Laboring for American Workers

Laboring for American Workers
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, August 31, 2022, p. A5
Where have all the workers gone? And what can Democrats do about it next Monday?

Had Democrats stuck with the coalition Franklin Roosevelt bequeathed them they would today be winning by wide margins every election from the local schoolhouse to the White House.

That coalition carries forward in the name, “the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party.” Not incidentally, that party controls half of Minnesota's U.S. House seats, both U.S. Senate seats, the lower house of the state legislature, and the governorship.

Both parties have watched the cost of presidential and congressional campaign expenses go from $23 million in 1952 ($257 million in 2020 dollars) to $14.4 billion in 2020 – a 56 fold increase.

In response, the Democrats tried to build a national political party with money from the east coast and voters on the left coast. The result? Flyover country became fly away country. When workers asked, “What have you done for us lately?” all they heard was crickets.

By the 2020 election 83 percent of the 3112 U.S. counties studied were solid Republican. Iowa Democrats’ results were worse: 94 percent of the counties went for Trump. (Democrats picked up the three counties with state universities plus Polk, Linn, and Scott.)

The pay and benefits of union jobs that had enabled workers to enjoy the middle-class rewards of homes, cars, boats and college-educated kids had largely disappeared. When the air traffic controllers went on strike in 1981 President Reagan shut out the union and fired 3,000 members. His message to industry leaders? Union busting is OK.

In the 1950s 35 percent of private sector workers belonged to unions. By 2012, after a half-century of Republicans’ successful efforts at union busting, it had fallen to 6.6 percent. [Photo credit: The United Food & Commercial Workers International Union.]

Union members were not just a source of funds and votes. They also used to do the most significant share of the heavy lifting – door knocking, leaflet distribution, phone calling, and taking voters to the polls.

Today much of that person-to-person campaigning goes undone.

I recall (but can’t find) a Wall Street Journal item in the early 1960s about a firm in California that claimed it could elect anyone to any office with a $100,000 TV-only campaign. With no TV competition they were quite successful. During 2019-2020 political TV, radio and digital advertising reached $8.5 billion.

But today’s TV effectiveness is not what it used to be. And mastery of political use of social media has yet to occur.

Democrats can’t magic wand their party’s problems away.

Meanwhile, what Democrats can do is to seize the ultimate teachable moment each Labor Day offers the party – starting with next Monday.

They can organize Labor Day Democratic party celebrations and rallies in communities and neighborhoods around the country. They can emphasize what the party’s elected officials have delivered to working people over the past century. Not today’s candidates’ promises. What Republicans have done to oppose them, further enriching the wealthy while ignoring, or opposing, workers’ interests.

It's no cure-all, but it sure would be a good start.
__________
Nicholas Johnson was a board member, DNC Harriman Communications Center. mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES Minnesota DFL. “Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Democratic-Farmer-Labor_Party (“It is currently the state's favored party, controlling half of Minnesota's U.S. House seats, both U.S. Senate seats, the lower house of the state legislature, and the governorship.”)

Campaigns cost. “$23 Million for 1952 Campaigns,” CQ Almanac [Congressional Quarterly], 1953, https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal53-1365614 (“GOP Reports $13,814,997, Democrats $6,159,844 For White House, Capital Races; CQ Lists Spending Reports Of 133 Groups, Names $5,000 Donors In 30 States

The 1952 campaign, Presidential and Congressional, cost the two major parties and other national political groups $23 million, according to reports filed with the Clerk of the House by political organizations. The total includes expenditures for Congressional campaigns. (For detailed analysis of Congressional campaign spending, see page 40.)

Republican Congressional candidates and national and special political committees spent a total of $13.8 million. Democratic groups and candidates spent $6.2 million. The remaining $3 million was recorded as expenditures by labor groups, minor parties and unaffiliated political groups.”)

Karl Evers-Hillstrom, “Most Expensive Ever: 2020 Election Cost $14.4 Billion,” Open Secrets, Feb. 11, 2021, https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/02/2020-cycle-cost-14p4-billion-doubling-16/ (“Political spending in the 2020 election totaled $14.4 billion, . . .. While the presidential election drew a record $5.7 billion, congressional races saw a stunning $8.7 billion in total spending.”)

“$1 in 1952 is Worth $11.18 Today,” CPI Inflation Calculator, https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1952?amount=1#:~:text=Value%20of%20%241%20from%201952,cumulative%20price%20increase%20of%201%2C018.02%25 [based on U.S. Bureau of Statistics data] (“Value of $1 from 1952 to 2022. $1 in 1952 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $11.18 today, an increase of $10.18 over 70 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.51% per year between 1952 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 1,018.02%.”) [Thus, the 2020 value of $23 million in 1952 would be $257 million.]

Republican counties. Samuel Wonacott, “87% of Americans Live in a County That Has Voted For the Same Party in the Past Three presidential Elections,” Ballotpedia News, news.ballotpedia.org/2022/04/18/87-of-americans-live-in-a-county-that-has-voted-for-the-same-party-in-the-past-three-presidential-elections/ (“After the 2020 presidential election, 288 million Americans lived in either a Solid Democratic or Republican county, 87.2% of the 330 million covered in this analysis.” map of counties; 459 solid Democratic, 2368 solid Republican)

“Donald Trump Won in Iowa,” Politico, Jan. 6, 2021, https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/iowa/ (map showing counties)

Percentage in unions. Mike Collins, “The Decline Of Unions Is A Middle Class Problem,” Forbes, Mar. 19, 2015, https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/03/19/the-decline-of-unions-is-a-middle-class-problem/?sh=5b0d78667f2d (“President Reagan - Reagan Kicked off the era of union busting by successfully shutting out the air traffic controllers union in 1981. After a nationwide strike 3,000 workers were dismissed by Reagan. This was a signal to industry that union busting was o.k. It was also a signal to future presidents and politicians that taking an anti-union stance was not necessarily a political liability.”

“In 2013 the unionized workforce in America hit a 97 year low. Only 11.3% of all workers were unionized. In the private sector unionization fell to 6.6%, down from a peak of 35% in the 1950s. American corporations have made a concerted effort to get rid of unions and reduce labor costs since 1980, and they have been very successful.”)

“Unions by the Numbers,” Barnes & Thornburg, Jan. 24, 2022, https://btlaw.com/en/insights/blogs/labor-relations/2022/unions-by-the-numbers-2022-edition (“In 2021, the number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions continued to decline (-241,000) to 14.0 million, and the percent who were members of unions was 10.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The rate is down from 10.8 percent in 2020 . . ..” crediting U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

TV ads. Howard Homonoff, “2020 Political Ad Spending Exploded: Did It Work?” Forbes, Dec. 8, 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardhomonoff/2020/12/08/2020-political-ad-spending-exploded-did-it-work/?sh=7fa848d3ce0d (“In the 2019-2020 election cycle, total political advertising spending reached $8.5 billion across TV, radio and digital media. This was 30% higher than the $6.7 billion projected earlier this year, and 108% more than spending in 2017-2018, which was a record at that time. We saw 9.3 million of TV ads alone in more than 4300 federal, state and local elections ….”)
# # #

Democratic Party's Past -- and Future

A friend emailed me a reminder, this "morning after the night before," that Last July 25 I wrote a blog essay here titled "Why Trump May Win; Discouraged By The Democratic Party's Self-Inflicted Wounds." Others expressed comparable views at the time. None of us had much, if any, impact on the Party's actions this summer. But on re-reading that essay this morning, I realized that it might be worth posting excerpts from it again. For the next few days, weeks and months, both major parties' leadership will be engaged in trying to understand the presidential election and devise a change in course for their party's future. This may be of some help.

-- Nicholas Johnson

July 25, 2016

As a lifelong Democrat, I have for some years now been discouraged by the actions of the Democratic National Committee, and others who are considered members of the Party's establishment . . ..

The Democratic Party establishment had historically served, and been supported by, the poor, working poor, working class, union members, family farmers and a broad range of other demographic groups. Were it still both perceived and functioning as such, it could elect most officials from school boards and city councils to the U.S. Senate, House and White House. . . . [Photo credit: President-Elect Donald Trump, Wikipedia.org]

[But now] the Party's leadership has become -- and obviously wishes to remain -- funded by, and the legislative advocates for, Wall Street, large corporations, and the top 1% of America's socio-economic elite. It's mission, far more than the enactment of populist policies, is the perpetual re-election of office holders whose highest priority daily activity is raising money. . . .

The question is whether [this] will still work in this or any other country when one considers the Tea Party, Occupy movement, Brexit, and the unprecedented numbers and enthusiasm of the supporters of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Whether justified or not, millions of angry Americans now look upon government, corporations, other powerful institutions, and those who run them, not just as uncaring for people like themselves, but as an enemy, deliberately adopting policies and budgets knowing the harms they will impose.

I am not arguing . . . that every Democratic Party official should have joined the Bernie Sanders campaign. But to so obviously trivialize, or oppose, his candidacy -- now documented in the DNC emails revealed by Wikileaks (not that it wasn't well known before) -- and carry on with 20th Century politics, was unnecessary and counterproductive. For the angry Americans, independents, youth, Democrats, Republicans, and others, it was "a poke in the eye with a sharp stick."

However experienced and well qualified for the presidency Hillary Clinton may be thought to be, when millions of potential voters (and what may turn out to be non-voters) have taken to the streets with pitchforks in hand, for the Democratic Party leadership to offer them its preeminent establishment icon only confirms their worst fears about their Democratic Party, not to mention America's future and their own.

And that's, I believe, "Why Trump May Win."

# # #

Why Trump May Win

Discouraged By The Democratic Party's Self-Inflicted Wounds
And see, "The DNC Still Just Doesn't Get It," July 29, 2016.

Update July 25, 3:27 p.m. CT: Nate Silver 538 projects if election were held today [July 25] Trump would win by 54.5 to 45.5% for Hillary (percentages change over time).

Update on polls; July 30, 2016: They vary, both over time and between pollsters. The only one that really matters, because it is definitive, is the one that counts voters' ballots on November 8, 2016. Meanwhile, here is what The New York Times "National Polling Average" reported on July 30, 2016: Hillary Clinton 42.6%, Donald Trump 42.1% -- in other words, a toss-up. Of the 5 polls averaged, among the 3 putting Clinton ahead they range from 43-42% to 40-35%; the two favoring Trump are 48-45% and 44-40%. Results for 11 swing states show Clinton leading in 9, by 0.2% (Ohio) and 1.3% (Florida) to 4.5% (Virginia) and 7.0% (Wisconsin). Trump leads in Georgia by 3.3% and Missouri by 8.2%. "2016 Election Polls; National Polling Average," New York Times, July 30, 2016.
_______________
As a lifelong Democrat, I have for some years now been discouraged by the actions of the Democratic National Committee, and others who are considered members of the Party's establishment (many of whom are superdelegates). So discouraged that I'm going to undertake a two-part blog experiment.

Today [Monday, July 25, 2016] before watching any of the Democratic National Convention, or reading any of the news reports coming from Philadelphia, I'm going to write about some of the reasons for my discouragement. Later this week, once the Convention is concluded, I plan to write on the same subject once again to see what impact the Convention has had on my thinking.

It is not my purpose in this blog essay to deal with the personalities or qualifications of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donald Trump, or others. It is, rather, to address the way in which the Party, as a Party, has positioned itself in today's America. [Photo credit: Maring Photography; Contour by Getty Images.]

The Democratic Party establishment has historically served, and been supported by, the poor, working poor, working class, union members, family farmers and a broad range of other demographic groups. Were it still both perceived and actually functioning as such, it could elect a majority of officials from school boards and city councils to the U.S. Senate, House and White House. While there are still occasional nods in the direction of the unrepresented, the Party's leadership has become -- and obviously wishes to remain -- funded by, and the legislative advocates for, Wall Street, large corporations, and the top 1% of America's socio-economic elite. It's mission, far more than the enactment of populist policies, is the perpetual re-election of office holders whose highest priority daily activity is raising money.

In the latter years of the 20th Century this evolution might not have been very honorable, but at least it could still work.

The question is whether it will still work in this or any other country when one considers the Tea Party, Occupy movement, Brexit, and the unprecedented numbers and enthusiasm of the supporters of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Whether justified or not, millions of angry Americans now look upon government, corporations, other powerful institutions, and those who run them, not just as uncaring for people like themselves, but as an enemy, deliberately adopting policies and budgets knowing the harms they will impose.

I am not arguing, in this essay at this time, that every Democratic Party official should have joined the Bernie Sanders campaign. But to so obviously trivialize, or oppose, his candidacy -- now documented in the DNC emails revealed by Wikileaks (not that it wasn't well known before) -- and carry on with 20th Century politics, was unnecessary and counter productive. For the angry Americans, independents, youth, Democrats, Republicans, and others, it was "a poke in the eye with a sharp stick."

However experienced and well qualified for the presidency Hillary Clinton may be thought to be, when millions of potential voters (and what may turn out to be non-voters) have taken to the streets with pitchforks in hand, for the Party leadership to offer them its preeminent establishment icon only confirms their worst fears about their Democratic Party, not to mention America's future and their own.

And that's, I believe, "Why Trump May Win."

Having written this, I now discover I'm not the only one with this assessment.

Michael Moore has written his analysis of why there is not just a chance that Trump could win, but "5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win."

Frankly, I think that all politics is too volatile to ever predict, with certainty, what will happen 100 days in the future. But I certainly share Moore's sense that Trump could win, and that he has a much greater chance of doing so than the Democratic Party establishment's actions indicate it understands.

Moore's analysis is too long to reproduce here in its entirety. But here are such clues as you may be able to pull from his five headings: (1) Midwest Math, or Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit, (2) The Last Stand of the Angry White Man, (3) The Hillary Problem, (4) The Depressed Sanders Vote, and (5) The Jesse Ventura Effect.

Read the full text and judge for yourself. Here's the link: Michael Moore, "5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win," MichaelMoore.com, July 23, 2016.

Robert Reich takes a comparable view. Here are some brief excerpts:

Does Hillary Clinton understand that the biggest divide in American politics is no longer between the right and the left, but between the anti-establishment and the establishment?

I worry she doesn’t –- at least not yet. . . .

In fairness, Hillary is only doing what she knows best. Moving to the putative center is what Bill Clinton did . . ..

But this view is outdated. . . .

The most powerful force in American politics today is anti-establishment fury at a system rigged by big corporations, Wall Street, and the super-wealthy.

This is a big reason why Donald Trump won the Republican nomination. It’s also why Bernie Sanders took 22 states in the Democratic primaries, including a majority of Democratic primary voters under age 45.

There are no longer “moderates.” There’s no longer a “center.” There’s authoritarian populism (Trump) or democratic populism . . ..

If Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party don’t recognize this realignment, they’re in for a rude shock -– as, I’m afraid, is the nation. Because Donald Trump does recognize it. His authoritarian (“I’ am your voice”) populism is premised on it. . . .

Most basically, the anti-establishment wants big money out of politics. This was the premise of Bernie Sanders’s campaign. It’s also been central to Donald (“I’m so rich I can’t be bought off”) Trump’s appeal . . ..

Last January, a Des Moines Register poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers found 91 percent of Republicans and 94 percent of Democrats unsatisfied or “mad as hell” about money in politics.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t need to move toward the “middle.” . . .

She needs to move instead toward the anti-establishment –- forcefully committing herself to getting big money out of politics, and making the system work for the many rather than a privileged few.

Robert Reich: Does Hillary Get It? Tim Kaine Is As Vanilla Middle As You Can Get," RobertReich.org July 24, 2016

Watch this space. I'll return with my post-Convention reactions by the end of this week.

# # #

Meaning of May Elections for November

May 19, 2010, 2:30 p.m.
[For BP disaster see, "Obama As Finger-Pointer-In-Chief," May 18, 2010; "Big Oil + Big Corruption = Big Mess," May 10, 2010; "P&L: Public Loss From Private Profit," May 3, 2010.]

What's Take-Away from May 18 Primary Elections?
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
There were four elections yesterday, one each in Arkansas and Kentucky, and two in Pennsylvania. What do their outcomes tell us about November we didn't know before?

Very little.

What follows is just one, relatively uninformed, blogger's intuition; not the result of having worked in any of the campaigns, memorized the piles of polling data, or even having read a significant amount of others' commentary.

There are some things we at least thought we knew before the results were in.

"All politics is local." There are so many factors that help shape the outcome of a given congressional or senatorial primary, or general election, that drawing any national (or even local!) generalizations from their outcomes runs the risk of being wide of the mark.

Especially is this so in light of the fact that most outcomes are relatively close. When there are less than 10 points separating the candidates anything from cold or rainy weather to a last-minute news item could have made the difference. In such cases, for purposes of deriving meaning from an election, it's a little silly even to designate a "winner" and "loser," let alone to discard from consideration the "meaning" behind the votes of the 40 percent or more of the voters who supported the "loser."

An incumbent President's party tends to lose seats in the Senate and House during off-year elections.

Aside from that, incumbents tend to get re-elected. No matter how angry the public is with "Congress" in general, voters tend to think their own Member of Congress is OK. The number of Members who want to be re-elected, and are, is generally well above 90 percent.

Most districts are solidly either Democrat or Republican. The real contests occur in the ones that are neither.

Perhaps the largest percentage of voters consider themselves "independent" or third party.

On the other hand, those who vote in party primaries are necessarily more partisan, more concerned about party loyalty, candidates having "paid their dues" to the party, and the impact of primary choices on general election outcomes.

Overall election results tend to reflect the economy. When the economy is trending down, or seems stuck there, voters want "change" -- often manifested in ousting incumbents. When the economy is booming, or clearly recovering, they're less likely to "throw the rascals out" -- or even bother to vote.

Lengthy incumbency cuts both ways. There is at least a lingering concern on the part of voters that "old age" and too many decades in Washington may make an elected official less, rather than more, effective on their behalf. (This is, of course, offset by the increased power, and ability to help the state or district, that comes with seniority.) But it is especially so if constituents detect (whether true or not) a growing disconnect between the Washington elite lifestyle of the elected official and that of the residents of the local area.

My thinking is that nothing happened yesterday to change any of that conventional wisdom.

But there are two conclusions that at least some commentators seem to be drawing from yesterday's returns with which I really disagree. One is that the results reflect a turn to the right, a resurgence of conservatism -- and hope for the Republicans in November. The other is that what we witnessed was an anti-incumbent movement. (E.g., Jeff Zeleny and Carl Hulse, "Specter Defeat Signals a Wave Against Incumbents," New York Times, May 19, 2010, p. A1.)

Sestak's Victory Over Senator Arlen Spector: An Example of "Anti-Establishment, Anti-Incumbency"?

Voters are not in a good mood -- whether discouraged, depressed, angry or violent. Admittedly, that did not cut in favor of Spector's re-election.

But there were so many other factors at play in Spector's case that I think it is woefully overly simplistic to put the results in the "anti-incumbency" column.

For starters, he got 47 percent of the vote. That's not exactly a rout.

Bear in mind, this was a Republican Senator running in a Democratic Party primary! He only recently switched parties, and acknowledged he did it because there was no way he was going to get the Republican Party nomination. The switch enabled the winner, Congressman Joe Sestak to utilize a very effective commercial that left few if any Democrats unaware of Sestak's assertion that Specter was just a Republican opportunist.

Moreover, he was a five-term, 30-year, 80-year-old Senator. The political meaning from the ouster of a one-term incumbent Senator is one thing. But when a Senator has served as long as Specter, and has reached 80 years of age, to be voted out of office involves much more than mere "anti-incumbency."

Admittedly, "'close' only counts in horseshoes," and it really hurts to lose an election. But for what it's worth, under the circumstances, and against all the odds, Specter should take some considerable personal solace and satisfaction from the 47 percent vote of confidence, admiration, and appreciation that he was able to win as an 80-year-old Republican running in a Democratic primary.

How About Senator Blance Lincoln in Arkansas?

The meaning of the outcome in the Democratic Primary in Arkansas is a little more clear cut than the one in Pennsylvania. But it's still not unambiguous -- especially with regard to the assertions that yesterday's four elections represent a "swing to the conservative right" on the part of voters.

For starters, Lincoln "won" in the sense that she got more votes than the runner-up, Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter -- just not enough to prevent the need for a runoff, since she did not get 50 percent.

Second, the winner of the Republican Primary election, John Boozman, who defeated seven opponents, has been an Arkansas Representative in Congress since 2001. So that can scarcely be said to be the result of an "anti-establishment, anti-incumbent" vote.

Did Lincoln's failure to win outright illustrate the voters' move to the conservative right? No, the fact is that in her case it was exactly the opposite.

The SEIU and AFL-CIO weighed in heavily on the side of Halter precisely because she was perceived as being too conservative -- especially with her votes against healthcare reform, and her perceived support of the Wall Street banks. The voters wanted a more liberal candidate.

Republicans vs. Democrats in Congressman Jack Murtha's District

Following Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha's death, the only election yesterday pitting a Republican against a Democrat was in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District.

If an overwhelming Republican victory anywhere could have been seen as a harbinger of a national tectonic shift to the conservative right and a Republican sweep of the House in November it would have been this one.

On the other hand, the same could be said for the Democrats were they to win. Even though the 12th had been a Democratic district with Murtha, it also happens to be a district that went for Senator McCain over Obama a mere 18 months ago.

However conservative the district may be said to be, the majority did not vote for the Republican. The Democrat, Mark Critz (a former Murtha aide), won over a Republican businessman, Tim Burns, by a substantial 53 to 45 percent.

Incumbency was not in issue in that contest. But the issue of a possible shift -- from the Democratic Party, to a pro-conservative, Republican Party -- certainly was. And the verdict on that race would have to be that it just wasn't there for the conservative Republicans..

Paul's Win is Republicans' Problem -- Not Nation's or Democrats'

Rand Paul, son of Presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.), scored a 24-point Republican Senate primary victory over Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson -- the favorite of the Republican establishment, up to and including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Thus, while it contributes nothing to an understanding of "anti-incumbency" (as neither held the Senate office), it certainly does say something about the division within the Republican Party between the Republican establishment and the anti-Establishment, Tea Party, wing of opposition.

Given that this was a Republican Primary it necessarily tells us little about the conservative, anti-Establishment leanings of Democrats and Independents. Indeed, there are those who believe that Paul will be much easier for the Democratic Party candidate to beat than Trey Grayson would have been. And Tea Party membership, to the extent it can be measured, seems to be disproportionately made up of those who would otherwise be (or still are) Republicans.

But we scarcely needed this Primary to know that there is a schism between the conservative, right wing, take no prisoners, anything to bring down Obama, just say no wing of the GOP, and the Establishment, moderate, reasonable, come let us reason together wing. Nor have we been unaware that the former seems to be gaining adherents over the latter.

In sum, they were an interesting four elections, but when Chris Matthews says, "Tell me something I don't know," I'm not sure what one can offer based on the results.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #