 |
 |
||
|
|
|
 Remembering What Nixon LearnedPosted on Mar 13, 2008By David Sirota A half-century ago, Richard Nixon spearheaded his party’s national congressional campaign in the face of a recession like the one we face today. Then Dwight Eisenhower’s vice president, he decided that as a way to defeat Democrats the GOP would champion anti-worker laws pioneered in the segregationist South. Specifically, he rolled out “right to work” ballot initiatives to weaken the labor movement. These measures ban contracts that compel employees who benefit from union representation to contribute union dues. When the 1958 election came, Nixon’s blame-workers-first initiatives bombed, and Republicans lost 48 congressional seats, handing the party “its worst year ever,” as historian Rick Perlstein recounts in his brilliant new book, “Nixonland.” “Right-to-work wasn’t popular with a general public that understood how a strong labor movement had rocketed millions of voters into the middle class,” Perlstein writes. Fifty years later, conservatives are ignoring history’s teachings and resurrecting Nixon’s failed strategy in a place that could decide a close presidential election. In Colorado, one of the most contested “swing” states, a group of zealots is hoping a “right to work” ballot initiative will drive up GOP turnout and help John McCain keep nine electoral votes in the Republican column. The strategy is bold in its desperation. Right-wingers are betting that Colorado citizens will vote to cut their own pay. After all, according to the Economic Policy Institute, employees in right-to-work states make between 4 and 8 percent less per year than those in other states. Advertisement Colorado conservatives are reeling after Republicans lost both the Legislature and governor’s mansion for the first time in more than four decades. The state Republican Party is so unhinged that it hired a buffoon named Dick Wadhams to save it—the same Dick Wadhams who most recently made headlines running Sen. George “Macaca” Allen’s 2006 re-election campaign into the ground, effectively ending the Virginia lawmaker’s political career. Clearly, these are dire times for the right, and despair tends to deify the Nixons and the Wadhamses by embracing irrational extremism—whether YouTube-amplified racism or worker persecution inherent in right-to-work schemes. Adding to conservatives’ troubles is Colorado’s emboldened labor movement. Rather than crouching in a defensive posture, unions are preparing two initiatives that could drive up turnout for Democrats and serve as a model for other states across the nation. One forces the right to defend criminals—literally. The initiative would make a corporate executive personally liable under the law if he or she “engages in, authorizes, solicits, requests, commands or knowingly tolerates the business’s criminal conduct.” According to union polling, 84 percent of Colorado citizens back the measure. Nonetheless, the Denver Chamber of Commerce is trying to keep the initiative off the ballot, claiming that punishing corporate criminals is “a direct assault on our business climate.” Yes, conservatives say lawbreaking is not an “assault on our business climate”—prosecuting lawbreakers is. Next thing you know, these shills will argue that locking up violent criminals hurts the “business climate” because, when not killing people, murderers contribute to the local economy. The other labor-backed initiative would require employers to have a “just cause” when laying off an employee. The unions’ poll shows 70 percent of Colorado voters support the concept—not surprising, considering that many voters are probably shocked to discover that most states allow employers to terminate workers for any reason not already outlawed by existing anti-discrimination statutes. Your boss doesn’t like that you root for a particular professional sports team? Unless the ballot initiative passes, you can be fired “at will” for that and more in Colorado—and the initiative’s conservative opponents will be arguing that’s A-OK by them. Perlstein notes that after Nixon’s anti-labor strategy backfired in 1958, he “hardly said an ill word about the labor movement in public again.” He learned a lesson that today’s conservatives have forgotten—namely, that the public punishes those who overtly denigrate workers. If these initiatives end up on the ballot in a state garnering so much election attention, voters will have the chance to teach the right that crucial lesson once again. David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, “The Uprising,” will be released in June. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network, both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota. © 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc. Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
America’s Confused Approach to Afghanistan
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2010 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Conservative Yankee, March 19, 2008 at 11:01 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
By J, March 18 at 6:42 pm #
Quick p.s. on a company firing an employee. What in the name of many-virgined martyrs gives anyone the impression that a private or public company has to give any reason whatsoever for firing someone?
Taxpayers are required to subsidize business when it fails, so they then become “defacto stock holders” (See Bear Stearns, Chrysler, and the entire defense industry.
ALSO
Companies have shown no respect for their position in their communities. They leave union towns for non-union towns, and then leave the USA for countries with no environmental restrictions. We defend them (with our blood and money) and they return lead laden toys, poison toothpaste, and contaminated fish.
They buy and sell politicians like they were used cars, and they pump money into media outlets to distort the true nature of their actions, and the effects of same on our society.
Someone should keep an eye on them….if not a tight leash.
Report thisBy J, March 18, 2008 at 10:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Quick p.s. on a company firing an employee. What in the name of many-virgined martyrs gives anyone the impression that a private or public company has to give any reason whatsoever for firing someone? Has our lot become so pathetic that a million years of human competition needs to end because somebody says so?
Hey, maybe you have a right to be King! whiners read:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:nWC4aL-EIjAJ:www.schoolhistory.co.uk/year7links/1066/whoshouldbekingextend.pdf+“right+to+be+king”&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Report thisBy Joe, March 18, 2008 at 9:24 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Village E— Maybe you’re referring to later elections but Nixon was neutral on right-to-work law in 1958 and opposed to it when running against Kennedy. Nixon was neither a conservative (in the traditional OR neocon sense) nor a right-winger. He was a smart, catty lawyer who looked for the upper hand minus the baggage of ideology. He would have made a poor fascist. If it were not for the monstrous close-influence of Kissinger, I believe Nixon would have gotten us out of Vietnam quickly and quietly, in order to pursue some usable notions on the Presidency and the world. Unburdeoned of Vietnam, he might not have gone off the deep-end with enemies lists and fatal distractions.
Report thisBy Joe, March 18, 2008 at 9:06 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Sirota’s last article, the one on NAFTA, was pretty good (except for excusing Democrats on the issue of job loss) but this piece has me puzzled.
Both Nixon and Eisenhower, before the 1958 election, considered right-to-work law a matter for the States to sort out as they wished:
“In California on September 30, Nixon, following Eisenhowers lead, would refuse to take a stand on the states right-to-work initiative (New York Times, Oct. 1, 1958).” This from the archives of the Eisenhower Presidential Library.
<http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/second-term/documents/870.cfm>
It seems Sirota is pulling facts out of his chubby, corn-fed bum.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, March 17, 2008 at 6:08 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
THE DEMOCRATS authored the “yellow Dog” strategy!
Nixon wes delighted in ‘68 when Wallace split the Democratic party and took Louisiana,Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia and Alabama out of the Humphry equation, and Handed the Election to Nixon, at the time a New York Lawyer who couldn’t win in a newly integrated South. In 72 Nixon didn’t need a “strategy” as the Democrats did what they are doing again this year and ran a candidate so flawed that Nixon took every State except Massachusetts.
I still have my “Massachusetts the one and only” bumper sticker!
Report thisBy VillageElder, March 17, 2008 at 3:09 pm #
One of Nixon’s legacies is the Southern Strategy which banded together anti-union, right to work, conservative, right wing, bigoted states. Reagan solidified this strategy with the evangelical/fundamentalist movement being inducted into the GOP. The attendant fiscal policies got us where we are today.
Report thisBy tomack, March 17, 2008 at 12:40 pm #
Conservative Yankee, thank you for both the reminder to ignore stupidity and ignorance via this Waxman schmuck, and also about Arkansas. I had forgotten about that until I read this post.
Whyzowl1, nice quote from Darrow.
As far as the story, I wonder if McCain approves of the “Colorado zealots” plan. Or worse, if he approved it. If either be true, I know I’d mention it during the upcoming Presidential national debates.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, March 16, 2008 at 9:16 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
You continually let the focused turkeys wrestle you to the ground.
Waxman did not contribute anything the discussion, so he deserves to be ignored. But you and MCM let yourselves be side-tracked by an obvious troll.
Back to the important discussion You also neglected to mention (and I know you would have if you thought of it) That the Clinton’s, both Walmart board member Shill, and Governor Ham-burgler Bill supported “right-to-work” when they were in Arkansas… sort of a pre-NAFTA performance.
The Clinton’s are as anti-worker as 58 Nixon, and it is a shame that the unions in Ohio didn’t see through her scam.
Report thisBy Purple Girl, March 16, 2008 at 6:20 am #
Being a Mi’er, I have been threatened by the ‘right to Work’ doctrine. Just because I had the audacity to recommend a Policy Handbook fro a Start up business- so all the rules were consistent and clear toth efuture employees. I was told “I cna fire you if I don’t like what you look like ” NICE! Regardless of my abilities and skills. Being a rather crazy UpStart I agreed because I could choose any morning QUIT! leaving their shipping & Receiving Warehouse without it’s only worker. that shut him up fast.
Report thisThis is the same ‘boss’ who had so little management skills and such an over inflated ego - he had no problems asking anther worker to ‘pullher head out of her Ass’ and asked if she spoke ‘F*cking English’, constantly sending employees into tears an dfears for their jobs. what a Sweet Heat- I called Him ‘Sonny Corleone’. But being a self respecting and conscientious employee I gave notice- I found my replacement, I trained him (Sonny had more respect for Men, I would not have subjected another woman to his vile ways) and even stayed longer to help him make a smooth transition. Not for that Ass of a boss- but for my fellow employees.
Why is labor importatn to these Business- becasue they would not be where they are without US. Invest all you want - but if you don’t ahve th eworkers , you got nothing. Workers are the very foundation on which these companies and their managemnet survive. It’s high time we Remind them. WE are the very corner stones which build and support them. Go head screw US - we will take our skills , knowledge and work ethic to work for you competitor - or we will become you competitor. White collar has proven it can’t manage it’s way out of a wet paper bag- They are Lucky we hav enot all just walked out mid shft and left their Profit margins (and Bonus’s) hanging in the wind. Brick & Mortar and Hot air, does not make for an economy.
By waxman, March 15, 2008 at 1:40 pm #
CYRENA, JUST SPOKE TO PASTOR WRIGHT, HE WANTS YOU AND YOUR LOVE CHILD (LITTLE BIG EARS )TO HIS CHURCH WITH BLIVET BIG CITY-MIKE TO HAVE SOME MAGIC WATER ON HIS WITTLE HEAD..HE ALSO MAY HAVE TICKETS FOR YOU AND THE REST OF THE PEOPLE WHO DON’T LIKE AMERICA ANY MORE, MICHELLE INCLUDED…..TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY…..
Report thisBy cyrena, March 15, 2008 at 12:52 pm #
Nope, Mike Mid-City is actually my sanity guard. He helps me maintain my sanity so that I won’t be tempted to utilize my REAL bodyguard, which is an exquisite collection of the most highly crafted art you can possibly imagine. (actually, you COULDN’T imagine waxman…not even at the peak of you crack high).
If I were tempted to utilize my REAL bodyguard, without a quick sanity moment, I would have turned you into hamburger for the birds by now.
So, lucky for you, MMC is my sanity guard.
Report thisBy VillageElder, March 14, 2008 at 5:02 pm #
“Actually they mean right-to-rape…”
Living in a “right to work” state I can attest to Cyrena’ description(s). The reality is that it is a right to fire with the workers having no recourse. It may be discussed as employment at will. It really means that the worker enters a fiefdom at the mercy of the “glorious leader.” The employer can act on any bizzare notion when it comes to determining an employees status.
It also depresses wages. I recall being on marketing trips and hearing the president of the company talking about hw much cheaper his production would be because he was located in a right to work state.
Blaming the worker for a bad economy is like blaming a victim for rape. Repugs love to blame the victim or any one nearby.
Report thisBy GW=MCHammered, March 14, 2008 at 4:43 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I dream truckers would arm themselves then block all major freeways every mile or so. Supporters cover for them. Keep people from going to work, spending money, burning fuel AND get the government’s attention. No more Pumping-n-Dumping the markets at worker and taxpayer expense. Bring this shit to end here and now.
Oh, but I don’t mean here in democratic free market Amurika. No, over there where they don’t have ALL the freedums we have. You know, like France.
But it’s just a dream.
Report thisBy Leefeller, March 14, 2008 at 4:26 pm #
Right to work, is another name for right to keep wages as low as possible.
Report thisLooks like the good old USA may be becoming a right to work country.
By waxman, March 14, 2008 at 4:14 pm #
CYRENA, IS MID CITY-MIKE YOUR BODY GUARD SINCE HE NO LONGER ABUSES PRISON INMATES ??? MAYBE THIS GOES DEEPER THAN I THOUGHT…
Report thisBy waxman, March 14, 2008 at 12:19 pm #
WITH ALL YOUR BOOK LEARNIN I DON’T WHY YOU WASTE YOUR TIME POSTING…BECOME LOVER BOYS V.P. AND SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT HIS CHURCH SO WE( WHITE FOLKS ) CAN BE SAVED TOO !!!!!!!
Report thisBy JimBob, March 14, 2008 at 10:53 am #
So, let them self-destruct. For heaven’s sake, don’t help them out.
Report thisBy God?FreeDumb?, March 14, 2008 at 10:49 am #
shouldn,t it be ” what America has learned under the dictatorship of Nixon regime”?
Report thisjust sayin…
By Grousefeather, March 14, 2008 at 8:12 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
It seems only right that we should all be in favor of a economic system where just a few people become very wealthy while the rest of us feed off the crumbs left behind.
Report thisBy cyrena, March 14, 2008 at 8:08 am #
Actually they mean right-to-rape, and I can’t begin to tell you how many folks found this out the very hard way…I’ve made some notes below…
Ah the right to work rule. Sounds benign enough, eh? Imagine those workers who dont have a clue to what this means. And, for good reason..
Imagine a worker employed by a nationwide corporation, or even a transnational corporation based in the US. Imagine the worker begins their employment in one state, (a normal one, with normal labor laws) and then moves around to other locations/states within that same corporation, either by company mandate or personal choice.
Imagine that worker winds up in a right to work state at some point along the way. Imagine when that same worker finds out that right to work also means that the corporation has the right to fire without providing any reason or compensation.
Its definitely an education. I know a whole bunch of really long term workers that got that education. It wasnt a good thing.
The strategy is bold in its desperation. Right-wingers are betting that Colorado citizens will vote to cut their own pay.
WHY do right-wingers (who ALWAYS wanna screw the worker) believe that the workers will be equally anxious to screw themselves? The logic (or lack of it) behind these the right-wing neoconers never ceases to amaze me.
On the other hand, theyve been getting away with it for decades, and it wasnt ALWAYS about NAFTA. It was NAFTA PLUS these right- to -work laws, which decided that so many of the robber baron corporations would establish headquarters in states with right to work laws. They dont pay the employees as much, and they dont provide anywhere near the same labor protection as those states who do not have these slavery statutes on their books.
By the way, Texas, Arkansas, and others of course, are right to work states. Home of Walmart, (you see why) and home to all of the oil companies, (you see why) and home to many of the aircraft/defense industry giants, (you see why) and home to some of the major air carriers. (you see why).
Corporations LOVE right to work state laws. They really should be called, right to rape state laws.
Even one of Colorados most influential business groups has said it has no desire for such irrational measures. But the right is not in a rational frame of mind...
Ah, he said it for me irrational/bizarre, thats the conservative right conservative with everybody but themselves.
Clearly, these are dire times for the right, and despair tends to deify the Nixons and the Wadhamses by embracing irrational extremismwhether YouTube-amplified racism or worker persecution inherent in right-to-work schemes.
Well the embracing of irrational extremism has been a tenet of the neoconners/Dick Bush since the Coup of 2000.
The initiative would make a corporate executive personally liable under the law if he or she engages in, authorizes, solicits, requests, commands or knowingly tolerates the businesss criminal conduct.
Ew wee I do love this one. Go Colorado. A lawyer could make a career out of trying Corp. Execs.
The other labor-backed initiative would require employers to have a just cause when laying off an employee.
Well, they sure as hell dont need that now (just cause) at least not in right-to-rape states.
Your boss doesnt like that you root for a particular professional sports team? Unless the ballot initiative passes, you can be fired at will for that and more in Coloradoand the initiatives conservative opponents will be arguing thats A-OK by them .
Or, they might not like which church you attend, or the fact that you dont. Or, they might not like who youre married to. (especially if its a person not your own race..and they WILL check).
Might not like your hair color either.
A workers ass then becomes grass.
Report thisBy whyzowl1, March 14, 2008 at 2:45 am #
“With all their faults, trade-unions have done more for humanity than any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the race, for the developing of character in man, than any other association of men.”
Clarence Darrow
Let us hope that American workers still know who their real friends are, and will let the would-be Masters of the Universe know that they know it ain’t them. “Right to work?” Don’t they mean: “right to work…for peanuts.”
Report this