Read the Current Mother Jones

[DaveinMD]

There are two important articles. One talks about how the infusion of new activism into the party this cycle could be the beginning of a new era in progressive politics. This is likened to the 1964 election for the Republican Party. The other is more ominous. It talks about how the decline in the labor movement is what has caused recent defeats. The point is made that a prosperous labor movement allowed economics to be front and center instead of divisive religious politics. I'm a labor Dem, but the point is clear. We need to augment labor with a new group or issue that will help us grow our party.

[DemBones DemBones]

1. The decline of the labor movements, from its greatest membership

numbers in the fifties to the much smaller union ranks today, is a problem for everyone in this country. People have been suckered into believing unions are bad, I can do better on my own -- the whole American mythos of the "self-made man."

[DaveinMD]

2. completely agree

My first job out of college was working for the AFL-CIO. Back then, the leadership was a major problem. Now, Sweeney is doing some good things, but it is very hard to organize workers in this service economy. They are about to pump a ton of money into trying to organize walmarts.

[Lefty48197]

3. Great magazine! Great topics.

Thanks for the heads-up.

[DaveinMD]

4. It is a great magazine

I may have to get a subscription soon. Those two articles are a must read for everyone on this board.

[Q]

5. Labor left because the New Democrats...

...rejected unions and worker's rights. Labor would be more than happy to support the Dems again if they felt they were being represented. You speak of new groups and issues...but we're losing ground on keeping many groups loyal to the party because we're abandoning issues important to them. Blacks are another group of once-loyal Democratic voters...but after the unexamined civil rights abuses in 2000 and 2004...they're backing away and studying their options.

[DaveinMD]

7. Labor didn't leave the coalition

labor's percentage of workers has been declining because of manufacturing job loss and the fact that the new jobs are service jobs. Labor is turning out for Democrats in large numbers. The problem is that there aren't enough union members anymore.

[davsand]

8. Labor didn't leave the Democrats. The Democrats left labor.

Actually, if I'm being truthful the Democrats RAPED Labor, and it continues to this day.

I get really annoyed with some of the DNC types (you guys are excluded from this rant) who wring their hands and ask why the labor votes are not there. They CAN'T understand why ANY labor union member would EVER vote for a GOP candidate, and they keep repeating the old mantra that workers vote against their own interests when they vote GOP.

Well, not to be too bitchy about it, but it was under Clinton and Gore that NAFTA passed. Free trade was all the rage--globalization was good! It also made it a lot easier for companies to suck jobs out of the US to maximize profits. Yep, it was the DEMS who let that abomination on the books, and labor knows that full well.

We now have the benefit of hindsight, and not ONE Dem candidate (except for DK) has talked about getting rid of NAFTA, GATT or any of the other free trade agreements that are costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs. I have yet to see a Dem candidate stand up and talk about working to repeal Taft Hartly. (I wonder sometimes if they even know what it is, to be honest.)

When the asswipe's "homeland insecurity" folks decided that union membership was a security risk and an entire AFSCME local was lost, I don't remember much screaming and crying from Dems. Sure, a few stood up, but not that many.

Funny thing, however, watch the path that the candidates beat to labor's table when they want money and volunteers for a campaign. They want money and they want the foot soldiers but they sure have a funny way to show appreciation for it.

I have no doubt that labor has become tired of the games and the lack of lip service from the Democratic party. How many times do you have to get screwed before you get sore?


Laura

[DaveinMD]

9. this is a false issue

I agree with you on alot of the points you make, but the problem is the shrinking number of union members as a percentage of the workforce. There just aren't enough union members. Its just that simple.

On the Homeland security thing, many Dems lost because they stood up for those union members in the Senate. Its the vote that they defeated Max Cleland on. That's what the 02 campaign was lost on.

[davsand]

10. The loss of union jobs sure doesn't INCREASE the rank and file.

Cleland stood up and, I will give him credit for that. The GOP went after him for more than just his stance on labor, however.

The number of union jobs has decreased, that is very true. The numbers of apprentices going into a lot of the trades has fallen off, and that is sad. In part, those apprentices really have no motivation to go into a craft that will not produce a job for them in the long run.

We have any number of union jobs that have gone away. They are now in Mexico or India or have gone to the Pacific rim or even Central America in the interest of profits. Those are good jobs that are gone. Period. I'll cite our steel industry as an example.

What terrifies me, is the reality that IF the US is ever isolated by the world market (say if our money was suddenly no good any more or if we "became" a pariah internationally after we violated the Geneva Convention and other human rights' laws...) Where is this stuff going to come from? Where are the skilled workers gonna come from to even rebuild these facilities?

There are open assaults on unions every day in the news, and yet I don't see the DNC jumping up and down about it. sure, for every example I give you you can probably point to one guy or another that offered a "Gee, ain't it a shame" sort of sound bite, but WHERE is the anger? Where is the defense of the workers that used to be there?

Yep, unions have issues in house as well. Can't deny it. We have several rank and file who say they have no idea why they pay dues. They talk about WHAT exactly do they get in return for the dues they pay (beside the T shirt that the BA hands them just before the Labor Day parade?) I have even heard people say they are considering dropping their card for one reason or another (usually personal.)

The Dems are not to blame for the decrease in unity in membership. they are, however, VERY guilty of not doing enough to help.

Peace to you.


Laura

[DaveinMD]

11. I agree with you

We need to do more. I believe economic populism is the key to rebirth in our party. I'm a labor guy. Always have been. I agree that the party should do more for labor, but I also believe they have gone to the matte on some things.

Here's the thing. What needs to happen is change from the outside. I believe progressives need to use the ballot initiative process to greater effect.

[DemBones DemBones]

14. Was that really how they defeated Max Cleland -- or was it

a simple rigging of the Diebold machines?

I'm in Georgia and have always been very suspicious of that. In 2002 we went to touch screen voting across the state, and defeated an incumbent Democratic senator and an incumbent Democratic governor. On election day, it was said turn-out was high, particularly in traditionally Democratic-voting black precincts. Exit polls were showing Cleland re-elected. Afterwards, we heard turnout was low.

:eyes:

[DaveinMD]

16. Chambliss

was gaining throughout the elections. The vote on homeland security was played over and over. It was a key part of the loss. Polls are only reliable of their sampling is correct. I don't believe for a moment the election was rigged. The Secretary of State is a Dem.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

6. Mother Jones rocks. Special rate for new subscribers= $10/year

you can click through the link on the motherjones site, or just go to:
https://www.kable.com/pub/mrjs/suballtemplate.asp?laf=XHRD

[DemBones DemBones]

15. Another good magazine for those with leftist leanings is

The Progressive, begun in the early twentieth century (1909, to be exact), and still only $12 for 12 issues a year.

http://www.progressive.org


January 2005 Issue:
Harness That Anger Howard Zinn
FleeAmerica.com Barbara Ehrenreich

Mr. Rogers? Ruth Conniff
Comment Save Social Security

Online, you can read various articles, along with regular updates from the editor, short articles about current happenings. plus a McCarthyism Watch.


I notice they have a Hidden History of theUnited States calendar:

"Each day features important events from the movement for peace and social justice. And each month features original political art by artists who's work you've seen in the pages of The Progressive!"

Think I may have to get that for my 2005 calendar.

[demwing]

12. Unions at Walmart

and the hundreds of thousands of new union members.

That's a new labor group.

[DaveinMD]

13. that is Sweeney's aim

they are going to be putting an unprecendented amount of money into organizing and walmart will be the focal point.

[DaedelusNemo]

17. Excellent, by all means /nt

[musette_sf]

18. I didn't like it

and you just reminded me to email them about my disappointment with the new issue.

* RED cover (right, rub my nose in it)

* Editorial assumption from POV of "We lost". In my book, Cheat and Steal do not equal Win.

* Article about eminent domain, in which the nobly-portrayed hold-outs are being supported by a group funded by the Koch family (HUGE RW Noise Machine donors), among others.

* Article about radical solution to homelessness which has garnered RW approval.

One more issue like this, and I'm no longer a reader. They just should have put a damn cross on the cover, too.