Labor Unions Now Reaching Out to Republicans

[Stardust]

It wouldn't be the first time the AFL-CIO kowtowed to reactionary forces as a way of guaranteeing its continued place among elite political institutions. Look up the 'American Institute for Free Labor Development', which was the labor organizing arm of the CIA.

[Stardust]

But such was a temporary occurance.

Oh, I doubt that. Reagan actually strengthened the power of the establishment unions when he invited them into the discussion on reciprocal tariffs against Japan, and it's little surprise he did. The GOP base has always been far more heavily unionized than they ever will be willing to admit. And what better way to appeal to the AFL-CIO rank-and-file than through Reagan, one of their own?

[Stardust]

But such was a temporary occurance.

Oh, I doubt that. Reagan actually strengthened the power of the establishment unions when he invited them into the discussion on reciprocal tariffs against Japan, and it's little surprise he did. The GOP base has always been far more heavily unionized than they ever will be willing to admit. And what better way to appeal to the AFL-CIO rank-and-file than through Reagan, one of their own?

So are you claiming that the GOP has been consistently winning 50%, or comming close to it, of the union vote in 50-50 elections ever since Reagan? If not, I don't see how he permenently changed the overall dynamic.

Not fifty percent or close to it, but a far higher share than any other conservative Party in the Anglosphere, and aside from the Christian Democratic parties of western Europe, higher than any conservative Party of which I am aware. All this because the GOP is at its heart a cultural-populist Party which has no problem trafficking with such things.

[Stardust]

Which doesn't contradict a thing I said. Of course the Republicans win a good chunk of union votes, but they don't "win" them the way Reagan did, on a consistent basis. Which is why I called it a temporary occurance, a statement which you objected to. The only way to object would be to argue otherwise, which is simply not the case. 

Your statement that it was a 'temporary occurance' implies that American politics follows the traditional model, which is not the case. Most of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing, and they vote Republican all out of proportion to the way they 'ought' to according to the traditional understanding of the political axis. It's not 'temporary', except in the sense that it was a temporary spike in an already-strong trend.

[Stardust]

Which doesn't contradict a thing I said. Of course the Republicans win a good chunk of union votes, but they don't "win" them the way Reagan did, on a consistent basis. Which is why I called it a temporary occurance, a statement which you objected to. The only way to object would be to argue otherwise, which is simply not the case. 

Your statement that it was a 'temporary occurance' implies that American politics follows the traditional model, which is not the case. Most of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing, and they vote Republican all out of proportion to the way they 'ought' to according to the traditional understanding of the political axis. It's not 'temporary', except in the sense that it was a temporary spike in an already-strong trend.

I didn't imply anything of the sort. I stated that Ike, Nixon and Reagan did better amongst unions then Republicans typically do and such "improved performances" didn't last beyond their Presidencies. Everything was setup as relative to traditional GOP performance amongst unions for the past 80 years, not to some Global concept of conservatism, unions, and the relationship thereof. By switching or misreading the comparison you are basically taking my post out of context.

So if three of the last five Republican Presidents "did better amongst unions th(a)n Republicans traditionally do" - and I actually believe Bush I ran a bit stronger among the Teamsters than Reagan did - when does that cease being a couple of peculiar incidents and start becoming the "traditional GOP performance"?

[Stardust]

Which doesn't contradict a thing I said. Of course the Republicans win a good chunk of union votes, but they don't "win" them the way Reagan did, on a consistent basis. Which is why I called it a temporary occurance, a statement which you objected to. The only way to object would be to argue otherwise, which is simply not the case. 

Your statement that it was a 'temporary occurance' implies that American politics follows the traditional model, which is not the case. Most of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing, and they vote Republican all out of proportion to the way they 'ought' to according to the traditional understanding of the political axis. It's not 'temporary', except in the sense that it was a temporary spike in an already-strong trend.

Cite you sources for this__.  The AFL CIO umbrella covers the large majority of union membership in this country.  Union households have gone about 60-40 the past three presidential elections.

I wasn't referring to their choice of partisan affiliation, though as you point out, unionized voters are extremely right-wing for being what they are. My statement that "(m)ost of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing" is in reference to their extracurricular activities, like their support for the American Institute for Free Labor Development and the Free Trade Union Committee, the latter of which was nothing more than a CIA front into the labor movement in post-war Europe.

[Stardust]

Which doesn't contradict a thing I said. Of course the Republicans win a good chunk of union votes, but they don't "win" them the way Reagan did, on a consistent basis. Which is why I called it a temporary occurance, a statement which you objected to. The only way to object would be to argue otherwise, which is simply not the case. 

Your statement that it was a 'temporary occurance' implies that American politics follows the traditional model, which is not the case. Most of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing, and they vote Republican all out of proportion to the way they 'ought' to according to the traditional understanding of the political axis. It's not 'temporary', except in the sense that it was a temporary spike in an already-strong trend.

Cite you sources for this__.  The AFL CIO umbrella covers the large majority of union membership in this country.  Union households have gone about 60-40 the past three presidential elections.

I wasn't referring to their choice of partisan affiliation, though as you point out, unionized voters are extremely right-wing for being what they are. My statement that "(m)ost of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing" is in reference to their extracurricular activities, like their support for the American Institute for Free Labor Development and the Free Trade Union Committee, the latter of which was nothing more than a CIA front into the labor movement in post-war Europe.

Well, I am just not clear on what you are interjecting into this thread. Presumably that US Unions played ball with the US government during the Cold War?

Among their other stances on issues of the day, the AFL-CIO took an absolutely self-defeating, even self-destructive attitude during the Cold War, because they prioritized (and still do) co-operating with the government within the framework of a vaguely-defined social democracy than in seriously advocating the needs of the class which is, ostensibly, their constituency. I am 'interjecting' nothing more than the fact that the AFL-CIO is doing nothing new by appealing to the Republicans. It is their natural instinct.

I can't post links as yet, but I'd suggest Googling a little pamphlet called Why Communist China Should Not Be Admitted To The United Nations. Sound like boilerplate Bircher agitprop?

It was produced by the AFL-CIO and distributed by FTUC.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I rather suspect there is no distance whatsoever.

[Stardust]

At any rate, I generally agree with labor unions moving away from some of the "Red" elements of the time.

The problem isn't so much that they moved "away from the 'Red'" as it is that they moved out of the 'Red' and into the 'Blue'. When the Teamsters are one of the biggest contributors to Reagan's second campaign, you have a problem on your hands.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reasons for it are understandable enough. The go-to men of the unions were folks like 'Scoop' Jackson, who had no problem with institutionalizing the unions as an attache of the State as long as the unions were beholden to the government's domestic agenda. This had the inevitably effect of producing in the unions a Marxian 'labour aristocracy' as naturally as light follows on from day.

If you can't tell by now, I'm not remotely sympathetic to the AFL-CIO. Always have been, and always will be, a Wobbly man.

[Stardust]

I have been known to say a kind word toward Jim Larkin and Mike Quill.  I am not a Union member myself but both of my parents are and my late Grandmother led a few bitter strikes in her day. However, I have a reflexive distaste for the international(e) movements.  The Bolshies and Trots just did not fit in with my concept of what America should be about.

Funny, that. Few people opposed to international socialism on nationalist grounds have anything but the kindest words for international finance capital and globalization.