apologetics to me. Is that like when Borat "threatened" to veto the indefinite detention bill before he signed it into law?
It was really thoughtful of the democrats to add in some worthless language about "consumer protections" and "community reinvestments" tho ... gave them just the right amount of cover they needed to repeal Glass Steagal and de regulate the banks.
Of course, you probably believe that the 'cratz really had our best interests at heart the whole time ... it was those darn big bad republicans that bamboozled our loveable losers ... again. Truth is, the democrats were as complicit in GBL as the republicans .... as they always are.
The two-party system is a charade. There is only one political party that runs this country ... the party of Big Business ... split into two factions; red and blue.
Thank you for nailing it all. The Clinton/Obama bots are too politically dazzled to see the forest from the trees.
Thanks for responding with repetition and unsupported opinions. It's clear you have no knowledge of the facts, no rational arguments, and not even any additional rhetoric beyond the hot gas you expelled in your original post.
It's clear that you are propagandizing. Youo made a few points that demonstrated marginal differences between the two parties, the rest of your argument was obsfucation and evasion.
We all know that the Dems are generally a little lless brutally oppressive, but it is not nearly enough to justify participation in the two party charade.
You're a FOS Republican shill.
@Naturally - How many YEARS was George W. Bush in office before he had to use a veto power? How many 100-0, 99-0, 98-0, 98-1 Senate votes were there in support of the Bush agenda? Stop defending the Democrats, they're just a big lie.
____________________________________
Amen!
Apparently you're the one who is confused about the congressional democratz voting record on GBL ...
Bubba Clinton said that GBL was passed by an "overwhelming, bipartisan majority" when he enthusiastically signed the bill into law ... and surprisingly enough, he wasn't lying. Months of lobbying for congressional d-crat support by Clinton, Robert Rubin, and Larry Summers paid off.
Rubin joined Citigroup as a "full partner" while negotiations for GBL were underway ... and the whole dirty deal made him richer than God.
But hey! Don't let the facts get in the way of a good fantasy.
Anyone who does not understand that a Paul administration backed by majorities in the House and Senate will unleash a vile and violent class warfare lives in cloud cuckoo land. The sad and terrible truth is that U.S. labor is ill prepared for such a war.
Yes, but where should we say someone must be living to think such a "war" is not already a-fighting, and has been with few interruptions for a couple centuries now?
How could someone be socialist to care about how labor can handle the class war and not socialist enough to identify the class war as emerging with the classes themselves?
For some reason which I cannot understand only a fraction of my posting appeared. I am now correcting it. Hopefully it gives you a better understanding of what I meant.
And here's me ruining your chance to edit by replying with a snarky quip! :(
Apologies.
I agree with you that class warfare began ever since a division of labor and ownership of the means of production began and has never stopped thereafter. Nevertheless there have always been periods of semi-dormancy ("hibernation"?) followed by great activity. As far as our nation is concerned a "long hibernation" began after WW2 for a host of reasons that we all understand well today. The "death" of those reasons began in the late 1970's when mean family incomes adjusted for inflation began to decline. Regrettably our labor class followed the Pied Pipers of Washington and Wall Street and began to compensate its family "budget holes" with multiple-jobs, credit card buying, and multiple-earner families instead of organizing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my view that our labor class is just beginning to wake up. The "occupy" movements are a clear-cut omen and their violent suppression is a sign that the rulers are concerned. Nevertheless, if the objective remains only punishment of the financial 1% evil-doers you will get nowhere near real change.
Anyone who does not understand that a Paul administration backed by majorities in the House and Senate will unleash a vile and violent class warfare lives in cloud cuckoo land. The sad and terrible truth is that U.S. labor is ill prepared for such a war although there have recently been signs of some muscle flexing.
I have no doubt that a labor movement can be victorious in the end but some new initiatives are needed. 1. Get out of the Democratic Party now and do not support Mr. Obama because he is not our ally. 2. Start a true labor party. 3. Develop a much larger labor press and TV (and unmask the false prophets on MSNBC). 4. Be prepared to call for strikes and, if needed, a total work stoppage. 5. Remind workers of what made the Polish labor uprising so successful: solidarity, solidarity, solidarity. 6. Ignore the "occupy" movements; let them do their own "thing". 7. Be prepared that most of the organized religions will support the Paulistas. 8. Include environmental issues but do not lose sight of the main objective. And possibly a lot more.
Is our working class prepared for what may be coming? My view is that it is not and that many years of hardship, intra-labor fighting, silly hope for the "American Dream" to come true, years to overcome the deeply rooted anti-socialist, anti-communist scare will have to pass before there is even a chance for victory. And above all, one is dealing with a still God-infested working class. I think that our nation is as just far removed from a successful non-violent socialist revolution as Russia was in 1917.
Exactly right, Crowsnest, the ongoing, non-stop class war these past 35 years would escalate big-time in any republican administration with majorities in Congress, but especially in a Ron Paul administration. We all might as well get our picks and shovels and pans ready and plan on panning for gold again. It would be that surreal.
I believe, like you do, that the only third party that will save the situation for the working men and women of this country will be powered by labor. Why is unemployment so low and the standard of living so good amongst a majority of the German population? Because they at least have a functional (albeit not strong) labor party in their parliament that has a say in the working situation for all in the country.
We need a stronger labor party to be effective here because of our perverse duopoly.
All 8 items on your list are salient. #2 and #8 would very well get a strong party coalition at least started. I know that some of the larger unions have had talks in the past with environmental groups along these lines. But they seem to not have led to anything as Obama mania sucked the wind out of them in 2007/2008. We can all see what a disastrous mistake it was to bet the farm on him. He essentially "disappeared" labor...and now that it's campaign season...the bullshit is beginning to fly again.
What more will it take for Organized Labor to give up on the Democratic Party? Rather, do they have the will to really drop their boots where they lay and dig in to get a true labor party started?
What could possibly motivate folks to worry so much over Ron Paul, when RICK SANTORUM has just been boosted to opposition status against the sure-nominee, Romney?
I can think of only two reasons other than concern that Paul could beat out Romney (and now, Santorum) for the Red Party nomination.(see below)
Outside of Blue Party servitude and Obamabot programming, how is it a problem for any of us?
We are ALREADY fast travelling down the road to perdition with Obama and his fellow players in Congress - his re-election without at least a ginormous "Progressive" (i.e. representative) push in the House spells continued acceleration down that path barring full Citizen Revolt (which we may soon see anyhow).
Sure a Red Part Prez - especially with more austerity-cultists in Congress, from whichever Party- could plant his foot on the accelerator to hell.
But that could result in a faster Revolt on the part of the Citizens -like in the W. Bush years but likely stronger.
The much more likely result is a Red Party Prez hamstrung somehow in Congress, for what that's worth.
In either case, Ron Paul as Prez (likely with someone even scarier like Romney et al as VP) is IN NO WAY WORSE THAN THE OTHER "REPUBLICAN" CANDIDATES!!
So what does it matter?
If you are still in the Lesser Evil Trap, you will vote Obama whoever the Red is.
If you have recieved sufficient oxygen to your brain to escape the Lesser Evil Trap, you are not likely to throw your vote away on one of the non-representational Parties, Red or Blue.
A Red Prez with Red Congress should be just as good a motivator for Citizen Revolt and representational candidacies as the Bush Years were.
It ALMOST seems like the only upshots of all of this Paul hysteria are:
1) Scare Progs into voting (or worse, actively supporting) Obama, even though he has moved the country further toward Empire than any other Prez before, including W. Bush.
2) Ensure Paul does not get the Red Party nomination for Prez.
3) Ensure Paul does not build the political capital to get the Red Party nomination for VP.
Now, WHY IN THE WORLD would Common Dreams be trying to do any or all of these things? ;)
Because Commondreams, unlike YOU, Matti, stands for Progressive ideals, not a right wing demagogue who may get one or two things right, while turning back the clock on progress on the other serious issues of our times, climate change and the need to deal with it, being one of those.
What's stranger is why so many who PRETEND to be Progressive, or Socialists, or Anarchists stand behind this authoritarian with a knee-jerk reflex that is reminiscent of earlier militaristic movements where all the uniformed troops assemble in a masquerade meant to simulate a genuinely diverse & representative government.
So you just sorta skipped actually READING my post, then?
So...again:
How is Paul worse than Romney or Santorum?
This IS what we are talking about, yes? The Red Party Prez nominee?
Why is Paul/Somebody versus Obama/Biden(?) worse than Romney/Somebody or Santorum/Somebody versus Obama/Biden?
The actual Election in November is a separate question.
Please refrain from ad hominem attacks or other Rhetorics 101 tricks in your response -if it is not too much trouble, that is. ;)
Maybe you were late to the party, who knows... but there were close to 200 comments, some of them quite intelligent on this topic already posted on the "David Atkins" article a day or so ago. Why not check that out? I see no need to re-invent the wheel. All the pros and cons have already been volleyed around. Funny how you made some disgusting crack about burning the witch the other day, as if that's charming or funny; but when you're called to the mat your thin skin takes it as an ad hominem? You boys are such cowards...
B.S.
A real answer would have taken half as long.
And now you add word-twisting to ad hominem?
I wonder whether you have ever conducted honest discourse before?
I've certainly never seen it here.
BTW, the witch comment was me quoting Monty Python and the Holy Grail to mock siouxrose's constant witch-hunting. ;)
No more years! Anyone for ABO (anybody but Obama)? Let's make it unanimous. It's a done deal. OK.
Sioux Rose: " What's stranger is why so many who pretend to be Progressive or Socialists or Anarchrists stand behind this authoritarian with a knee-jerk reflex that is reminiscent of earlier militaristic movements".
You might be interested to know that many in Russia would agree with you. Many there compare Ron Paul and his youth movement to Hitler and his youth movement in the 1930's, in Germany. But to cut to the chase, all one has to do is check out Rand Paul. Like Father like son!