When I was a kid the unions were the champions of the working men and women.
There were actually vinyl record anthologies of union solidarity anthems recorded by Pete Seeger and other folk musicians in the '30s, '40s, & '50s. "Talking Union" was one of the enduring classics.
Remember "Norma Ray?"
And now I am seeing all these political ads demonizing "big city unions" and "union interests" exclusively from GOP candidates.
What happened? When did conservatives turn against unions and why?
I am sure there is a history of unions and politics on the net, but I thought people here would know about this.
Unions were nowhere near as big of a thing in the South, but the Republicans sure are. So it may have just developed to not being much of a thing among quite a bit of the constituency.
Unions were associated for some with socialism and communism, as well.
A cousin of mine, a truck driver in Michigan (but not one of THOSE drivers) has some of the records you're describing.
I've also seen songbooks with the lyrics and piano music in them.
M.
I find your post a bit confusing-- do you think Pete Seeger was a Republican? (That would sure be news to him!).
So far as I know, Republicans were always anti-union (except for maybe Police unions). Business Rs because unions were against their interests, and socially conservative Rs because unions were "communist".
In fact, if anything more union members now are Republicans, as white, working-class non-college educated union members who used to vote D largely for union reasons are now voting more in line with others in their demographic.
Everybody and his brothers were anti-union. It has little to do with party.
Here's a nice description of some history, though not very analytical https://psmag.com/economics/what-caused-the-decline-of-unions-in-america (https://psmag.com/economics/what-caused-the-decline-of-unions-in-america)
One excerpt
"In the U.S., there was never a durable labor party, and it does matter," McCartin [whoever he is] says. "The Democratic Party became labor's more congenial ally, but it was never really all in. When priorities had to be set, the Democratic Party's willingness to prioritize labor was never quite there. Historically, that happened repeatedly. That made it hard for unions to advance a public policy agenda."
Anyway, it's the wrong question. Are unions good or bad, and for whom, and under what rules, is a better question.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 04, 2022, 04:32:59 PM
And now I am seeing all these political ads demonizing "big city unions" and "union interests" exclusively from GOP candidates.
Emphasis on
big city. The
Big City is where all the non-white immigrant people live and are ganging up to raise costs, and cut corporate profits, so the companies are forced to pay lower wages to Real Americans. And Real Americans have to pay higher costs for for their goods and services.
My lands, the Real Americans might be forced to pay for FREE DELIVERY!
Quote from: Puget on April 04, 2022, 05:25:39 PM
I find your post a bit confusing-- do you think Pete Seeger was a Republican? (That would sure be news to him!).
So far as I know, Republicans were always anti-union (except for maybe Police unions). Business Rs because unions were against their interests, and socially conservative Rs because unions were "communist".
In fact, if anything more union members now are Republicans, as white, working-class non-college educated union members who used to vote D largely for union reasons are now voting more in line with others in their demographic.
+1. I don't think there was ever a time when, as a party, Republicans were pro union.
Quote from: Puget on April 04, 2022, 05:25:39 PM
I find your post a bit confusing-- do you think Pete Seeger was a Republican? (That would sure be news to him!).
So far as I know, Republicans were always anti-union (except for maybe Police unions). Business Rs because unions were against their interests, and socially conservative Rs because unions were "communist".
In fact, if anything more union members now are Republicans, as white, working-class non-college educated union members who used to vote D largely for union reasons are now voting more in line with others in their demographic.
I guess I was thinking of the blue collar working people that unions generally represent.
Maybe I should have asked, 'When did the working class turn against the unions, particularly in the political area?'
The Republicans generally appeal to the blue collar folks more often than the Dems do. And the Republicans have been demonizing the unions and apparently the blue collar folks are buying into it.
I know that the political polarities were different in the early part of the 20th century when the Dems were the conservatives.
Pete Seeger was just an example of a working person's folk-hero.
Because people want to be independent and "earn their own keep."
They don't want to rely on others to support them. They want to be sooooo valuable to the rich guy that the rich guy will shower money on them. But if that rich guy is forced to pay other people living wages, well, that's less for themselves. Maybe.
They don't want the government to take care of them. Keep the government out of Medicare and all of that.
Unions are also the antithesis of social mobility. A union says that you will accept a lower place in society in exchange for a decent standard of living. Not having a union means you have the opportunity to join Management and become a Leader and a total Player.
I don't think they've represented the working class' interests in my lifetime. Certainly not since Reagan, and maybe never in the modern era.
QuoteThe Republicans generally appeal to the blue collar folks more often than the Dems do. And the Republicans have been demonizing the unions and apparently the blue collar folks are buying into it.
Some of the unions are doing it to themselves. I'm looking right now at the AFT's 'American Educator.' the entire issue screams wokeist orthodoxy. There's Randi Weingarten with her half a million $/year salary swelling up with pride talking about the plight of the little guys. What are the articles about? Race, racism, race, race, privilege, 'diversity', academic freedom (the right to preach the wokeist orthodoxy as dictated by your union), etc...
I suspect the COVID-19 years have seen a plummeting of an already low opinion of teachers' unions among the lay public.
ETA: Here's where the tone deafness of union bigwigs shows: when they think of working for low pay, stretching your dollar, shopping at Costco, buying only used cars, taking an extra job to keep the wolf from the door, etc. they always circle back to their go-to social justice subject, race. They think that should cover their asses. There are other stories.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on April 04, 2022, 09:30:02 PM
I don't think they've represented the working class' interests in my lifetime. Certainly not since Reagan, and maybe never in the modern era.
Hey, we agree on something. Academia is a great example. The strongest, wealthiest and most entrenched unions (tenure track) reinforce provisions that are already there through the structure of tenure, promotions from assistant prof through full, sabbatical, full time status, etc. Whereas the adjunct union reinforces absolutely nothing that was already in place and opposes
everything, through sheer persistence, and weakly.
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 04, 2022, 09:12:30 PM
Because people want to be independent and "earn their own keep."
They don't want to rely on others to support them. They want to be sooooo valuable to the rich guy that the rich guy will shower money on them. But if that rich guy is forced to pay other people living wages, well, that's less for themselves. Maybe.
They don't want the government to take care of them. Keep the government out of Medicare and all of that.
Unions are also the antithesis of social mobility. A union says that you will accept a lower place in society in exchange for a decent standard of living. Not having a union means you have the opportunity to join Management and become a Leader and a total Player.
Both of these are caricatures that avoid the underlying issue:
productivity. If you have two people of equal ability, but one has more ambition, then
the person with more ambition will be more successful.
Unions rely on an inversion of the Lake Wobegon Effect; the half of the workers who are below average
in productivity are subsidized by the half who are above.
The simple reality is that the working class people most opposed to unions are those who see
their own hustle as vital to their success, and the working class people most in favour of unions are those who want their success guaranteed
independent of their effort.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 05, 2022, 06:12:35 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 04, 2022, 09:12:30 PM
Because people want to be independent and "earn their own keep."
They don't want to rely on others to support them. They want to be sooooo valuable to the rich guy that the rich guy will shower money on them. But if that rich guy is forced to pay other people living wages, well, that's less for themselves. Maybe.
They don't want the government to take care of them. Keep the government out of Medicare and all of that.
Unions are also the antithesis of social mobility. A union says that you will accept a lower place in society in exchange for a decent standard of living. Not having a union means you have the opportunity to join Management and become a Leader and a total Player.
Both of these are caricatures that avoid the underlying issue: productivity. If you have two people of equal ability, but one has more ambition, then the person with more ambition will be more successful.
Unions rely on an inversion of the Lake Wobegon Effect; the half of the workers who are below average in productivity are subsidized by the half who are above.
The simple reality is that the working class people most opposed to unions are those who see their own hustle as vital to their success, and the working class people most in favour of unions are those who want their success guaranteed independent of their effort.
I wouldn't agree with that characterisation. I have plenty of hustle and have moved on from my union job to administration. Still, I liked the stability and support that came with being in a union. I also believed that yes, maybe there were a few free-riders, yet I was ahead in terms of pay and benefits than I would have been without the union.
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 05, 2022, 06:25:56 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 05, 2022, 06:12:35 AM
The simple reality is that the working class people most opposed to unions are those who see their own hustle as vital to their success, and the working class people most in favour of unions are those who want their success guaranteed independent of their effort.
I wouldn't agree with that characterisation. I have plenty of hustle and have moved on from my union job to administration. Still, I liked the stability and support that came with being in a union. I also believed that yes, maybe there were a few free-riders, yet I was ahead in terms of pay and benefits than I would have been without the union.
It's not just free-riders; it's much more the people who refuse to do anything not specifically required because it makes them feel "taken advantage of". The most productive people see going above and beyond what's required as basically investments in the future; i.e.
regardless of what my contract officially says, the more my employer counts on
me to get stuff done, the more secure I am.
I agree there are many dimensions in which nuance need to be considered.
N= 1, I joined the musician's union in Ohio because that was the only way to a) play with all the other good players, all of whom were members, and b) get payment supports in the face of restauranteurs who were out to pay rock-bottom wages for seriously decent work (G. Schmidt, I'm looking at you).
When I moved away to a larger place, I originally joined for those reasons, plus, because I was new in town, it was the quickest way to get jobs. Also, all the agents I wanted to play for were union--most booked huge parties and orchestra/ballet stuff as well, so they had to be.
After a few years, though, in the larger place it became clear that the union didn't always support the best players, some were outside that system, and undercutting wage supports. And because the competition was stiffer, even those of us who were decent (she says, modestly) were pressured to take below-scale jobs, or not play.
And it wasn't necessary to be union to get good jobs, so paying dues became less of an attractive arrangement, as well. In fact, I stopped paying my dues sometime in the early 1980s, kept playing jobs (but not with union members) and haven't rejoined since.
Obviously, this is different from other settings, but I heard scary stories about the Chicago union, and I knew my own uncle, a band leader in the 1940s, had had to struggle with getting reasonable compensation for his players and himself until the Columbus Local came in and all the players joined--and guess what, all those restauranteurs and hoteliers did just fine, with all the clientele their well-paid, very-good players attracted to supper clubs, dinner dances, wedding receptions, and so on.
And there was the whole thing with Jimmy Hoffa that never did (then) make sense. So, I realize there are pluses and minuses.
But that's the point--it's not all-one-thing-or-the-other, they can be good in some settings and less good in others, and the political associations (some of which had to do with kickbacks--that was the issue in Chicago, as I understood it) were complex as well.
Perhaps unless one has been a member of a union, one doesn't have enough perspective to comment?
Not that that is likely to stop folks, but it's worth consideration...
M.
The question might actually be "when did the working class become Republican?"
I suspect in has come after the destruction of unions. The demolition and demonization of unions in the US took on new forms in the 80s. The intent of those campaigns was to make people who would benefit from unions find them distasteful. Many of those people were socially conservative, which made for easier courting by the Republican party.
Back on Ancient Rome and Greece, slaves aspired to get their freedom and eventually become slave owners themselves. Or they hoped that for their children.
There's no particular reason to expect the working class to be progressive.
Quote from: Hibush on April 05, 2022, 07:41:39 AM
The question might actually be "when did the working class become Republican?"
I suspect in has come after the destruction of unions. The demolition and demonization of unions in the US took on new forms in the 80s. The intent of those campaigns was to make people who would benefit from unions find them distasteful. Many of those people were socially conservative, which made for easier courting by the Republican party.
Yes, absolutely. I have family members who are staunchly pro-union, in a trade union that has taken good care of them into retirement. They are hard-core Democrats. I also have family members who are in the same union but haven't seen the same benefits over time, or who were in the union and have moved into non-union positions, and they are Trump-ists.
I have friends who live in the rust belt who have seen unions decline dramatically, along with the automotive industry that used to support the local population. As a result, the general population has gone more and more Republican.
Quote from: pgher on April 05, 2022, 08:12:45 AM
I also have family members who are in the same union but haven't seen the same benefits over time, or who were in the union and have moved into non-union positions, and they are Trump-ists.
This is an interesting contrast:
Quote
I have plenty of hustle and have moved on from my union job to administration. Still, I liked the stability and support that came with being in a union. I also believed that yes, maybe there were a few free-riders, yet I was ahead in terms of pay and benefits than I would have been without the union.
Moving from union to non-union jobs doesn't have a universal outcome. (Not surprising, but this is a convenient illustration.)
Since a large amount of union activity today is in the public sector, most republicans oppose being taxed to pay someone to lobby for them to pay more tax. The circular nature of the beast is what has led many politicians of all political stripes to oppose unionization for public workers.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 05, 2022, 06:12:35 AM
Both of these are caricatures that avoid the underlying issue: productivity. If you have two people of equal ability, but one has more ambition, then the person with more ambition will be more successful.
Unions rely on an inversion of the Lake Wobegon Effect; the half of the workers who are below average in productivity are subsidized by the half who are above.
The simple reality is that the working class people most opposed to unions are those who see their own hustle as vital to their success, and the working class people most in favour of unions are those who want their success guaranteed independent of their effort.
Do you have any direct evidence of these assertions?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 05, 2022, 12:27:20 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 05, 2022, 06:12:35 AM
Both of these are caricatures that avoid the underlying issue: productivity. If you have two people of equal ability, but one has more ambition, then the person with more ambition will be more successful.
Unions rely on an inversion of the Lake Wobegon Effect; the half of the workers who are below average in productivity are subsidized by the half who are above.
The simple reality is that the working class people most opposed to unions are those who see their own hustle as vital to their success, and the working class people most in favour of unions are those who want their success guaranteed independent of their effort.
Do you have any direct evidence of these assertions?
Not specifically, but that kind of difference in outlook comes up in lots of areas of life. I'd call it something like the "tank-motorcycle dilemma".
Suppose you live in a city with heavy, chaotic traffic and are trying to choose a vehicle. If you choose a tank, you'll be very protected in any collision. If you choose a motorcycle, you'll be virtually unprotected. On the other hand, since a motorcycle is highly maneuverable, you can avoid many collisions that you couldn't in a tank. So there are two competing strategies; rely on the safety of the structure, or rely on your own agency. Each will work in some situations, but the important point is that
the choice itself creates a certain amount of self-fulfilling prophecy.
*Back in the 70's, when cars not made in North America were viewed with suspicion, one of the complaints voiced about foreign cars (which tended to be smaller) was that they'd be no protection in an accident. I always thought this missed the point, because a small, agile car seemed to me the best way to
avoid being in an accident. The "tank" and "motorcycle" just exaggerate this real debate that I've heard many times.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 05, 2022, 12:41:14 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 05, 2022, 12:27:20 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 05, 2022, 06:12:35 AM
Both of these are caricatures that avoid the underlying issue: productivity. If you have two people of equal ability, but one has more ambition, then the person with more ambition will be more successful.
Unions rely on an inversion of the Lake Wobegon Effect; the half of the workers who are below average in productivity are subsidized by the half who are above.
The simple reality is that the working class people most opposed to unions are those who see their own hustle as vital to their success, and the working class people most in favour of unions are those who want their success guaranteed independent of their effort.
Do you have any direct evidence of these assertions?
Not specifically, but that kind of difference in outlook comes up in lots of areas of life. I'd call it something like the "tank-motorcycle dilemma".
Suppose you live in a city with heavy, chaotic traffic and are trying to choose a vehicle. If you choose a tank, you'll be very protected in any collision. If you choose a motorcycle, you'll be virtually unprotected. On the other hand, since a motorcycle is highly maneuverable, you can avoid many collisions that you couldn't in a tank. So there are two competing strategies; rely on the safety of the structure, or rely on your own agency. Each will work in some situations, but the important point is that the choice itself creates a certain amount of self-fulfilling prophecy.
*Back in the 70's, when cars not made in North America were viewed with suspicion, one of the complaints voiced about foreign cars (which tended to be smaller) was that they'd be no protection in an accident. I always thought this missed the point, because a small, agile car seemed to me the best way to avoid being in an accident. The "tank" and "motorcycle" just exaggerate this real debate that I've heard many times.
Interesting speculating, but still only speculating.
Again, the wrong question.
Another better one is: When did unions stop excluding Blacks? Hint: The civil rights laws forced them to.
Unions raise wages by excluding. Used to be the sons of non-union members who were excluded, even if they were lily white. The excluded look for work elsewhere, pushing down wages for them. Unions [American institutions] create a wage differential, nothing more. If they can't exclude, they have no point.
Whatever the history of any given union in particular, or unions/-ism in general, the current economic reality for working-class white America is not good, and this tremendous declensionism has gone hand-in-hand with the decline of unions (though has been noted here down South they were always much less prominent, and socially conservative southerners had their reasons, however lame, for eschewing them). Work a week for Wallyworld and you will realize just how better off you'd be with a union. And just why WW makes all new hires in orientation sit through intense anti-union propaganda videos.
Quote from: dismalist on April 05, 2022, 05:52:41 PM
Again, the wrong question.
Another better one is: When did unions stop excluding Blacks? Hint: The civil rights laws forced them to.
Unions raise wages by excluding. Used to be the sons of non-union members who were excluded, even if they were lily white. The excluded look for work elsewhere, pushing down wages for them. Unions [American institutions] create a wage differential, nothing more. If they can't exclude, they have no point.
And, once unions took people of color, suddenly these people also had a path to secure, well-paying jobs and a solid financial future.
Research shows that white people often eschew a program that will benefit them, once they learn that people of color will also benefit. Weird, huh?
Kind of like colleges and universities. When they were all white people and all white male tenured professors, great! A bit ivory tower but oh well. Once diverse populations started attending and non-white, non-males attained PhDs, suddenly they are all evil and faculty are all adjuncts.
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 06, 2022, 07:00:19 AM
Quote from: dismalist on April 05, 2022, 05:52:41 PM
Again, the wrong question.
Another better one is: When did unions stop excluding Blacks? Hint: The civil rights laws forced them to.
Unions raise wages by excluding. Used to be the sons of non-union members who were excluded, even if they were lily white. The excluded look for work elsewhere, pushing down wages for them. Unions [American institutions] create a wage differential, nothing more. If they can't exclude, they have no point.
And, once unions took people of color, suddenly these people also had a path to secure, well-paying jobs and a solid financial future.
Research shows that white people often eschew a program that will benefit them, once they learn that people of color will also benefit. Weird, huh?
Which research is that, and when was it done? I just wonder if you might have some of that 'Progressophobia' that Bill Maher talks about. I don't doubt that what you describe once happened. But things are different now. White people are claiming to be of mixed race in order to help their odds of getting into Harvard, and Ibram Kendi is complaining about them trying to usurp black privilege.
QuoteKind of like colleges and universities. When they were all white people and all white male tenured professors, great! A bit ivory tower but oh well. Once diverse populations started attending and non-white, non-males attained PhDs, suddenly they are all evil and faculty are all adjuncts.
I don't quite get what you're saying here. Do you mean the public began to not appreciate the professoriate as it should because of racism?
Nobody outside of academia imposed adjunctification. Higher ed did this to itself.
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 06, 2022, 07:00:19 AM
Research shows that white people often eschew a program that will benefit them, once they learn that people of color will also benefit.
Has that research tested whether it works the other way as well? Given how tribal humans are, it would make sense if that was a tribal thing that happened to
any tribe when members of another tribe get admitted to some formerly exclusive space.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 06, 2022, 07:16:04 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 06, 2022, 07:00:19 AM
Research shows that white people often eschew a program that will benefit them, once they learn that people of color will also benefit.
Has that research tested whether it works the other way as well? Given how tribal humans are, it would make sense if that was a tribal thing that happened to any tribe when members of another tribe gets admitted to some formerly exclusive space.
I've often wondered why more urban-dwelling black people don't move to the suburbs after getting a little success with their small business or other career.
I suspect they feel comfortable living among people who look like them. Yet moving to a more affluent neighborhood would have its advantages.
Similarly, some black folks choose to be treated at a hospital either in their neighborhood or one that many other black folks use, even when their insurance is good enough to afford other choices including hospitals that are ranked higher. Could this affect life expectancy rates?
Same group preference is normal human behavior, but not always advantageous in the long run.
Mahag and wife just helped a black friend of our grown child move into an affluent white neighborhood. She wondered if the neighbors would be welcoming. They are. I had told her they would be. I was right.
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 06, 2022, 07:00:19 AM
Research shows that white people often eschew a program that will benefit them, once they learn that people of color will also benefit.
Read
Dying of Whiteness, Johnathan Metzger.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 06, 2022, 09:52:13 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 06, 2022, 07:00:19 AM
Research shows that white people often eschew a program that will benefit them, once they learn that people of color will also benefit.
Read Dying of Whiteness, Johnathan Metzger.
Jonathan Metzl.
Quote from: downer on April 06, 2022, 10:33:12 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 06, 2022, 09:52:13 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 06, 2022, 07:00:19 AM
Research shows that white people often eschew a program that will benefit them, once they learn that people of color will also benefit.
Read Dying of Whiteness, Johnathan Metzger.
Jonathan Metzl.
Ah, yes, I remember now.
Research shows that white people often eschew a program that
the researcher claims will benefit them.
The point about nuance is an important one, and as a person raised in a region where people either worked in factories or the coal mines and/or farmed for themselves, I've always been very pro-union (and pro-Democrat, FWIW). Everyone who worked "out" (i.e., for a paycheck) in my family as far back as I know has been not only a union member but very active in their unions. Some of my very earliest memories are of walking picket lines with my parents!
When Mom and Dad worked on the production floor at Decca Records in the 1950s, they were both in the AFL-CIO. Before and after that, Mom worked in the garment sweatshops and was in the ILGWU; Dad went to a major magazine printing factory and was part of the Bookbinders union. Most of the rest of the family and people in our area worked in the strip mines and were in the United Mine Workers. In all of those cases, there wasn't internal "freeloading" to any real degree, because back then, the unions insisted on their members pulling their weight and rewarded such by a system of higher pay/incentives for going beyond that minimum--the "do only what's required" people could do that, and be happy at the base rate, but those who wanted better money, the ability to bid on jobs or shifts, and so on, had mechanisms for getting those. Those who didn't pull their weight were subject to firing, with the unions' blessing.
It's just part of my DNA to be pro-union because that was the default in my childhood but also because, as I got older, I quickly made the lived connections between union membership and social justice/human rights. My people were lucky in that our experience of unionism had some teeth to it, and that often extended into issues of worker safety, equal treatment for blacks and whites, and of men and women, and so on. Certainly, the UMWA had its problems during those times nationally, but the various locals in our part of the country were pretty clean overall; if a member was wronged by management (usually in terms of dangerous duty or sloppy safety management) though, they'd wildcat at the drop of a hat.
In our area, while the plant and mine managers and owners were overwhelmingly Republicans, there was a pretty decent level of willingness to negotiate in good faith with the unions. By the 1970s, there were a few notable exceptions (I do remember a months-long UMW strike set off by one local, and all the others went out and stayed out in sympathy--and I know lots of cousins who walked picket lines with pistols and shotguns after the mines hired security forces who beat a couple dozen strikers). Of course, in the ensuing years the factories have closed and the mines have stopped working, and unemployment has always been in the low-mid teens range as a result.
I didn't intend to hijack the thread, but it IS interesting how different people interpret and experience the concept of "unions." (It also reminds me, yet again, just how far out of my league I am in academia, having come from such a different background than many/most here and at large.)
For the record, I'm still a staunch member (and occasional rabble-rouser) of my faculty union, despite our current leadership being pretty toothless. If nothing else, the potential legal aid my dues provide me are worth the cost of membership.
QuoteThose who didn't pull their weight were subject to firing, with the unions' blessing.
Precisely! The union is excluding, here the less productive who could retain their jobs if it were possible to pay them less. The excluded work elsewhere, pushing down wages outside the unionized firms or industries.
Ah, John Lewis, President of the United Mine Workers for 40 years, a staunch Republican, provided cartel services for the coal mining industry, which is composed of many not too large firms. When coal stockpiles got too big, threatening to drive down coal prices, he called a strike. Lovely for the companies and for the miners. Less coal at a higher price than otherwise.
Until oil and gas come along.
Quote from: downer on April 06, 2022, 10:33:12 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 06, 2022, 09:52:13 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on April 06, 2022, 07:00:19 AM
Research shows that white people often eschew a program that will benefit them, once they learn that people of color will also benefit.
Read Dying of Whiteness, Johnathan Metzger.
Jonathan Metzl.
D'oh. Thanks.
Quote from: dismalist on April 06, 2022, 10:43:01 AM
Ah, yes, I remember now.
Research shows that white people often eschew a program that the researcher claims will benefit them.
Trump would be very pleased.
Quote from: dismalist on April 06, 2022, 01:29:32 PM
John Lewis, President of the United Mine Workers for 40 years, a staunch Republican,
American labour leader who was president of the United Mine Workers of America (1920–60)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 06, 2022, 04:42:13 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 06, 2022, 01:29:32 PM
John Lewis, President of the United Mine Workers for 40 years, a staunch Republican,
American labour leader who was president of the United Mine Workers of America (1920–60)
Labo
ur? :-)
[Reminds me of an Arthur Koestler story involving the word "concrete".]
Quote from: dismalist on April 06, 2022, 04:51:51 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on April 06, 2022, 04:42:13 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 06, 2022, 01:29:32 PM
John Lewis, President of the United Mine Workers for 40 years, a staunch Republican,
American labour leader who was president of the United Mine Workers of America (1920–60)
Labour? :-)
[Reminds me of an Arthur Koestler story involving the word "concrete".]
Spelled that way on the website. I assume it's Brit.
For me the right question is 'when did the democrats become anti-union?'
The state university was presided over by a local democratic politician. When we went to form our formidable little adjunct union, he got the provost to try and talk us out of it. When that didn't work he tried a few other things.
See, if academia were run by republicans, someone could come along and say 'where the hell are workers' rights?' You can't say that now, because the champions of worker's rights are in charge.
Quote from: mahagonny on April 06, 2022, 05:56:37 PM
For me the right question is 'when did the democrats become anti-union?'
The two parties have metamorphosed. The Democrats have become the representatives of the Establishment -- college educated voters, the media, Wall Street, Big Business, the Ivy league, and so on, whereas the losers of the political system have migrated to the Republicans. I'm sure no one ordained this, but rather that individual elements of the Democratic Party thought it was in their interests to do so. I don't think Republicans twigged this, and Trump didn't do this, either -- he just recognized it and was elected because of it.
So the Republican voters, about half the electorate, are what's left -- the rubes, the uneducated, the losers, the unworthy, the unwashed.
My sympathies are with the unwashed. The others can take care of themselves.
Simplified counter-factual polarities always surprise me among academics.
Quote from: dismalist on April 06, 2022, 06:24:41 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 06, 2022, 05:56:37 PM
For me the right question is 'when did the democrats become anti-union?'
The two parties have metamorphosed. The Democrats have become the representatives of the Establishment -- college educated voters, the media, Wall Street, Big Business, the Ivy league, and so on, whereas the losers of the political system have migrated to the Republicans. I'm sure no one ordained this, but rather that individual elements of the Democratic Party thought it was in their interests to do so. I don't think Republicans twigged this, and Trump didn't do this, either -- he just recognized it and was elected because of it.
So the Republican voters, about half the electorate, are what's left -- the rubes, the uneducated, the losers, the unworthy, the unwashed.
My sympathies are with the unwashed. The others can take care of themselves.
If I had to construct a snatching-victory-from-the-jaws-of-defeat scenario for the USA it involves people like Coleman Hughes, Wilfred Reilly, Winsome Sears taking center stage and getting listened to. But it probably won't happen. The left has too many podiums and the head too far up the ass.
Quote from: mahagonny on April 06, 2022, 07:49:04 PM
Quote from: dismalist on April 06, 2022, 06:24:41 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on April 06, 2022, 05:56:37 PM
For me the right question is 'when did the democrats become anti-union?'
The two parties have metamorphosed. The Democrats have become the representatives of the Establishment -- college educated voters, the media, Wall Street, Big Business, the Ivy league, and so on, whereas the losers of the political system have migrated to the Republicans. I'm sure no one ordained this, but rather that individual elements of the Democratic Party thought it was in their interests to do so. I don't think Republicans twigged this, and Trump didn't do this, either -- he just recognized it and was elected because of it.
So the Republican voters, about half the electorate, are what's left -- the rubes, the uneducated, the losers, the unworthy, the unwashed.
My sympathies are with the unwashed. The others can take care of themselves.
If I had to construct a snatching-victory-from-the-jaws-of-defeat scenario for the USA it involves people like Coleman Hughes, Wilfred Reilly, Winsome Sears taking center stage and getting listened to. But it probably won't happen. The left has too many podiums and the head too far up the ass.
One lovely thing about the US of A is that it can renew itself.