Reading through the ambiguous to vaguely positive remarks made by Republican pols about the historic auto workers strike, one of them jumped off the page, and I wrote about it at New York:
One of the great anomalies of recent political history has been the disconnect between the Republican Party’s ancient legacy as the champion of corporate America and its current electoral base, which relies heavily on support from white working-class voters. The growing contradiction was first made a major topic of debate in the 2008 manifesto Grand New Party, in which youngish conservative intellectuals Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam argued that their party offered little in the way of material inducements (or even supportive rhetoric) to its emerging electoral base. Though Douthat and Salam were by no means fans of Donald Trump, the mogul’s stunningly successful 2016 campaign did follow their basic prescription of pursuing the economic and cultural instincts of white working-class voters at the expense of doctrinaire free-market and limited-government orthodoxy.
So it’s not surprising that Trump and an assortment of other Republicans have expressed varying degrees of sympathy for the unionized autoworkers who just launched a historic industry-wide strike for better wages and working conditions. But there was a conspicuous, even anachronistic exception among nationally prominent GOP politicians: South Carolina senator and presidential candidate Tim Scott. As NBC News reported:
“It’s the latest of several critical comments Scott has made about the autoworkers, even as other GOP presidential candidates steer clear of criticizing them amid a strike at three plants so far …
“’I think Ronald Reagan gave us a great example when federal employees decided they were going to strike. He said, you strike, you’re fired. Simple concept to me. To the extent that we can use that once again, absolutely.’”
Scott’s frank embrace of old-school union bashing wouldn’t have drawn much notice 40 or 50 years ago. And to be clear, other Republicans aren’t fans of the labor movement: For the most part, MAGA Republicans appeal to the working class via a mix of cultural conservatism, economic and foreign-policy nationalism, nativism, and producerism (i.e., pitting private-sector employers and employees against the financial sector, educational elites, and those dependent on public employment or assistance). One particularly rich lode of ostensibly pro-worker rhetoric has been to treat environmental activism as inimical to the economic growth and specific job opportunities wage earners need.
So unsurprisingly, Republican politicians who want to show some sympathy for the autoworkers have mostly focused on the alleged threat of climate-change regulations generally and electric vehicles specifically to the well-being of UAW members, as Politico reported:
“’This green agenda that is using taxpayer dollars to drive our automotive economy into electric vehicles is understandably causing great anxiety among UAW members,’ [Mike Pence] said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“Other Republicans followed suit, with a National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson calling out Michigan Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin — Democrats’ favored candidate for the state’s open Senate seat — for her Thursday vote allowing state-level limits or bans on gas-powered cars as choosing her ‘party over Michigan.'”
More strikingly, Trump, the 2024 presidential front-runner, is planning to hold an event with Michigan workers at the very moment his GOP rivals are holding their second debate next week, notes the Washington Post:
“While other Republican candidates participate in the Sept. 27 event in California, Trump instead plans to speak to more than 500 autoworkers, plumbers, electricians and pipe-fitters, the adviser said. The group is likely to include workers from the United Auto Workers union that is striking against the Big Three automakers in the country’s Rust Belt. The Trump adviser added that it is unclear whether the former president will visit the strike line.
“Trump’s campaign also created a radio ad, to run on sports- and rock-themed stations in Detroit and Toledo, meant to present him as being on the side of striking autoworkers, the adviser said.”
There’s no evidence Trump has any understanding of, much less sympathy with, the strikers’ actual demands. But in contrast to Scott’s remarks endorsing the dismissal of striking workers, it shows that at least some Republicans are willing (rhetorically, at least) to bite the hand that feeds in the pursuit of votes.
Meanwhile, the mainstream-media types who often treat Scott as some sort of sunny, optimistic, even bipartisan breath of fresh air should pay some attention to his attitude toward workers exercising long-established labor rights he apparently would love to discard. Yes, as a self-styled champion of using taxpayer dollars to subsidize private- and homeschooling at the expense of “government schools,” Scott is constantly attacking teachers unions, just like many Republicans who draw a sharp distinction between public-sector unions (BAD!) and private-sector unions (grudgingly acceptable). But autoworkers are firmly in the private sector. Maybe it’s a South Carolina thing: Scott’s presidential rival and past political ally Nikki Haley (another media favorite with an unmerited reputation as a moderate) famously told corporate investors to stay out of her state if they intended to tolerate unions in their workplaces. For that matter, the South Carolina Republican Party was for years pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of violently anti-union textile barons. Some old habits die hard.
One of the useful by-products of the current wave of labor activism in this country is that Republicans may be forced to extend their alleged sympathy for workers into support for policies that actually help them and don’t simply reflect cheap reactionary demagoguery aimed at foreigners, immigrants, and people of color. But Scott has flunked the most basic test threshold compatibility with the rights and interests of the working class.
Kerry’s op-ed on Iraq in today’s Washington Post is at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6753-2004Apr12.html
I agree that Kerry should lay low. All these bad things that are happening to Bush are Bush’s own fault, and there is no way the worst of it can get better for him. However bad Iraq looks now, it will get worse. Furthermore, Bush is so irresponsible that, whenever new facts are discovered about his conduct, they will always be bad.
What you do not want is for John Kerry’s name, voice, or face to be associated with the bad Bush stuff. Let those things stick to Bush.
Sometimes I don’t understand how people can come up with certain ads. For instance, there is this attack ad of Bush’s that has a bunch of goofy talk about John Kerry and taxes or something. What sticks with me about that ad is how upbeat it sounds. I don’t care what they are saying, I just associate “John Kerry” and the upbeat tone. Wouldn’t it be nice if Bush would run upbeat “John Kerry” ads right up to Election Day!
We really do not want to see Kerry juxtapose himself with mayhem in Iraq or an irresponsible and frankly criminal White House.
I certainly agree with Kerry laying back right now, talking economics and jobs and raising money. The “Free Media” is working to discredit Bush on his strengths — War President and Anti-Terrorist — and what Kerry needs to do is be prepared to sell his case to those who are open to retiring Bush after they have been convinced by non-partisian information that a new President is in order. It’s a two step thing — first, strong questioning of Bush’s effectiveness, and then movement toward the alternative. Kerry needs to save his energy and assets for the right time to make the sale and close the deal with Independent voters.
The methodology behind the Rasmussen polls is, I gather, pretty unconventional, since, apparently, it involves robo-calling. Other things being equal, I’d give more weight to the conventional (and more expensive) polls.
On the other hand, I’m not sure why the Rasmussen polls should not be measuring genuine movements within whatever subset of the American population their methodology actually selects. On still another hand, I’ve certainly seen a number of cases in which Rasmussen goes one way, and conventional polls another, even on the same days.
RE: “And the latest Newsweek poll, conducted April 8-9, has Kerry ahead by 7 (50-43).”
You should qualify your statement, that these particular numbers are the projected result in a head-to-head matchup, and in the absence of a Ralph Nader candidacy.
When Nader’s candidacy is factored into the equation, Kerry leads the Newsweek poll, 46% to 42%.
Okay, so let me get this straight: Iraq is becoming a quagmire of immense military, political, economic proportions, AND in terms of lives lost. The actions of Mr. bush prior to 9/11 define the word mis-management.
How can he be moving UP in the polls?
I say that the dems need to draft Richard Clarke as their nominee.
Ruy Teixeira really needs to explain why he is so positive with Newsweek,CBS, and other polls and does not even mention Rasmuusen. Rasmuusen seems the most legit because it has a large sample (1600) and is of likely voters as opposed to registered voters or adults.
Help me understand Ruy!!
Yes, but . . . if the strategy of letting Bush self-destruct all by himself is working so well, then why are the two men essentially even in the polls? I know that it’s still early, but if this is how Bush looks during a BAD stretch, what is he going to look like after his campaign succeeds in defining Kerry as a waffling, tax-supporting, Jane Fonda-loving Massachusetts liberal? Because that’s what they doing with those ads. And I’m just not seeing a very urgent response by the Kerry people to (1) counter those images, and (2) keep the pressure on Bush. Complacency with this incredibly ruthless crowd is a mistake.
My suggestion being, I’d like you to consider reading the text for a “state of the union” address that I believe is imperative for this country of ours. To get to it, all you need do is click on the below enclosed U.R.L
http://www.bcvoice.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=205
By the way, the proprietors of the http://www.BCVoice.com website have provided a couple ways for you to leave your comments.
Plus, the media isn’t focusing that much on Kerry right now anyway, so he should wait until Sept. for some really hard hitting speeches.
I agree with FranklyO. I think Kerry needs to let events take Bush down while he promotes his positive alternative. A couple weeks before the election when a critical mass of voters have become critical or doubtful will be the time to have some hard hitting ads. And them the ads should be Buish’s words . For example an ad built around him laughing about the nonexistant WMDs or an ad quoting from Woodward’s book.
Kerry is doing the right thing for the right time, right now. The Bush admin is in a self detruct – death spiral mode and Mr. Kerry is taking full advantage by staying out of the way. Doesn’t cost him a penny, and every time they open their mouths to gasp for air, they get weaker and weaker.
Hey if the oponent is knocking himself out why waste your energy (and limited funds) trying to achieve what he is going to acheive on his own.
Kerry has been too cautious in the past two weeks. Bush is vulnerable right now, and Kerry needs to be attacking at the same time he’s unveiling his major policies. Let’s not forgot that Bush/Cheney is running lot and lots of negative ads in key states, taking full advantage of their current, substantial advantage in funds raised. Thus, while Bush is other respects seems to be reeling from the situation in Iraq, the 9/11 hearings, and the still-weak economy, he and his people are hammering Kerry on TV. And history shows that negative ads are very effective, particularly when the opposing candidates is not yet well-known among the general electorate (remember the Alamo and Mike Dukakis).
Kerry is back to trailing in Rasmussen. Condi has made America go back to loving and fearing Bush, as has the continued turmoil in Iraq. Bush is still the favorite, by a wide margin.
So Debra,
This means then that the next ARG and Newsweek polls are likely to show Bush ahead? More and more I’m getting the feeling that Texeira’s analysis has a lot of pro-Dem spin, rather than objective analysis that would help Dems make mid-course corrections.
Dan O.: “Does the DNC and Kerry campaign have a major ORGANIZED EFFORT to register voters and to get out the vote?”
I’m sure there’s an effort. It’s the “organized” bit that, at least for the moment, I have my doubts.
These results track the Rasmussen Daily polls for the dates they were condutced. April 8-9 for Newsweek Kerry was ahead: April 6-9 for ARG Kerry had the largest lead over Bush on April 7th.
The results mesh.
Independents will probably wait until the debates to decide. Democrats and Republicans have already made up their minds. If you look at the data, Independents are more critical of Bush than that of the national average, especially w/ Iraq related things. Kerry should do well w/ Independents, and we should see that in the home stretch. A Kerry-Edwards ticket would ice it, considering how well Edwards did w/ Independents and Republicans in the primaries (ex. Wisconsin). Edwards could also help out in West Virginia.
As for the electoral college, if you have a lead in the popular vote by about 5%, it will be virtually impossible to lose the electoral college. The popular vote and the electoral college were both virtual ties in 2000. In fact, looking at the 1948, 1960, and 1976 elections, the winner of the popular vote won by a humble margin, while he won the electoral college by quite a bit.
I’m not yet convinced of a Kerry lead. There’s the Rasmussen poll, and his numbers among independents in the ARG poll are statistically even with Bush’s. His lead comes from having (at least apparently for now) solid backing among Democrats, whereas Bush’s numbers have softened a bit among Repugs. Bush will, in the end, carry more than 90% of Republicans who turn out, and if Kerry is going to have a chance he needs at least a five point margin among Independents. So far, that ain’t happening.
I agree with the other posters. Until Bush is defeated and is safely back in Crawford, TX, we cannot rest on our laurels. We need to be ahead by 20-plus percentage points or until the electoral college votes him out in December of 2004. We cannot relax until a new president is sworn in!
Individual State polls can better indicate any important trends.
However, actual votes that are COUNTED in each State will determine the election.
Does the DNC and Kerry campaign have a major ORGANIZED EFFORT to register voters and to get out the vote?
Remember you can alway vote using absentee ballot, but you need to request a absentee ballot early!
You will also note that these polls are of either registered voter or just “adults”. That makes them not much less useful than a poll of “likely voters” or one that performs an analysis electorally. I know it is more expensive but I would much rather see polls generally show electoral spreads, not popularity spreads. We all know too well from 2000 that the popular vote means little if the electoral battle is lost.
But how does this translate into electoral votes? If all the lead is in New York or California or Massachusetts, it does little good.
I think Kerry is ahead also but Rasmuusen Reports, which had Kerry ahead earlier in the week on their daily tracking poll now has Bush ahead by 3 because they say Ms. Condoleeza’s testimony went over well with the American Public. Also, a recent poll on Florida by Mason-Dixon has Bush ahead there by 51-43. Help me I’m confused!