Lawless

[paft.livejournal.com]

As I was saying:

Republican Wisconsin State Senator Scott Fitzgerald on what Walker’s union busting is REALLY all about:

If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the union, Obama is going to have a much more difficult time winning this election and winning the state of Wisconsin.

Democratic Representative Peter Barca, as the Joint Conference of Committee rams through the bill stripping public sector unions of most of their collective bargaining rights:

This is a violation of law. This is not just a rule. This is the law.

This attack on public sector unions is not about being fiscally responsible, any more than “voter fraud” laws supported by Republicans are about respecting the vote.

This is about breaking the unions, defunding the Democratic party and making it difficult for President Obama to be elected. It is about the raw exercise of power, regardless of the law. It is about establishing what amounts to single party rule.

I draw a direct line to this moment from our willingness, as a country, to countenance what happened during the 2000 presidential “election,” when Florida’s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, deliberately disenfranchised several thousand legal voters. Afterwards, the leadership of both parties told those of us who objected to sit down and shut up about it, as if valid American voters being turned away from the polls were nothing to make a fuss about.

The Republican Party learned they could win by openly and illegally subverting the will of the people and trashing the constitution and rule of law. Nobody should be surprised that they’ve escalated this tactic over the years. A large voter turnout is a liability to the G.O.P., and they know it. Their agenda directly and adversely affects too many voters – minorities, women, gays, union members, and lately, the middle class in general.

They don’t really need or desire a lot of voters anymore – just a nasty core of astro-turf supported yellers, and corporate buddies to funnel money into their campaigns.

And we, as a country, have allowed this to happen.

I stand behind pro-union demonstrators in Wisconsin. I wish them luck. I hope the tide of protests doesn’t recede. I hope that every single one of those Republicans who are ramming through this law find themselves confronted with hisses of “shame” every time they step out into public. I hope that recalls send as many of them as possible packing in the next couple of years.

But to every one of those protesting people who voted for Scott Walker, or those other Republicans I also say, “elections have consequences.” By voting for people who have nothing but contempt for you, you threw away freedom with both hands.

Good luck getting it back. And I mean that sincerely.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

This is another convenient assumption, one that allows you to wave your hand at politicians and loftily declare them all corrupt and nasty and yourself a wise, worldly cynic who's above all that. It frees you from the troubling process of actually thinking about issues and assessing politicians on an individual basis.

Ironically I was thinking the same thing. You seem to view the GOP's union busting as an attempt to reinstate a 7-day work week, where as I view it as a simple "F*ck-you" to a political rival.

That doesn't mean it is justified but...

[paft.livejournal.com]

sw: You seem to view the GOP's union busting as an attempt to reinstate a 7-day work week..

No. What I've said is that getting rid of unions is likely to eventually result in the rolling back of reforms that many of us currently take for granted, like 40 hour work weeks, child labor, and worker safety laws. It was unions who caused these reforms, business and corporate interests who opposed them. Without unions, I see no reason why these laws could not end up being unenforced, and possibly rescinded.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

So then it becomes a question of whether to potential good outwheighs the potential for abuse.

I guess I simply do not see the argument as being so "one-sided".

[paft.livejournal.com]

sw: So then it becomes a question of whether to potential good outwheighs the potential for abuse. I guess I simply do not see the argument as being so "one-sided".

Isn't the question of whether a potential good outweighs the potential for abuse the very nature of all political argument?

What do you imagine would prevent the rollback of pretty much every labor reform of the 20th century if unions vanished?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Public opinion? Shame? Internet trouble-makers such as you and I? An angry mob?

Do the unions have to exist in thier current form, to achieve thier stated goals? Personally I'm more of a "right to work" kind of guy.

[paft.livejournal.com]

p: What do you imagine would prevent the rollback of pretty much every labor reform of the 20th century if unions vanished?
s: Public opinion? Shame?

Hey, let's legalize murder, rape and robbery! Surely public opinion and shame would do their jobs to prevent such crimes!

Right?

s: Internet trouble-makers such as you and I? An angry mob?

Riggght. Those corporations are reading these threads and shaking in their boots!

An angry mob will do nothing more than give them a rationale for violence.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

That is a specious argument and you know it.

You asked what prevents those laws from being repealed and I responded. The answer is the same thing that prevents rape from being legalised, public outrage.

[paft.livejournal.com]

What prevents rape from being legalized is a long-standing tradition of rape being illegal. The laws against worker safety and child labor are recent by comparison and do not have the same background. I've not heard many right wingers arguing that rape should be legalized (except for marital rape.). I HAVE heard quite a few right wingers arguing against child labor laws and worker safety laws.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

And this would be one of those "fundimentals" on which we disagree. The current generation of workers and mangment have grown up with these laws in place and thus I do not see thier position as being so precarious.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

management

[paft.livejournal.com]

The current generations of workers have watched their salaries stagnate and pensions and benefits that their parents took for granted disappear. To imagine that workers' "clout" (which is pitiful) and the good will of management will prevent recent advances in labor laws from eroding it beyond naive.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I don't know if you've noticed but the whole economy is stagnating.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Not for everyone. While average employee salaries have stagnated, CEO income has risen over the past twenty years.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Aside from the eternal constant of greed, What does that have to do with anything?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Paft: While average employee salaries have stagnated, CEO income has risen over the past twenty years.
s: Aside from the eternal constant of greed, What does that have to do with anything?

It's a direct response to your claim that "the whole economy is stagnating." It's not been "stagnating" for CEOs and other high paying executives. Quite the contrary.