Your election woes amount to nothing more than a PR problem, hinging on two ideas. First, you've somehow allowed "government" to become a bad word, especially when preceded by the word "big." If I hear one more Republican go unchallenged when s/he quotes Ronald Reagan's "scariest words I've ever heard..." I might scream. I am a progressive, and I will always vote Democratic (although I wish that Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold ruled the world). And here's what the word "government" means to me: as a U.S. citizen, "government" means freedom, democracy, security, stability, reliable infrastructure. Government means education, safety, and rules that help 310 million people function together as a society. Our "government" is why people from all over the world want to live here. "Big government" only means more of those things. It means safer air to breathe, water to drink, and food to eat. "Big government" means nature, wildlife, woods to hike, beaches to stroll and streams to swim. Not only does "big government" mean the existence of these things, but it helps ensure a pleasant, unsoiled, safe experience when I do so. "Government" is NOT a dirty word and you need to take it back!
The second point of your PR problem is related to "special interests." How have you let billions of big business and foreign interest dollars tarnish the modest donations of working Americans? "Union money" represents my mother the schoolteacher, my grandmother the waitress, and my grandfather the truck driver, who voluntarily gave a portion of their hard-earned money to band together with their co-workers and fight the exploitation of big business; to advocate for safe working conditions, reasonable hours, and fair wages. Unions represent "Main Street," and it's a travesty to pollute their advocacy by allowing Republicans to lump them together with the efforts of corporate America to turn our business landscape into something resembling the working conditions in China or India. Union money represents everyday Americans working together to maintain the same principles that have made the United States the envy of the world in the last two centuries.
Lest you think I am nothing but an idealistic bleeding heart: I understand the realities, and recognize that there are flaws in each system I have advocated. Government is inefficient and sometimes stifles innovation. Democrats are as guilty as other politicians of subjugating their principles to the pursuit of election funds. Power often begets power, and unchecked power in government is as dangerous as unchecked power in unions, big business, or anywhere else. I recognize that we live in a disposable society, but when something has flaws it doesn't always need to be discarded. Given government's inefficiencies, I would love an alternative to keep business in check and minimize exploitation, pollution, and danger. Alas, we don't currently have one. The question I constantly pose to my conservative friends, which has yet to be answered, is, "If not government, then who?" Industry can't be the answer because it's motivated solely by profit, and the greater good will always be subverted to the pursuit of the dollar. Charities can't be the answer because they are not centralized and have no authority. Government is what we have, "of the people, by the people, and for the people," and unions are just organized groups of "the people!"
If you launch a PR campaign to take back the ideas of government (even "big" government) and unions, my prediction is that the Democratic party would retain power for decades, if not centuries.
About a week ago, Democratic candidate for Lt. Gov, Linda Chavez-Thompson spoke to a very friendly room at the Texas AFL-CIO convention. A friendly room to say the least. Chavez-Thompson has a rich history within the labor movement.
In December 1967, she was hired as a Secretary at the Constitution Laborer's Union in Lubbock, Texas. Over the next forty years, Chavez-Thompson kept working to build a long and impressive career working on behalf of working people, fighting to bring fairness and opportunity to Texans in communities across the state. Her work with unions culminated in 1995, when she was elected Executive Vice-President of the National AFL-CIO, the first woman and the first person of color to hold that position.
Having seen her on the campaign trail a few times, Chavez-Thompson always gives a good, fiery speech. This however, is a particularly comfortable and exciting one.
My favorite line is, "it's easier to secede than admit that you rank #48, 49, or 50 in almost every state ranking." (a line first reported on twitter). It is easy to see her comfort with the room and her eagerness to campaign. Most importantly, her passion for her life's work is evident. Chavez-Thompson will have a tough few weeks ahead of her, especially in Austin, but with such a low information campaign being waged for one of the most important job in Texas, every vote, video, new article, etc. will matter.
Chavez-Thompson is running along with former Austin District Attorney Ronnie Earle, and Marc Katz an Austin Deli guru.
(disclosure: GNI Strategies did LCT's quick, temporary website for the primary)
Seven months ago I moved to Texas from the upper-Midwest, where I worked for 7 years in the labor movement. After two "purple" electoral cycles in 2000 and 2004, I witnessed the central role that labor played in re-establishing the upper-Midwest as a reliable democratic stronghold. Now I find myself in Texas, eager to help repaint this state blue--a challenge made unnecessarily difficult due to the relative low density of organized labor in the state.
The candidacy of national labor leader Linda Chavez-Thompson for Lieutenant Governor needs to be seized upon by Democrats as the first fortuitous opportunity of the new decade. At the core of this candidacy lie the seeds of powerful possibilities for both Texas workers and Texas Democrats. To paraphrase Georg Simmel, sometimes we need a stranger to point out something new about ourselves--I hope that my perspective as a new Texan may shed a novel light on this subject.
One observation I have made since arriving in Austin is that unions are sometimes held in contempt or discounted by otherwise loyal Texas Democrats. To understand why I find this startling, consider this: of the top 15 states in terms of high union member density, Obama won 14 (not Alaska). Of the bottom 15 states, Obama only won 4 (New Mexico, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida). If Texas had over 15% union density like Wisconsin, opposed to the reality of less than 5%, not only would it be easier to elect Linda Chavez-Thompson, but it would be easier to elect other democrats to statewide office. In short, there is an electoral argument that the Democratic Party can't afford to ignore: labor brings money and volunteers.
Democrats need to understand that a primary victory by Linda Chavez-Thompson would bring a keen interest from the national labor movement that will guarantee their serious involvement at the top of the ticket. Nationally, Chavez-Thompson continues to be revered in the labor movement and that means that both dollars and volunteers will flow to Texas to support her campaign. Labor will understand that her fate is tied to the bigger picture of Democratic favorability and I think that there will be a positive spillover effect to the other campaigns.
Electing Linda Chavez-Thompson would also be a boon to Texas workers. Organizing campaigns would benefit from having a major public official who would stand up to defend workers' rights to organize. I don't have to have lived in Texas to know that many Texas employers have waged shameful and illegal campaigns of harassment and intimidation to prevent their workforce from joining a union. Nascent unions would have a public ally to shine a light on these practices and ultimately that would mean more successful campaigns and more union members.
What would be the impact of greater union density in Texas? There are many reasons to believe that greater union density would help the state economically, not least those most in need. More union members also would lead to more local resources (i.e. money and volunteers) to fight politically. Moreover, unions are one of the rare institutions that have the power to counteract and deconstruct conservative ideology amongst its membership. Communication from unions to their membership via newsletters, direct mail, and general exposure to progressive ideals has the power to transform people, so it is no wonder that the fear-mongers on the right have always been afraid of the labor movement. In short, more density means more Democrats.
To conclude, many people seem to think that the labor movement can be reduced to a handful of major accomplishments in the first half of the 20th century and that it is no longer relevant to the modern American worker. The reality is that the labor movement still exists and is meaningful for millions of American workers across most sectors of the economy. The successful campaign to organize 5000 janitors in Houston in 2005, combined with the fact that 2007 marked the first year of overall growth of the US labor movement in 25 years signals that labor history is very much up for grabs. Electing Linda Chavez-Thompson, a major figure in the US Labor Movement, has the potential to reshape Texas popular opinion of organized labor and would have broad implications for the Texas Democratic Party.
I watched the great movie Wall-E last night. If you haven't seen it yet, fire up your Netflix or jot down a note to hit Blockbuster after work.
If you have seen it, you probably recognized the corporate behemoth of Buy-N-Large. We have a similar, sinister company down here on Earth called Wal-Mart.
In the movie, Buy-N-Large has gotten so gargantuan and out-of-control that it has taken on every aspect of society: It peddles every possible product at its Supercenters, it sells gas, it controls the banks -- and it has even taken on the role of a quasi-government.
Wal-Mart would love to be Buy-N-Large if it could. Indeed, the Bentonville behemoth has recently attempted to grow beyond its traditional Supercenter model. It has introduced gas stations and has even tried to create a bank!
Remember the stories just a few months ago about Walmart executives sitting all their employees down and sternly warning them to vote Republican? Because if they didn't, the evil unions would take over the world, and then there would be no jobs?
Earlier this month the Wall Street Journal reported that Wal-Mart, fearful of mandatory labor laws, is politically bullying its employees to vote Republican in this year's election.
...
Wal-Mart strongly opposes the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which supports unionization and seeks to establish higher penalties for violations of employee rights. The EFCA would likely be passed under a democratic leadership, so Wal-Mart educates its employees about its strong rejection of the bill, but doesn't tell them how to vote, according to David Tovar, Wal-Mart's spokesman. With the EFCA still dormant, the company's managers are told to call a special hotline prepared to swiftly diffuse any type of situation that may involve potential employee organization.
Well... Walmart's now flexing its muscles to indicate its preparedness to back up its ugly threats. Details below the fold.
Wake Up Walmart has released its first video of 2008. Walmart is a key issue for progressives to focus on -- because of their awful health care benefits, Texas citizens are estimated to be paying $134,161,466 a year in taxes to cover poor Walmart employees and their families with health care -- while Walmart is making huge profits.
Please check out this video, and let your friends know why we need to "Wake Up Walmart".
I come from a union family, so it has been a source of disappointment for me to observe the decline in union membership that's been underway for some time. There's a new bill up for consideration in the House which makes it easier for workers to unionize, and it is meeting expected resistance from business interests.
This Monday, May 1, is the monthly COPE meeting. COPE (Committee on Political Education) is the union's PAC; union dues legally can't be used for campaign contributions. If you'd like to voice your displeasure at the recent Strayhorn endorsement, this would be a good place to do it.
The agenda for this month's meeting is the work that's already begun for the November elections, especially for the local House races. We've already started ID'ing voters in districts 47, 48, and 50.
Look, nobody's angrier about this endorsement than I am, but the union has done yeoman's work in the last few races; ask Donna Howard about the work we did in her race, and remember, the people running this meeting are not the ones that made the decision to endorse Strayhorn, so please be respectful. You don't have to be a COPE member to attend, it's open to all TSEU members. Meet'n'greet starts at 5:30 and the actual meeting starts at 6:00. Y'all come on down.
Once again, those of you that are thinking of resigning, I ask you to seriously reconsider. The union has done, and continues to do, excellent work. You need look no further than Donna Howard's campaign and the work that's already started on the upcoming election. You should stay at the meeting on Monday and do some work for the campaigns. You should join COPE. The way to change the way the union works is not to quit; it's to work from within and do something about it.
As campaign season begins to take off here in Texas, there is already a rather heated discussion over the use of Union printers. Any chance I get, I take an informal survey of all sorts of people in these discussions. What better format to do so, I thought, than asking the community their opinions and regular practices where you live.
