The editorial cartoon above by Phil Hands has sparked some interesting debate. Hands published the cartoon along with an editorial in which he noted that he’s usually liberal, but in the case of the current Wisconsin budget crisis found himself siding with the Republican governor against employee unions. Tom Spurgeon read the editorial and complimented Hands for his courage in stating his beliefs.
Martin Wisse then then argued that the cartoon is lousy and spouting right-wing talking points is not especially courageous. To which Tom responded.
To restate: if we take him at his word, this is an honest expression of a specific political idea that runs counter to his general political leanings, and, on top of that, will likely earn him no amount of shit from his readers — and, as we likely both agree, history. He’s also going to have to watch people with whom he generally disagrees praise the cartoon to the skies. Heck, he’s even having his motives disparaged in tweets and blog posts from a guy not even in the US!
I think that specific kind of honesty is brave, whether or not someone is right or wrong, and I’d prefer every editorial cartoonist work the same way even if the cartoons don’t end up hitting on the best side of an issue. We have all sorts of editorial cartoonists in this country that are so terrified of being criticized that they don’t have any opinions at all, let alone ones about which they’re conflicted, and spend their days trying to find the most politically expedient way not to say anything at all. If you don’t agree that this is a virtue, fine, but please disagree with that point, not some made-up fantasy one that I think this is a good cartoon.
Tom’s logic here is curious. After all, if the criteria for admirability is (a) honest expression of beliefs, (b) taking shit from readers, and (c) going against one’s usual political leanings, then, in theory, Hands would be even more admirable if he had created a vicious white supremacist cartoon depicting black people as inferior apes who deserve to be enslaved. Presuming Hands suddenly really believed that blacks were inferior, such a public stance would undoubtedly be courageous; it would probably result not just in a few nasty emails, but in the termination of his career. Would Tom still feel that his stance was admirable? Would the admirableness of that stance be really the thing to focus on, or might it be more worthwhile to focus on, say, other factors?
This isn’t an entirely academic exercise. Racist cartoons have been created, after all. Here’s one.
That’s by Thomas Nast, titled “Colored Rule in a Reconstructed State.” It was created in 1874, and is a condemnation of interracial Reconstruction governments in the south. The cartoon arguably satisfies Tom’s criteria of admirability. Nast had (like many in the North) been in favor of racial equality through the Civil War. His move to racism mirrored an end of racial idealism in the north in the face of southern resistance — but. It was presumably sincere, it went against his earlier political beliefs, and no doubt it alienated a portion of his admirers. So do we pat Nast on the head for his bravery in penning this cartoon? Or what?
Tom explicates his position a little bit more here.
I wrote Monday about a recent cartoon on the Wisconsin teachers’ issue with which I didn’t agree because I admired the notion put forward by the cartoonist that he was following his opinion on the specific matter despite that opinion running counter to his general political beliefs. I didn’t talk about the quality of that cartoon on purpose, because 1) I didn’t think that was germane to that particular bit of praise and 2) I think processing art according to how it satisfies or runs up against our personal political beliefs is a sign of the laziness and decadence of our general political conversation.
The use of “decadence” there seems really confused. Decadence is usually seen as putting aesthetic concerns before ethical ones. Judging politics in relation to art may be wrong for any number of reasons (at least arguably), but it’s the opposite of decadent. To the extent that our political conversation is decadent, it’s not because people take their beliefs seriously enough to bring them to the art they enjoy, but because of a corrosive centrism which insists that no beliefs are as important as collegiality and not making waves (which actually seems to dovetail with Tom’s point above about the lack of convictions among political cartoonists.)
Another problem with our political conversation is lying. And I would argue that Hands’ cartoon comes quite close to doing just that.
My central problem with this cartoon isn’t that I disagree with it. It’s that it’s built around a caricature which is deceitful. The guy in the chair is portrayed as an aging hippie, the implication being that the protesting public workers are just old, pampered, addled aging boomers, hoping to capture the glory days of the 60s, man. Which, of course, is utter nonsense. The protestors are mostly working people of various ages — and the union movement in Wisconsin did not originate, and was not especially associated, with the counter-cultural left. Hands is using easy culture-war tropes to slime his political opponents. It’s not clear to me why that’s deserving of praise, no matter how honestly intended (whatever “honesty” could mean in this instance given the misleading nature of the caricature.)
What’s tricky about Hands’ position here — and why I think Tom somewhat confusingly keeps arguing that he’s not talking about the cartoon — is that Hands’ essay is actually infinitely more reasonable than his drawing. In that essay, he says this:
I believe that public employees should be well compensated for the valuable work they do. In fact, exceptional public employees should be exceptionally compensated (something that most unions have fought against in favor of pay based on seniority). But like the rest of us in this economy public employees need to make sacrifices.
That is why I hope they will support the compromise of Republican Sen. Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, that the Wisconsin State Journal endorsed in an editorial today. Schultz’s plan is the same as Walker’s except that it calls for a sunset clause that would reinstate collective bargaining rights for public workers in 2013, after this budget crisis is presumably over.
Now, I don’t really agree with that…but it’s honest and forthright and a reasonable contribution to the debate. It’s not a stupid, lying, piece of horseshit propaganda, which, I would argue, the cartoon is. I can see why Tom would praise the essay, and why he would repeatedly insist he’s not praising the cartoon.
What I have trouble understanding is why, having praised the essay, Tom would then use reaction to the cartoon as an occasion to lambast those who disagree with what Hands drew. It seems to me that Hands is an artist using his art to create political commentary. The art he created is lousy (if we agree that using misleading stereotypes is lousy) and the political commentary idiotic (if we agree that political commentary via misleading stereotypes is idiotic.) Pointing that out is not a “sign of the laziness and decadence of our general political conversation.” Rather, it’s engaging with the art as if you have some sort of aesthetic and political standards.
And, I’d argue, it’s those same aesthetic and political standards that make Hands’ essay (more) worthwhile. His essay is better art, and better politics, than his cartoon. But you can’t really arrive at that conclusion if you put art and politics aside to praise the mere utterance of a contrarian opinion as in itself somehow worthy of merit. I think Ulysses S. Grant maybe struck a better balance, in acknowledging his opponents commitment, and honoring them for it, while being careful to remind his readers that that commitment had to be evaluated most importantly in the context of its content.
I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us…
Update: Martin Wisse and Tom go another round. Scroll down for Tom’s comments, in which he says, among other things:
Are you saying that honest expression isn’t more admirable than jaded disingenousness? Are you suggesting that honest opinions lead to worse cartooning than disingenuous ones?
I would say, for my part, that an honest expression of racism is in fact less admirable than a jaded, disingenuous embrace of anti-racism, yeah. And in part that’s because what people believe often follows from what they do, rather than the other way around. It isn’t just beliefs that influence actions; actions influence beliefs. So a jaded, disingenuous decision to act morally can actually lead to believing morally. That happens all the time — as does the opposite, where people act immorally and then change their opinions to justify it.
To mangle poor Barry Goldwater, honesty in the defense of vice is not a virtue. Or at least it’s not the virtue, to be praised in splendid isolation from questions of content or truth.
I can sort of understand an appreciation for honesty in cartooning, especially when so much political commentary consists of regurgitated talking points.
But it seems to me that honesty is the bare minimum to expect from an editorial cartoonist. Praising a cartoonist for honesty is like praising them for basic draftsmanship. That shit should be a given.
And I don’t see much evidence that cartoonists, by and large, are afraid to express their beliefs, or are (intentionally) dishonest. When I posted those Egyptian protest cartoons, most of the cartoons seemed very honest to me, at least to the extent that they reflected the artists political views. Of course, many of those cartoons were also racist and anti-Muslim.
I’m sure Tom looks at a lot more editorial cartoons most of us do, so maybe that’s set his expectations really low…?
I would think one might also wish that a political cartoonist would learn the facts of an issue. The unions agreed to an 8 percent cut in pay. That’s pretty substantial; much more than many of us have given up (me, for instance). Also, the idea that unions are the problem that is crippling state and local governments is sort of an urban myth. When you look into it — if you bother to look into it – the problem is pretty obvious. As James Carville said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Revenues are way down, and the need for services is up. And in times like these, stupid ideas politicians got away with before, like prolonged “pension holidays,” come home to roost. But it’s always easier to just oversimplify and blast away. Courageous, even!
I think it’s that Democrats (outside of Wisconsin) in general are pretty happy to distance themselves from organized labor. Ditto on Jon Stewart. It’s like Obama (whom I still support) and others ditching liberal stands on gun control, foreign wars, etc., so they can get back to focusing on core issues, like… um…. oh yeah! green entrepreneurship!
———————–
Noah Berlatsky says:
My central problem with this cartoon isn’t that I disagree with it. It’s that it’s built around a caricature which is deceitful.
———————–
A stereotype “worthy” of a Bruce Tinsley. Well-argued essay, Noah.
For me, the worst part is that those substantial cuts are trivialized as “nipping the end off a ponytail”; with kiddie scissors, yet.
From Hands’ essay:
————————
I don’t have a problem with unions in the private sector. Private sector workers should have a chance to collectively bargain for a greater share of the profits they generate. While public sector workers perform valuable services that make society livable, they don’t generate profits for the state government. When public sector unions negotiate, the entity on the other side of the collective bargaining table isn’t some greedy corporation, it’s us, the taxpayers.
————————-
So, is it only those whose work “generate[s] profits” who deserve collective bargaining rights? And the collective bargaining doesn’t only involve pay, but working safety and conditions.
And, because it’s “us, the taxpayers” who are the employer, does that then mean our employees are therefore less deserving of rights?
—————————
…But like the rest of us in this economy public employees need to make sacrifices.
—————————
Since the governor proposing those cuts is a Republican, how much y’wanna bet he’s in favor of cutting taxes for the rich? In other words, everybody except those who can easily afford it is asked to make sacrifices?
—————————-
Wisconsin’s new Republican governor has framed his assault on public worker’s collective bargaining rights as a needed measure of fiscal austerity during tough times.
The reality is radically different. Unlike true austerity measures — service rollbacks, furloughs, and other temporary measures that cause pain but save money — rolling back worker’s bargaining rights by itself saves almost nothing on its own. But Walker’s doing it anyhow, to knock down a barrier and allow him to cut state employee benefits immediately.
…the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office.
…To the extent that there is an imbalance — Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit — it is not because of a drop in revenues or increases in the cost of state employee contracts, benefits or pensions. It is because Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups in January…
——————————
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/wisconsin-gov-walker-ginned-up-budget-shortfall-to-undercut-worker-rights.php
A pleasure to see the Democratic legislators in Wisconsin actually resisting this scam (for which they’ll be attacked as being “partisan,” unlike the other side). Obama – who makes Neville Chamberlain look like George S. Patton – would’ve instantly caved in, and tossed in a few more concessions.
Yeah…you and kinukitty have both convinced me I was too easy on the essay. I still maintain it’s better than the cartoon, though.
For sure! The cartoon’s abysmal…
——————–
Richard Cook says:
I can sort of understand an appreciation for honesty in cartooning, especially when so much political commentary consists of regurgitated talking points.
But it seems to me that honesty is the bare minimum to expect from an editorial cartoonist…
———————-
Though I’d hardly expect anything resembling honesty when there are ideological axes to grind, particularly when it comes to those from the Right, where virtually every argument they make is a lie.
The limitations of one-panel cartooning to express complexity or ambiguity brought this Tim Kreider cartoon to mind:
http://i1123.photobucket.com/albums/l542/Mike_59_Hunter/MySlogan.jpg
In the archives at http://www.thepaincomics.com/ , Kreider’s commentary re this 1/16/02 cartoon reads, in part:
———————-
Thoughtful, modulated voices tend to get drowned out or ignored in debate–especially in the media, which invariably seeks out the most simplistic, sensational sound bite from either extreme of the political spectrum (represented in this cartoon by the dewy-eyed hippie chick on the Left and the beefy crewcut guy on the Right). The problem, I decided, is that my opinion doesn’t fit on a sign…
————————
Or in the typical editorial cartoon, either! Speaking of “regurgitated talking points,” he continues:
————————
…let me suggest that if your own political views can be made to fit on a sign you may not be all that smart. Last night on the subway platform I was peering over a girl’s shoulder at a paper she was studying that proved to be a list of “talking points,” prepackaged rhetorical tactics to memorize, rehearse, and use in public debate with officials about abortion. I couldn’t tell, from that cursory glance, whether she was with the anti-choice or pro-death factions (from her fairly hip, alternative dress and general attractiveness I’d guess the latter), but either way it made me feel sort of queasy and revolted at the thought of joining any organization where they hand you your ideas on pre-printed sheets and tell you what to say and how to say it. There’s nothing wrong with learning from people who’ve given an issue more study and thought than you, but if you’re just going to think exactly what they think and parrot what they say, what the hell’s the point of you?
————————-
That last part is a nice anecdote and the concluding statement undoubtedly true, but there’s such a thing as marshaling your forces for public engagements (and it was only a single girl). Makes you more coherent as a public organization (lobbying group?) and maybe even more effective. Just because you’re “liberal” doesn’t mean you can’t be smart/Machiavellian. Nevertheless, the warning against groupthink is quite reasonable.
Nobody has mentioned that Mohammed-with-a-bomb-turban cartoon yet. Which I guess I’m only bringing up to suggest that the medium of editorial cartoons kind of has its own inherent ideological baggage (oddly refracted, like much print cartooning, by being a fairly dead medium with a specialized audience), which is the highly presumptuous conceit of constantly speaking some kind of truth to power– which works well when it’s cryptic death-hallucination morality play like in Bosch, Holbein, Hogarth, Posada, or Art Young, and ceases to actually have anything useful to say, contra the “talking points are bad” comments above, in a nuanced argument.
Mike: I don’t think the cartoonist made the best argument for being against public-workers unions, but F.D.R made a pretty good one;
“Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …”
I don’t see what’s so bad about his cartoon, either. I lived in Madison, and you can’t really think about rallying at the capitol without thinking about hippies and SDSers in the 60’s. Now they’re old and they’re back. And they’re fat. And lazy.
I think Walker is kind of a goon, but I think his tax cut isn’t being seen in the right context here. He’s opposed to many forms of taxation, said so, and got elected. The taxes that he cut were never owned by the state and therefore never lost.
Why is wanting to cut those taxes and wanting to cut benefits for state workers viewed as incongruous?
I read this article and thought it brought up some interesting points: http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2011/02/wisconsins-unions-can-use-a-good-kick-in-the-ass/
Check it out.
“The use of “decadence” there seems really confused. Decadence is usually seen as putting aesthetic concerns before ethical ones. ”
But in the context Tom was used it, the “aesthetic” is the sensation that one gets by having their own views reflected back towards them. It’s the feeling of being on a team. That’s not a matter of working out arguments and moving forward in a rational way, which is what we should all be trying to do.
Tome is right.
I read this great paper the other day that deals with the ( measurable phenomenon) of Cognitive Dissonance; basically how we find ways around hearing things we don’t want to hear. It’s an all-pervasive phenomenon; it occurs throughout all human interactions.
You need to develop the brain muscles to counteract Cognitive Dissonance, and that’s something we’e seemingly given up on, as a culture because it’s easier not. It’s nicer to feel good about yourself. That’s decadence.
Here’s the paper:
http://p2pfoundation.net/Cognitive_Dissonance_and_Non-adaptive_Architecture
Hey Uland.
The union workers are ready to take very large cuts in salary and benefits. It’s the governor’s desire to cut all collective bargaining rights that is the sticking point.
The fact that you think about union workers in a stereotypical way which has nothing to do with the actual people involved or with the history of unions in wisconsin doesn’t change the fact that it’s a not very well thought through stereotype. And redefining decadence and aesthetic to mean what you want them to mean isn’t a very convincing argumentative tactic, I don’t think.
Plenty of people hate unions, anyway. Lots of democrats and liberals too, as Bert points out. It’s not exactly a controversial position, so the claim that he’s somehow not on a team seems specious.
Well, I disagree that it’s not a well thought through stereotype. I think it’s as accurate as cartoon stereotypes can be. A handful of my uncles and aunts are teachers in the Milwaukee area, and a couple of cousins too. They don’t have long hair, but they maintain 60’s era ( and oft harken back to the glory days of Millwaukee Socialism) delusions.
The message is that they need to get serious and start dealing in the economic realities. Whether they were brought about the democratic election of a guy who ran on the idea of cutting taxes and spending, or have been long-simmering changes nothing.
I made a few different points. One had to do with tightening the belt, so to speak, but the other is one F.D.R made for me; public employees have a very different charge. They are employed by the people, not by private industry; they need to adapt to the democratic desire of the people, and shouldn’t be able to operate as a distinct special interest.
I believe in collective bargaining otherwise as much as I believe in the employers ability to refuse to bargain, and that his refusal can, ethically speaking, result in firing people he doesn’t want to bargain with.
Uland–
If you want to argue governmental politics, I’m more than happy to jump in. A good deal of what you say should be countered.
First of all, FDR’s opinions are not the be-all, end-all for those who favor social-democratic policies. I don’t agree with his views on Japanese-American internment, either. And correct me if I’m wrong, but he was discussing this issue hypothetically; his reasoning was not based on experience. I also believe this was in private correspondence. It was not a public position.
The reason for collective bargaining for public employees is that without them, the expenditures on compensation and working conditions take on a political element that is all but guaranteed to drive down the quality of public services. Without CB rights, public employees become helpless punching bags for whatever politicians happen to be in power. This drives the better people out of public-sector employment, and those who stick around are usually those who have no choice but to take any job they can get. We’re already seeing the substantial negative impact of the drains on public education and the more specialized areas of law enforcement because the public sector cannot compete with private-sector compensation packages. It’s a situation that’s been intentionally exacerbated by three decades of campaigns from entrenched economic interests that promote disdain for public service. We’ve come a long way since JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
The “economic realities” are that U.S. government entities cannot persist in cutting themselves off from the revenue sources of corporations and high-income individuals without turning the country into the equivalent of a Third-World oligarchy. If you want to see where the policies you appear to endorse lead, I suggest you take a good hard look at Guatemala and countries like it.
Wisconsin’s governor has been pretty decisively shown to be an oligarchic errand boy who has no interest in the public will. He rode into office on a wave of general dissatisfaction with the economy. He did not campaign on ending public CB rights, and his efforts to steamroller this legislation through upon taking office demonstrate that he sought to make it a done deal before people realized that’s what he was after. Polling shows that a clear majority of Wisconsinites are opposed to him on this. You might want to keep that in mind before lecturing about the “need to adapt to the democratic desire of the people.”
Robert— I’m not sure whether or not the majority in Wisconsin opposes or supports the bill. I imagine that if these “rights” are stripped, and this causes massive dissent, they will be returned next cycle.
I’m not sure why FDR held the views that he did, but I agree with him. That’s why I posted his quote.
I agree with many critics that the power of collective bargaining has not led to greater quality in the public sector, and I don’t know that they now attract quality workers. I do know that they don’t do a very good job right now.
I don’t view a sensible restriction on public sector unions as de facto support for corporatism or oligarcich in nature. I certainly do not support corporate welfare and do not think corporations should enjoy the “rights” they do today. You should keep in mind that corporations are creations of the state.
I support limiting state power in basically every way.
And really, it’s pretty difficult to argue that the Democratic House members who’re hiding out are not obstructing the Democratic process right now.
I’m sure you’d be quite happy if politicians you support had the balls to bring a bill to the house that you thought was very important in the way WI Republicans have.
They saw an opportunity and went for it. That’s how the game is played.
If you’re in favor of “limited state power”, Uland, why weaken a check on state power such as a union?
State workers are agents of the State. They are an extension of State power.
So…state workers should be weakened in order to give state officials more power because that will give the state less power?
That can’t be what you mean, but I’m not following the logic….
Isn’t the peaceful protest by citizens and state workers in Wisconsin a dramatic challenge to state power? Really, a far more dramatic challenge than the tea party has been able to mount, it seems like….
Also…I don’t think it’s right to say that Walker is playing a clever pragmatic game. He totally overreached, screwed up, and as a result his authority has been seriously undermined and the state is in chaos. All because he refused to compromise basically at all. It’s not a very impressive display.
The state should have never given that power to Unions.This is an attempt to fix that mistake and restore needed balance.
We’ll see whether Walker screwed up next election cycle. It was certainly risky, but I know I respect that kind of thing when I support the policy, just as I’m sure you would.
I mean, if Democrats could sneak through, or force through a revocation of corporate privileges, I’d be cheering like a maniac.
If Republicans left town to avoid a quorum, Lefties would be storming the castle with pitch forks in hand. That would be a good thing, too.
The state gave up and divided its power because of organizing and action by the people. As a result, state power is checked by other institutions. That’s a reduction of state power.
I guess it would depend on the morality involved, sure. I think the federal government was right to push back against massive resistance in Jim Crow in the south. I have trouble seeing Walker’s decisions as embodying that kind of moral vision (not that the federal government in those cases didn’t have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a moral position…but still.)
I don’t think the State caving to Unions has resulted in an additional check anywhere else. This is what FDR was talking about, really; public workers cannot be viewed as a distinct body in the same way other unions can, because the democratic process requires public work to be subject to that dynamic.
““It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany — the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O — in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.”
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions
If State workers are agents of the state, they need to be subject to the same checks and balances that the rest of the State is. By allowing them additional “rights”, you give them inordinate, extra-governmental power . It’s a state within a state.their collective bargaining privileges render decent checks and balances moot.
What the State gives, the State can take away. Sometimes they should.
I do see a coherent morality behind Walkers’ efforts, but that’s contingent for everyone upon how much value one places on public works. I value some more than others, but I don’t value any them enough to give them so much power.
It seems as though people imagine that public works are what makes society function. As we’ve seen, when a society becomes dysfunctional, that simply spreads to the public sector as well.
Sometimes the only way to protect ourselves from this disfunction is to sever those ties and fire those who promote it.
In order to do this, the State needs to revoke these inordinate protections.
There’s a joke that’s circulating on Facebook right now:
A public union employee, a tea party activist, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, “Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie.”
This encapsulates my core complaint with the Tea Party perspective: it is completely oblivious to the conduct of big business and the role they play in shaping contemporary U.S. society. The middle-class way of life is being stolen out from under them, and they think it’s all the fault of greedy public-sector unions and people who abuse social safety net programs. With them, big business wears the Ring of Gyges.
I read through what Uland has written here, and he too seems completely oblivious to the fact that big business is at least as much a ruling entity in our society as the state. Unbelievably, he actually seems to think that big business is an agent of the state, as if oligarchs like the Koch brothers are subordinate to Wisconsin’s governor rather than the other way around.
He does not recognize that there has been a full-scale war by oligarchic interests on the middle-class for at least 30 years now. Unions, the great bulwark of middle-class interests, have been a key target. He can’t even pay them the respect of acknowledging that in our present electoral system, they’re the only effective voice of dissent against oligarchic interests in the shaping of political campaigns and candidates. Without them, our politicians only have the oligarchs to go to for funding. Which is why the oligarchs want the unions gone; they can’t have a monopoly on our political discourse until then.
Uland, can’t you at least acknowledge them as a necessary evil? You write, “I certainly do not support corporate welfare and do not think corporations should enjoy the ‘rights’ they do today.” However, you support a course of public action that will enable what you say you’re opposed to. Without unions, there’s no source of political power for those who share your view of this.
Actions such as filibusters and the denial of quorum are the parliamentary versions of strikes; they’re a last-resort move to force the continuation of negotiations, and they’re usually a sign that negotiations have broken down. Wisconsin’s governor has not shown the slightest interest in negotiating anything. He also sought to push this legislation through in a rush-rush, dead-of-night fashion, all of which points to the corrupt goal of making it a done deal before people were aware of what was going on. He clearly does not want scrutiny or discussion of what he’s doing. In the event of that type of conduct, I do feel extreme moves like the Wisconsin 14’s denial of quorum are justified. It has nothing to do with partisanship; there are standards of decency and respect for transparency and dissent that I feel are far more important.
By the way, here’s one poll. It shows Wisconsinites opposed to the gutting of collective-bargaining rights 54-41. To avoid charges of partisan bias, I note that it was conducted by right-wing pollster Dick Morris and is discussed in an article from the website of U.S. News & World Distor… [ahem] Report, edited and published by the vociferously anti-union Mort Zuckerman. If Uland likes, I can show him several others from sources that aren’t as conspicuously biased in the Wisconsin governor’s favor.
You’re conflating the Republican party’s ties to oligargich interests with the specific policy of reducing the power of public unions.
There is no direct relationship between the two. If you’re really concerned with keeping corporations in check, I trust you did not support president Obama, or the vast majority of the Democrats in Congress.
The relations between the two interests ( State and Corporate) are thoroughly interwoven. It’s not a matter of one leading the other; they are one.
I don’t speak for “tea party” members. I agree that they’re mostly rubes, but if you look at the position of a Ron Paul, for example, you’ll be sure to note a pretty thorough and consistent political philosophy that includes stripping corporations of the privileged position that yes, the state has created. This would include making sure that a corporation were just as liable for any form of wrongdoing that any citizen would be and stripping them of all forms of corporate welfare and subsidy.
I think you’re viewing the ongoing struggle in Wisconsin in terms of a larger culture-war kind of scenario. I’m not interested in that sort of thing. I think it makes for the kinds of conflations you’ve pronounced.
In four years when the issue comes up again, and 14 Republicans head for the hills in order to avoid they’re duty as elected officials, I hope you keep your sound ethics in place.
I think this kind of middle american populism can, in fact, check oligarchic power, as when those horrid tea partiers in Congress voted down the Patriot act recently. Didn’t Obama cram it through anyhow?
hmm…
You’re conflating the Republican party’s ties to oligargich interests with the specific policy of reducing the power of public unions.
There is no direct relationship between the two.
There’s exactly a relationship between the two. If you examine campaign donations and expenditures during the last cycle (click here, you will see that among the top ten spending outside groups, only three are identified with advocacy of liberal policies: the SEIU, AFSCME, and NEA. All three are unions, and the latter two are public-sector unions. Destroy their collective-bargaining rights, and the unions become worthless to their membership. That’s the end of dues-paying, which is the end of political donations from that source, as well as that source’s political influence.
The GOP had their eye on 20 gubernatorial pick-ups this last cycle. They only got 12, and they blame the losses on competitive campaign financing from unions. The moves against unions in Wisconsin and elsewhere get their urgency from the perceived need to make a preemptive attack before the 2012 cycle. It’s the equivalent of taking a tire iron to a competitor’s knee.
And no, I did not vote for Obama in 2008. It was the first time in over 20 years that I abstained from voting in the presidential election. My research into Obama in 2007 and 2008 showed him to be an unprincipled social climber with no real interest in public policy. He sees politics and government as a means for his own aggrandizement, nothing more.
Oh, here’s the campaign finance link referred to above:
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/index.php
I must not have filled the tag.
Oh, I know there is a relationship between the party and moneyed interests. My point is that there is also a sound political philosophy that would have an end to public unions with or without those moneyed connections.
It seems like you’re saying that because these interests support the Republican party, whatever that party passes must benefit those interests directly. I don’t see that here. I see a pretty coherent and principled kind of thinking behind this effort, much like the tea-partiers effort to vote down the Patriot Act.
It also seems like you’ve decided that because the protesters seem like the people who’d oppose corporatism, whatever they want is good.
Libertarianism is “a sound political philosophy”? That characterization explains a lot.
I’m done here.
Well, you’re just proving my theory. It’s not about whether you believe that philosophy correct, but that it can count as one. It is sound in that it seeks to prove itself via reason, just as all modern political philosophies must.
It has nothing to do with whether you agree with it.
But you should argue it on those terms, I think. The argument that what’s going on is wrong because it might benefit those you don’t like is not very convincing, and you haven’t even shown how it benefits the oligarchs ( who certainly enjoy mass-man labor in China, for example, and offer plenty of benefits to the workers they value.).
Walter Russell Mead has a very interesting essay in this month’s Foreign Affairs situating the Tea Party in the tradition of Jacksonian populism; he touches on some consideration of libertarian populism.
I think you can read it online even if you’re not a subscriber: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67455/walter-russell-mead/the-tea-party-and-american-foreign-policy