Americans support public unions, oppose GOPer attacks [New]
The NYT-CBS poll reported in today’s NYT offer data indicating majority American opposition to the GOPer attack on unions (“Majority in Poll Back Employees in Public Sector Unions”, NYT, 28 February, 2010).
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html (trouble with embedding this morning?)
These data obviously contradict the claims of popular support for attacking unions. The polling is actually very, very encouraging. For instance, the strongest support for cutting benefits and wages is found among those making in excess of $100,000 and even these wealthier Americans oppose cutting public sector wages and benefits (45% support, 49% oppose). Also encouragingly, independents break with self-identifying Dems on the issue.
These data are highly unlikely to encourage GOPers to turn on their real constituents such as the Koch brothers and those of their ilk. But it is a big shot in the arm for those fighting for their rights – for all of us, really – in Madison and Trenton and Columbus and elsewhere. It also provides evidence that Democratic leaders would have the support of the public if they took a stronger stance, or at least a more active stance, of support for workers. It certainly gives space for a strategy of upping the rhetorical attack on GOPers.
President Obama: You said you’d walk the line with striking workers. You may get your chance. Do that and go on the offensive generally. The public supports the workers and your strong moral leadership will likely strengthen that base support, possibly even expand that support. If doing the right thing for Americans is not sufficient motivation to enter the fray in full, consider the consequences for you and your party if the GOPers win these fights now underway and to be decided in the next several months. If we do not win those fights, you and the party are in serious trouble. If those fights are won, you may gain in strength. With the support of the public, we can win this fight.
The American people are ready. Are you? Or maybe the better question is: Which side are you on?
What Do You Think?
21 Responses to 'Americans support public unions, oppose GOPer attacks'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
John [New]
Tuesday, 1 Mar, 2011 at 6:59 am
And they know they’re hurting in Wisconsin. The winger radicals are relaunching their air war with two new television campaigns to support Walker.
A blogger at Uppity Wisconsin gets it right: “Walker is in trouble. The right-wing nationally has a lot at stake and needs to win this fight in Wisconsin. At any cost. And his side has unlimited money at its disposal.”
‘Xoff’ has a pretty accurate description of the ads:
I hope the unions and maybe the PCCC can gets some ads up too so the Repubs can’t totally dominate the idiot box.
Wouldn’t it be great if the DNC showed some solidarity with the unions and put up an ad too?
Tuesday, 1 Mar, 2011 at 8:01 am
Wouldn’t it be great if President Obama went to Madison and called out Walker and his extremist agenda and exposed the Koch brothers?
He should care about his own political future and that of his party even if he doesn’t care about the workers (and I wouldn’t go so far as to say he doesn’t care).
Emocrat [New]
Tuesday, 1 Mar, 2011 at 9:57 am
This is absolutely true and it would also have the benefit of him making one speech could basically destroy all those RW ad buys in one single swoop. Or better yet, force the righties into ever bigger, more embarrassing buys… forcing them to waste lots of money is always a good idea. I’d like to see how anti-Obama ads fare with the audience. If it polls badly, it will set the Thugs back quite a bit.
I’m sure every TV station in the state would carry Obama’s speech live and would replay the relevant sound bites during the news, which I would bet are seeing higher than usual ratings in WI.
Now that the Tea Birchers have gotten in with their anti-Obama ad buy, that could actually force the WH to think about this more constructively. Thus far, they’ve been able to float above this issue without getting involved. Now Wisconsin might appear to be actually important to them in terms of 2012.
Still, I’m not placing any wagers they’ll do anything positive. If there’s one thing they’re really good at, it’s blowing perfectly good opportunities.
David [New]
Tuesday, 1 Mar, 2011 at 8:15 pm
I’d prefer he did things within his power to ensure union rights. For example, he could ensure that federal contractors be neutral towards organizing or barring them from hiring replacement wooers – that would not require any legislation, so the failure to do it cannot be blamed on the Senate.
Contracting power could also be used to improve wages.
When Dems announce their rhetorical support, we should ask them why the president isn’t taking these steps.
Emocrat [New]
Tuesday, 1 Mar, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Indeed. Why not do both? Why not demand both?
Given the public opinion trends right now, he’d be stupid not to do all of those things. But given that I tend to characterize BO as a mediocre hack of stellar proportions, one might guess where my expectations are.
But still, why not demand it from him anyway?
David [New]
Tuesday, 1 Mar, 2011 at 9:07 pm
I’m not so interested in the purely symbolic option. Plus, statements on WI would ring hollow given this (from Mike Elk)
Tuesday, 1 Mar, 2011 at 9:22 pm
I don’t follow you regarding a statement ringing hollow.
Obviously he should do both and he should start with the easy one you write about first. That he won’t is just another reason that it is unlikely he would go to Madison and call out Walker, as I jokingly suggested.
If he were to do so, however, it would not be hollow, I don’t think. I also think Mike Elk (and seemingly you) misanalyze the nature of potential influence from joining the fray. Not coming off as Harrby Bridges or anything – now that would ring as false – but explaining to the country what is at stake and why he joins most of us in opposing Walker. Nationalizing a battle that the GOPers want to fight out as quietly as possible in one state capitol after another.
Another dimension of the misanalysis, in my respectful judgment, is that he/you appear to assume (look at the contrast he makes with Cote) that such an effort would designed to directly influence Walker. It’s not. It would be to further embolden and motivate our side, steeling them for the long fight. It might give the absentee politicians more confidence to stay the course. It might cause an increase in fear among a few GOPer senators elected from pro-Obama districts, enough to stymie Walker. Such a win would have positive effects on Obama’s own stature. Plus, more than most, he could reframe this as a question beyond public sector benefits and right to organize.
David [New]
Tuesday, 1 Mar, 2011 at 9:56 pm
I’m less talking about what Obama should do, then how best to pressure the WH (and the rest of the party). You’re right that rhetorical support would come first, but if that is what you asked for, it’s harder to keep pushing after you get that. That is my real fear. Right now, the protesters get to define what this fight is about, and when they have won. I don’t want the WH, constrained as it is by the state of the national Democratic Party, to take that away. Too many Democrats define their goals by ‘what Obama wants.’
Not sure Elk or I are making the mistake you think (as he says “unlike the situations with Governor Scott Walker”). My only point was that if the rhetoric was a real commitment, there are things the WH could do directly. If the symbolism was followed by some of these other things, the words would not ring hollow. But that seems unlikely, unless they are pushed (then it’s still unlikely, just less so).
One more thing – the WH will be more bold when other key actors in the party get bolder – governors, representatives, senators, etc. So far, they are not bold.
Tuesday, 1 Mar, 2011 at 10:23 pm
That’s a great reply.
The only other thing I’d add is that he said Cote could be pressured but Walker could not be pressured. My point was the statement would would not be designed to pressure Walker, at least not directly. So to indict a statement because Walker cannot be pressured, unlike Cote, is not responsive.
Making what you call a symbolic statement would be bad if that was all it produced; nice words and a coopted agenda. That’s possible, of course, but I think a presidential statement could strengthen our forces. I believe some symbols do matter. In no event am I saying that victory is achieved with a statement but that in the current context it would strengthen action by others, particularly those a long ways from Washington. Regardless of what Obama did after such a statement.
It’s fun hashing these things through and no doubt it is of some value. It is a kind of academic value, though, given that Obama is highly unlikely to do more than “I am troubled by some things out of Wisconsin” or whatever it was that he said. Which I guess circles back your point about why should we be discussing academic questions about what Obama should do :).
What should happen is the leaders of the AFSCME and SEIU and other unions say in a private meeting with Obama “Gut check time, Mr. President. Get in the game or say goodbye to our massive donations and foot soldiers for you re-elections. We will use our resources and energy for folks willing to help us. And to show you we are serious, here’s our current projection of what we will spend on your behalf. For each day you don’t get in the game, shave off $1 million.”
What would they have to lose? If the Walker paradigm spreads to many other states those unions will be effectively dead at some point relatively soon. That is the empirical experience in Indiana. Members don’t contribute to unions unable to protect them.
Now, that should happen. The fact the leaders of those unions probably won’t says a lot about them.
Tuesday, 1 Mar, 2011 at 9:03 pm
David: He should do that. Please explain how that solves the Walker, Kasich, Snyder, LePage, Daniels, etc. problem. Like your idea to ask supportive Dems why President Obama is not more involved. That I will try. For the record I do not think that Obama will do what I describe, merely that I think he should do so.
Emocrat: “Mediocre hack of stellar proportions”? That is a little harsh isn’t it? More importantly, is it really an accurate description? I am unhappy with many of his policies and question many of his political decisions as I have, at least implicitly, in this thread.
But I do not think there is anything mediocre about Obama and I do not think he is a hack of stellar proportions. At least given that hack to me implies non-thinking robotic politician. He’s not that.
This also points to another issue I think we might benefit from thinking through a little more. I’m not challenging or indicting you in particular just raising a view I have held for some time, and one to be honest I do not faithfully follow. Still, for all the criticisms I direct at Obama, and I’ll be honest I have done my share, in general, I think we confront problems that have their origins not primarily in the character, courage, or intelligence of individual leaders, even very powerful individual leaders. One part of effective analysis might be to examine structural and institutional foundations of the current order, upon which rests a marginal zone for variation of outcomes we could attribute to individuals like Obama or McConnell. And that is important. Individuals need to be held to account and need to be pressured.
But the much bigger problem overall is structural or societal or institutional or cultural, however you wish to frame it. One conclusion that follows from that characterization of the situation is that neither damnation nor salvation will flow from Obama.
Now, let’s take this a step further. Outside our friendly community here, Obama-bashing of some types may not prove to help generate the types of changes we desire. Or not as much as more calibrated rhetoric.
Living in Detroit I encounter the issues I am kind of tip-toeing around all the time. My many African American neighbors are also very frustrated with the president, sometimes for similar reasons, sometimes for other reasons (I am white, if that is not obvious). Almost to a person they shut you out if one is over the top in attacking him or disrespects him in a really egregious manner. And I think that conclusion applies to many other types of peoples with a range of political viewpoints many of whom are, essentially, compadres and people we need.
Given my argument about structure above, it is not that hard of a tactical decision for me to acknowledge his strengths and to treat him with a modicum of respect, respect I honestly did not extend to Bush and I feel no shame about that. Fortunately, I don’t need to personally demonize or denigrate Obama in order to engage in useful political discussions with them about his limitations, and then from there pivot to the larger questions I think are crucial. And when I do, I often find they got to that place long before I did.
David [New]
Tuesday, 1 Mar, 2011 at 9:15 pm
I didn’t mean to suggest the White House doing these things would address the immediate problem – but I’m not sure supportive statements from the president would help that either. If the president put out the word to the rest of the party that fighting this back was essential to the party’s fortunes as well as the president’s, that might well help.
I agree that the organizational and structural factors tend to matter a great deal more. If we could swap out Obama for some other candidate who was acceptable to the Democratic establishment, things would be pretty much the same. But whoever that was would need to be pressured. Reconciling those things is not easy.
Tuesday, 1 Mar, 2011 at 9:38 pm
I know I should check that out since so many have talked about it for so long. I’d also recommend Ferguson’s work.
Emocrat [New]
Tuesday, 1 Mar, 2011 at 9:40 pm
First off, a great response. Thank you. I agree with you about 95% or so. Definitely in terms of analysis. Definitely in terms of institutional aspects. Even definitely in terms of bashing. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not always terribly disciplined, although in this particular case, I still don’t think I was really bashing. For me, at least, that word brings on a slew of epithets one doesn’t normally emit in polite company. Or at least words like, “asshole,” etc.
Still, your point is taken and I’ll work on that. Also, I don’t mind being challenged. For me at least, that’s a big part of my reason for being here and OL was one of the few places where I felt this kind of conversation was generally productive.
But I do want to be clear about one thing: the word “hack” is pejorative, but it’s not exactly personal. In my own experience working in the Democratic Party, they typically ruled the roost over the party activists. Some were better than others. Some were quite talented, aside from certain, shall we say, ethical, moral and political qualities. Even having said that, quite a few were friends of mine and there were others I liked and respected up to a point.
So that’s perhaps not a great word for me to use, since it’s so muddy.
In other words, I don’t think Obama is worthy of demonization or anything of the like. He’s talented in some respects, almost all of which are superficial, as far as I’m concerned. He’s also a product of the system, as it were, and so the system deserves more credit/blame than any one human being. This is just as true for Obama as it was for Dubya and everyone else who’s risen to power as he has. In the end, the institution has it’s final say on who gets in.
But does he have an original thought in his brain? I think not. Does he possess anything resembling real leadership abilities? I think not. Does he go along to get along just to avoid confrontation? Absolutely. Has he misrepresented himself in order to win an election only to betray all of those interests? Absolutely. Is he willing to support policies even he has to know are just plain wrong for this society of ours? Yep. Of course, it’s also possible he really is terribly ignorant, even about the constitution which he used to teach at a law school of note.
I’m sure your neighbors see all that and much more. But I can also understand why they don’t want it made personal in the way that so many Americans like to make it. It also effects them indirectly, as the media is so good at reminding them every day… just as it affects other Democrats who are trying to figure out how not to go down with his ship, as it were. Consider all the party activists trying to work their districts who are getting howls of derision from people they’re trying to organize, because of the party leadership’s unwillingness to stand by their collective words issued two years ago.
And when I do, I often find they got to that place long before I did.
You know, I’m finding this myself, very often. It’s been a real help to me, since I no longer feel the need to go there. I can just talk about institutions instead, which helps me maintain some distance on the whole thing. That’s good, since I can be rather feisty at times.
Criticism and demonization or bashing are not the same thing, but you make a really good point. Yours is a critique I can use. Thanks for that.
Okay. That said, I think a lot of us would like to hear more about Detroit, for a lot of reasons. For a lot of other towns and cities, that’s looking more and more like the future.
Tuesday, 1 Mar, 2011 at 10:52 pm
I am off to bed but wanted to thank you for your comments.
About Detroit: I will have more to say, in part because in some respects, and I am not kidding, it may not be such a bad thing if more towns in the future look like some of the things going down in Detroit today. In the face of a dysfunctional government, alternative institution building and mobilization and activism are exploding. People ain’t waiting for the government or Obama or anybody to start working.
Now, I am not deluded. The problems in Detroit are incredible, as bad as anywhere, with at times too little hope for positive change. And good governance and prosperity beats the hell out the alternative. But there are these small green shoots and if Detroit can come back, anyplace can come back and if Detroit comes back it is going to be because a multi-racial, multi-issue, grassroots, bootstrapping, fun-loving coalition of movements made it so. And we need to get to good governance and a just society, I think Detroit can offer some lessons.
In that vein, I mentioned a few days ago that I would blogging eventually at my friend’s brand new mega-blog PoliticalContext.org (the ambition is mega-blog, it’s not there yet obviously). It just started last week and I am getting in on the ground floor. We can only hope they provide the stimulation of our beloved OL and what may emerge here. But he one of my oldest friends, the site (he and his partner) are trying is something very ambitious and they are not Dem-fixated or election-fixated. I bring this up because what I have committed to contribute is a lengthy report from the trenches in Detroit once a month. I will do other stuff there and other stuff here. But I am going to try and devote much of my blogging energy to my Detroit reports and if you are interested you can stop by and take a look. Or, even better, when you are not here, consider adding to that community-in-the-making as well.
Emocrat [New]
Wednesday, 2 Mar, 2011 at 1:05 pm
I’ve bookmarked and taken a look at that blog and it looks quite good. Unless there’s a reason not to, consider cross-posting.
Re: Detroit, you’ve touched on exactly what I am wondering about. If the community is finding creative ways of filling the void left by a dysfunctional government, that’s always worth looking at… both in terms of what’s working and what isn’t. There are a lot of communities that are need of inspiration on this count and that number will grow exponentially at some point.
In any case, I’ll be reading PC regularly. If there’s something I can add to it, I’d be very glad to.
Tuesday, 1 Mar, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Note to those turning on the lights: Why do I have to moderate and approve some comments and not others? I don’t want to ever have to moderate comments in any diary or story I might create. That’s not my style or interest. If someone says something I don’t like about one of my diaries, good, that gives me the chance to engage them if I wish. But I can go days, even in this era, without checking my email and having to approve any comments to my diaries will leave people frustrated.
Mark [New]
Wednesday, 2 Mar, 2011 at 11:11 am
Right now, everyone needs one approved comment (for the whole site), is my understanding. So if someone posted their first comment, ever, on this site then approval would be required.
Is that consistent with your experience or did you see something else?
Wednesday, 2 Mar, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Thanks for the explanation. I will track in the future. Whether those requests for approval that arrived in my email were their first posts or not I cannot say.
Since you are taking questions :) is there a way that I can mask my email from public view? Or is masking alread the default setting?
Igor [New]
Wednesday, 2 Mar, 2011 at 1:05 pm
This is still Mark. My lowly test account with few permissions cannot see your email address, so I think you are fine.
Mark [New]
Wednesday, 2 Mar, 2011 at 1:07 pm
I assume you got an email for that comment as well, as it was Igor’s first. I approved it myself.
Wednesday, 2 Mar, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Yes I did get such an email so it looks like you have figured out what happens. Thanks.