On 6/8/07, Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the US in the late 1960s, international competition and a fear of losing social status transformed Rooseveltian leftwing populism--optimistic, victorious, and egalitarian, with shared aspirations for a better life--into a rightwing populism that exploited electors' fear of being overtaken by those who were even poorer. That was the moment when the Republicans managed to introduce a new dividing line, not between rich and poor, capital and labor; but between people in work and people on welfare, between whites and ethnic minorities, workers and scroungers. <<<<<>>>>>
I'm not sure what constituted New Deal populism but the labor-liberal coalition that emerged during the 1930s was not nearly as potent as some have suggested. For example, passage of the National Labor Relations Act depended upon acquiesence to the South; thus, many of the region's workers - agricultural, seasonal, & domestic, most of whom were African-American - were not covered by the legislation. Southern planter capitalists were cozy with FDR, their congressional representatives controlled the institution's committees via the seniority system, and southern senators' willingness were always willing to filibuster on issues important to them (at a time when ending such action required 67 rather than 60 members, making it even more difficult). Emasculation of the NLRA was not long in coming as southern economic and political elites turned against the Act because of their opposition to integrated union organizing in the region. Their efforts to undermine labor protection began within a year of the 1938 passage of the NLRA when southern politicians, National Association of Manufacturers' representatives, and AFL leaders (opposed to sit-down strikes and concerned with CIO growth) met to consider ideas later incorporated into the post-WW2 anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act. This legislation would likely have passed years before it did in 1947 had it not been for the war. Michael Hoover
