|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Unions and Trump
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The New York Times posits an interesting and in my view correct theory that the rise of Trump is a case of "sow the wind, reap the whirlwind". The bedrock of Trump's base are less-educated whites who do manual labour, the white working class, if you will.
In times past this was the bedrock of the union movement. A large part of the purpose of unions, and the model contained in the Wagner Act was that unions would be three things: an outlet for worker voice, a delivery vehicle for economic benefits and guarantor of economic welfare (health insurance and pensions, in lieu of direct government initiatives), and lastly as the political agent for the working class. Unions would be the method by which working-class concerns would be engaged brokered in the political system.
Oh, and by the way, the fact that the government itself would not have to intervene so much if it handed off economic distribution problems to unions it itself a small-government initiative.
And the right singularly failed to embrace this model. Since the Taft-Hartley Act they have smashed union political power at every chance, and now they rue what they have sown.
Would you not think it ironic if Trump's lasting legacy is to finally make the political right embrace unions, if only because the alternative is so much worse?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Oh, and by the way, the fact that the government itself would not have to intervene so much if it handed off economic distribution problems to unions it itself a small-government initiative.
Except those who generally champion the "small" government are opposed to unions and were opposed to their inception.
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
And the right singularly failed to embrace this model. Since the Taft-Hartley Act they have smashed union political power at every chance, and now they rue what they have sown.
Would you not think it ironic if Trump's lasting legacy is to finally make the political right embrace unions, if only because the alternative is so much worse?
This would imply self-awareness to a level unprecedented. What they are hoping for is Trump to go away so they can get back to business as usual. {i]Learning[/i] in not a particularly strong political trait.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
There is absolutely nothing in Trumps business dealings to indicate he would ever do anything at all for unions. This is totally not his thing. He'd sprout wings and fly to Mars before that would happen. Whatever the reason low wage earners have for supporting Trump, that sure as heck ain't it. You seem to have him confused with Sanders
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The New York Times posits an interesting and in my view correct theory that the rise of Trump is a case of "sow the wind, reap the whirlwind". The bedrock of Trump's base are less-educated whites who do manual labour, the white working class, if you will.
In times past this was the bedrock of the union movement. A large part of the purpose of unions, and the model contained in the Wagner Act was that unions would be three things: an outlet for worker voice, a delivery vehicle for economic benefits and guarantor of economic welfare (health insurance and pensions, in lieu of direct government initiatives), and lastly as the political agent for the working class. Unions would be the method by which working-class concerns would be engaged brokered in the political system.
Oh, and by the way, the fact that the government itself would not have to intervene so much if it handed off economic distribution problems to unions it itself a small-government initiative.
And the right singularly failed to embrace this model. Since the Taft-Hartley Act they have smashed union political power at every chance, and now they rue what they have sown.
Would you not think it ironic if Trump's lasting legacy is to finally make the political right embrace unions, if only because the alternative is so much worse?
You seem to be arguing the exact opposite of the article-- was that your intent?
The article is not suggesting that Trump is supportive of unions-- quite clearly he is not. Nor is the article suggesting that the GOP will move towards a more pro-union stance because of Trump's success among low-wage workers. The article is drawing on sociological research to suggest non-economic reasons low-wage workers are turning to Trump, but then suggesting that unions might be a way to turn low-wage workers around-- to bring them back into the Democratic fold (as unions have done historically). That would seem to be the opposite of what you are proposing here?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The New York Times posits an interesting and in my view correct theory that the rise of Trump is a case of "sow the wind, reap the whirlwind". The bedrock of Trump's base are less-educated whites who do manual labour, the white working class, if you will.
In times past this was the bedrock of the union movement.
This has been a common bit of legerdemain in this election cycle; to pretend that "working class" means "white working class". One of the main reasons behind Trump's support among the white working class is that the working class in the U.S. is a lot less white than it used to be. The white working class seems to be a significant outlier from the rest of the working class in regards to the Trump candidacy.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
]This has been a common bit of legerdemain in this election cycle; to pretend that "working class" means "white working class". One of the main reasons behind Trump's support among the white working class is that the working class in the U.S. is a lot less white than it used to be. The white working class seems to be a significant outlier from the rest of the working class in regards to the Trump candidacy.
And may in fact be a clue why Trump supporters are willing to vote against their own economic interests, as they most assuredly are. Historians have noted a similar sort of dynamic in the South during the civil war and Jim Crow era-- that often the staunchest defenders of slavery/Jim Crow were not the wealthy white landowners/ slaveholders-- the people who most benefitted economically from these oppressive systems. It was, rather, poor whites-- even though poor whites were also oppressed by slavery and Jim Crow, because both systems had the effect of suppressing wages to artificially low levels. Yet poor whites defended these oppressive systems, apparently out of a psychological need to believe there was "someone lower than me"-- someone else in the lowest rung of society-- even though finding common cause with other low-wage workers would be in their economic best interests.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There is absolutely nothing in Trumps business dealings to indicate he would ever do anything at all for unions. This is totally not his thing. He'd sprout wings and fly to Mars before that would happen. Whatever the reason low wage earners have for supporting Trump, that sure as heck ain't it. You seem to have him confused with Sanders
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
No, I was arguing that the Right is reaping what it sowed with by bashing unions, the result being Trump. I was arguing that stronger unions = no trump, not that Trump would strengthen unions.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
When Buchanan ran as a candidate for the Reform Party, he asked the then head of the AFL-CIO to be his running mate. Perot asked Marcy Kaptor to be his running mate in 96. So, populist candidates have tried to woo union support in the past. Republicans can win their share of union votes without the support of unions. Unions aren't loved even by all their members.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
I have spent a considerable part of the last year and half organizing a union at my place of work. I loved every minute of it. But it became patently clearly to me that the people I was trying to reach were so disconnected from the union movement I had to start at square one.
The only difference is that being in Canada, I had less anti-immigrant dreck to deal with.
This isn't about Trump embracing unions, this is about the Right seeing the light that unions are in fact a good thing, and a way to smaller government, and a really nice thing to have when you need to broker interests. Because their reward to being anti-union is Trump.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
SPK--
Don't hold your breath that the hierarchy of the Right will see the light.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There is absolutely nothing in Trumps business dealings to indicate he would ever do anything at all for unions. This is totally not his thing. He'd sprout wings and fly to Mars before that would happen. Whatever the reason low wage earners have for supporting Trump, that sure as heck ain't it. You seem to have him confused with Sanders
No, I was arguing that the Right is reaping what it sowed with by bashing unions, the result being Trump. I was arguing that stronger unions = no trump, not that Trump would strengthen unions.
Ah, that makes more sense.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Oh, and by the way, the fact that the government itself would not have to intervene so much if it handed off economic distribution problems to unions it itself a small-government initiative.
No, I don't think so - because in this model, unions function as a quasi-governmental organization. In other words, you have to include the unions in your measure of "size of government".
It can, I think, in some circumstances, be more local government, which I tend to think is a good thing, but not quite the same thing.
[ 15. August 2016, 15:00: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
