Ray Harrell wrote: > They should have stuck with the children of Rome?
I said go back several decades, not a couple of millennia. ;-) > > REH > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sandwichman > Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 2:39 PM > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Where's Kansas gone? > > Based on Kevin Drum's "nickel version" review, I'd have to say that > the books' historical vision is extremely short sighted. As the maxim > says, pride cometh before a fall. The foundation for the undoing of > the labor unions was laid during the 1950s and 60s -- presumably their > heyday. There were two components to the decline: the purge of > left-wing unionists in the late 1940s and early 1950s under the > impetus of rabid, pathological anti-communism and the fusion of the > AFL-CIO's top leadership to the political fortunes of the Democratic > Party, with its cold war military Keynesian economic strategy. > > The AFL-CIO's cold-war Keynesianism paid short-term dividends in > return for hitching labor's fortunes to a political party over which > it had only minor influence. The desertion of liberal money to > "postmaterialist" causes in the 1960s was a symptom and not a cause > of the self-inflicted decline of the unions. Last night, I went to a > very informative talk by the executive director of the BlueGreen > Alliance. When I asked him about the absence of work time reduction > from the agenda of the alliance, he answered that more leisure was > indeed an important goal they should be pursuing and he attributed the > abandonment of the issue by the unions to the effects of > globalization. His version of history was anachronistic, though. The > unions effectively abandoned shorter hours as a strategy in the 1950s > (see "Guns, butter, Leon Keyserling, the AFL-CIO, and the fate of > full--employment economics" by Edmund Wehrle and Labor's Time: Shorter > Hours, the UAW, and the Sruggle for American Unionism by Jonathan > Cutler). The unions, in effect, enthusiastically helped build the > "economic growth uber alles imperative" that ultimately undid them. > > In history it's just one thing after another. You've got to go back > several decades before the period you're talking about to pick up the > threads. > > On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Arthur Cordell <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Seems like a good analysis. I wonder if the authors offer some > recommendations. >> >> >> >> arthur >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick >> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 9:41 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [Futurework] Where's Kansas gone? >> >> >> >> From the Mother Jones website. >> >> >> >> Ed >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> >> Here's What's the Matter With Kansas >> >> - By Kevin Drum >> >> | Fri Sep. 10, 2010 2:00 AM PDT >> >> - Image from Winner-Take-All Politics >> >> Why has income inequality grown so explosively over the past 30 years? Why > do so many working and middle class voters cast their ballots for a party > that's so obviously a captive of corporations and the rich? Why is there no > longer any real sustained effort to improve the lot of the middle class? >> >> There's no shortage of answers. There's the "What's the Matter With > Kansas" theory. There's the demise of labor unions. There's the well-worn > story of the rise of conservative think tanks. There's the impact of > globalization on unskilled and semi-skilled labor. There's the growing > returns to education in a world that grows more complex every year. >> >> But these are all limited and therefore unsatisfactory explanations, and > no one has yet put them all together into a single organic whole that feels > genuinely complete and compelling. Until now. The book that finally does it > is called Winner-Take-All Politics, by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, and it > puts together all of these pieces with a clarity of explanation that's > breathtaking. I hesitate to summarize their argument for fear of ruining it, > but here's the nickel version: >> >> In the 60s, at the same time that labor unions begin to decline, liberal > money and energy starts to flow strongly toward "postmaterialist" issues: > civil rights, feminism, environmentalism, gay rights, etc. These are the > famous "interest groups" that take over the Democratic Party during the > subsequent decades. >> At about the same time, business interests take stock of the country's > anti-corporate mood and begin to pool their resources to push for generic > pro-business policies in a way they never had before. Conservative think > tanks start to press a business-friendly agenda and organizations like the > Chamber of Commerce start to fundraise on an unprecedented scale. This level > of persistent, organizational energy is something new. >> Unions, already in decline, are the particular focus of business animus. > As they decline, they leave a vacuum. There's no other nationwide > organization dedicated to persistently fighting for middle class economic > issues and no other nationwide organization that's able to routinely > mobilize working class voters to support or oppose specific federal > policies. (In both items #2 and #3, note the focus on persistent > organizational pressure. This is key.) >> With unions in decline and political campaigns becoming ever more > expensive, Democrats eventually decide they need to become more business > friendly as well. This is a vicious circle: the more unions decline, the > more that Democrats turn to corporate funding to survive. There is, in the > end, simply no one left who's fighting for middle class economic issues in a > sustained and organized way. Conversely, there are lots of extremely > well-funded and determined organizations fighting for the interests of > corporations and the rich. >> >> The result is exactly what you'd expect. With liberal money and energy > focused mostly on non-economic concerns, the country moves steadily leftward > on social issues. With conservative money and energy focused mostly on the > interests of corporations and the rich-and with no one really fighting > back-the country moves steadily rightward on econonomic issues. Thomas > Frank's famous working-class Kansans who vote against their own economic > interests are easily explained. It's not just that conservatives appeal to > them on social grounds, it's that there's no one left to really make the > economic case to them in the first place. And even if anyone did, they have > little reason to believe that Democrats would actually follow through in > concrete ways. So why not vote on abortion and gay rights instead? >> >> I'm not doing Pierson and Hacker justice here. In fact, I'm not really > even trying to. What I am doing is telling you to buy a copy of their book > and read it. Seriously. Just get a copy and read at least Parts I and II. No > book is perfect, and I feel a little silly gushing too much, but this is the > most complete and sustained explanation I've ever read of why, over the past > 30 years, America has gone the direction it has even while most other > countries haven't. And although Hacker and Pierson's sympathies are obvious, > this isn't a polemic. It's an explanation. For me, it was a 300-page "Aha!" > moment. >> >> More later. In the meantime, though, buy the book. I can almost guarantee > you won't be disappointed. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Futurework mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >> > > > > -- > Sandwichman > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
