Will Labor Be a Glutton for Punishment, Or Finally Punish the Gluttons?

The Kansas City Star has a fascinating article exploring why Kansas Democratic Rep. Dennis Moore sold out his party and America's middle class by being one of the 15 Democrats who cast the deciding vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Basically, the article heroizes Moore for resisting the request by unions (who represent millions of hard-working Americans) to not sell out America. We are supposed to believe Moore is some sort of profile in courage, as if he took a gutsy stand against the big guys. But then, the article fails to mention that Moore actually sided with the big guys - Corporate America - the guys that grossly outspent labor by pouring millions of dollars into buying votes and passing the bill.

Perhaps more interesting about this article than the stuff about Moore, though, are the questions raised for the labor movement. We get a pretty good idea about why unions have lost so much political power. It is not only because corporations have used increasingly brazen union-busting tactics to drive down union membership, it is also because in the past labor has generously backed lawmakers who consistently stab them in the back. I want to be very clear: I'm not faulting labor for doing this in the past - they held out faith, like many of us, that these turncoats would eventually come around. But now it is clear that is never going to happen, and it's time for a wholesale change.

Just look at Moore. Here is a guy who, as the Star notes, "has supported every free-trade agreement since he has been in Congress" - even as America's trade deficit hits record levels and our well-paying jobs are shipped overseas. Yet, in 2004 alone, labor gave Moore almost a quarter million dollars. Unions likely gave him that money because he represents a swing district, and the conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C.'s Democratic circles is that Members of Congress who represent swing districts have to consistently kick working people in the face to get elected.

But as shown repeatedly, that premise is totally unsupported by any fact whatsoever. Voting against selling out American jobs, against letting credit card companies rip off consumers, and against stripping people of their legal rights does not cost anyone any votes in their districts, period. In fact, voting FOR these things has a better chance of costing a candidate votes, while voting against these things and embracing commonsense populism has proven to get candidates votes from all parties in all sorts of swing districts. And when politician try to claim the contrary, they know very well they are lying through their teeth.

Thus, the question for the labor movement right now is simple: will unions give people like Moore, who voted FOR all those things, another quarter million dollars this election cycle, or will they finally cut people like him off? In other words, will labor be a glutton for punishment from these sellouts, or will labor punish these corporate cash gluttons?

I certainly want to see the Democrats retake the majority - but more importantly, I want to see Congress start standing up for America's middle class, regardless of which party is in control. If that is labor's goal - as it should be - there are a lot better ways to spend a quarter million dollars than to give it to someone who consistently sells workers down the river. I can think of two right off the one of my head: give it to people like Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), or Pennsylvania Auditor Bob Casey, Jr., all of whom are considering bids for the U.S. Senate in 2006 and are strongly pro-middle-class. Or, if you don't like them, give it to someone else who has been a true people's champion in Congress - say, for instance, the Democrats who took a stand and courageously voted against CAFTA. But stop giving it to people who consistently stab workers in the back.

This strategy will make an immediate impact on the political system, and it is a strategy I believe the entire labor movement can agree on, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the recent internal differences between different groups of unions. The fact is, there is nothing controversial about making sure workers' hard-earned money that unions rightly use for politics goes exclusively to the lawmakers who stand up for workers, and gets withheld from those who sell workers out on the most important issues. Politicians who harm American workers should not consider labor their personal ATM machines just because they put a "D" behind their name. Labor should be targeting its money to specific pro-worker candidates as much as humanely possible.

To be sure, if labor plays this kind of hardball, some Democrats will whine and cry. But you better believe the Democratic Party as a whole will be far more unified in representing the concerns of ordinary working people than it is now. And in the long run, that will build a much sturdier and long-lasting Democratic majority than permitting consequence-free capitulation to corporate interests.

COMMENTS: Go to Sirota's Working Assets site to comment on this entry