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.
I think Sea Change is what you are thinking however Seed Change might be a good idea as well.
The way to change things in this country is through voting, so if you want to elect Obama/Biden the thing to do is make sure all voters really know what they will do if elected and then be certain these people vote and their votes are counted correctly.
I’m tired of McCain’s Vietnam sychobabble, we all have memories about the 1960s and Vietnam.
Hate? Hate is SO yesterday.
One hundred years from now they’ll teach University courses about the 2008 Presidential Election. What is happening now is a seed change, nothing short of a revolution.
Quietly, in basements and dens around America an army of MILLIONS of Bloggers and fellow travellers is no longer responding to the media – considering what the media puts in front of us – considering the facts they have fed us on which we had to base out thoughts – what has happened this year FOR THE FIRST TIME IN WORLD HISTORY is that the PEOPLE have actually turned the tables and WE THE PEOPLE, not the media, CONTROL the agenda and the information available to the people. The media have been reduced to following our lead; our findings of facts and the Blogsphere’s exposure of Sarah Palin’s appalling background is a prime example.
The REVOLUTION is HERE, we are not only fighting it we are WINNING it – not with guns and rocks and blood – but with facts and communication and an Internet with a million points of light, operating at the speed of light – each point of which can take facts off the net and add to them.
For the first time in my adult life – America has a REAL chance at change. God Bless America!
At this rate, nothing will change the cycle in Obama’s favor. The campaign has been silenced into weakness, and the media is in love with Palin. No fundraising number is going to take attention away from hate speak.
I think Sen. Obama will sign on as a sponsor to the gang of ten energy bill. This will allow him to box in McCain on oil drilling, since the bill supports limited additional drilling but also a tax increase for oil companies. This would seriously limit the Republican arguments about oil drilling, but McCain can’t support the tax increase.
Sponsoring this bill would also show how Obama is acting in a bipartisan fashion. I wouldn’t be suprised if he announces support for this compromise as soon as tomorrow.
Why in god’s name would Obama want Powell’s endorsement? Is that supposed to be a good thing? The only things a Powell endorsement would signal is that (1) Obama is part of the Washington establishment and (2) when its to his benefit, he thinks the judgement of people who supported the invasion of Iraq is just peachy.
I would think a Powell endorsement would be a less than happy development.