For your consideration, a couple of case studies:
1. Democrat Howard Dean, who didn’t even seek an endorsement from the Vermont NEA in his prior elections, changed gears and went for the nod when his Progressive Party opponent in the 2000 Governor’s race, Anthony Pollina, decided to go for it himself. At the vote of the VTNEA’s political action interview committee, Pollina reportedly got a “favorable” designation, while Dean only managed a “neutral” vote, largely due to Dean’s high-profile battle with the NEA over the issue of a Statewide Teacher’s Contract, which he supported and the Union did not. when the recommendations came before the Vermont-NEA Board of Directors, Dean ended up with the endorsement. The Board of Directors voted an overwhelming 10-2 for Dean despite the recommendation, and many in the rank and file were furious – some taking to the press to demand the decision be reversed.
2. Despite a 100% pro-Union voting record at that point, Senate President Pro-Tem Peter Shumlin was passed over by the Vermont AFL-CIO for their endorsement, which was instead offered to his Progressive opponent in the Lieutenant Governor’s race: Anthony Pollina. The reasons cited for choosing Pollina, who had never had his rhetoric tested in office before, over long-time Senator Shumlin was that they preferred the candidate who had walked with them in picket lines and unabashedly promoted their ideals over the legislator who, despite up to that point ending up on their side virtually all the time in the legislative process, was considered to be someone who consistently had to be be cajoled and pressured into doing so. Both Progressive and AFL-CIO activists were then heard openly mocking the legislative leader for leaving the meeting he was obviously unwelcome at in a huff.
This is organized Labor’s dilemma in Vermont.
Each of the options in these examples presented a Hobson’s choice for an institution steadily losing clout in the state (and painfully aware of it). As Labor sees their influence chiseled away, it becomes even more important to demonstrate some electoral muscle in some of these big ticket races – and yet, when there is a lack of any choice that is clean and consequence-free, making those kind of endorsements – whether that means endorsing the Prog or the Dem – inevitably has a self-destructive flavor to it. In the final analysis, both choices can be losers, as both choices to some extent feed (and even accelerate) the downward spiral into marginalization.
Consider the environment. On the one side, there’s a Governor who is working steadily to undermine and marginalize Unions, and while he is occasionally stopped on some big ticket power grab, the truth is he has been steadily succeeding in his goal.
On the other side, here are two institutions – the Democratic and Progressive Parties – who both feel absolutely entitled to the unconditional support of organized Labor. And when they don’t get it, the contempt grows. And when that contempt spreads among those who should be allies, the very foundations of Labor’s political power starts to erode.
The calculus is no fun. Who to piss off? Each side (Ps & Ds) would offer you some basic, irrefutable math – and both would be right. Progressives would point to the fact that their caucus is 100% pro-Labor (which is true until and unless Dowland returns, who had a little bit of deviation, there…). 100% is a powerful number.
Democrats, of course, represent a wider political spread, and the Democratic caucus may be only, say 65-70% pro-Labor. But 100% of 6 legislators is…well, just 6. 65-70% of 100 legislators is – 65 or 70 legislators. That’s a lot more powerful number than 6. Especially when that 65 or 70 have a lot more say on the state pocketbook and legal code, due to their legislative status – and are therefore uniquely positioned as a potential bulwark against a hostile executive.
But the pressure is for Labor to throw in with one “side” or another, and increasingly they have – but generally, only inasmuch as individual Unions have given over to being pawns in the Prog-Dem battle. Dems tend to see Unions as natural allies, while Progs would rather see Unions as an arm of their movement. Dems, for example, are always trying to find ways to make room in their state Executive Committee, or on the Coordinated Campaign, or whatever, for Union “slots” or set-aside positions inviting Labor representation within the institutional infrastructure. Progs just assume they’re already there. Of course, the truth is that the number of legislators of either party who are or have been Union members is teensy-weensy.
High profile attempts by Progressive partisans to seize Union control have met with mixed success electorally, as well as in implementing that control after a successful coup. The Vermont NEA from 2000-2002 became the setting for an ugly behind the scenes partisan proxy war between the two, with the Dems gaining temporary advantage. On the other hand, Progressive stalwart Ed Stanak was able to take the reins of the Vermont State Employees Association, and as such there was never any question that the VSEA would support Pollina – even though there is no Union with more to lose from pissing off the majority party by easily and casually brushing off their Speaker of the House, who also happens to be the party leader most beloved by their caucus in decades. House Democrats will take the smackdown personally. A smackdown made all the more pointless by the fact that Anthony Pollina will likely not even break into double digits this election. As such, the endorsement is as much an exercise in electoral futility as any you’ll see anywhere in the nation (and that doesn’t do much for organizational clout either).
And here’s the irony: as whatever bonds of camaraderie that exist between the Democrats and a Union – any Union – are whittled away to nothing, the Union will come to depend not on a cooperative relationship to ensure Dems vote correctly on their issues, but on the innate pro-Labor ethic of each individual Democratic legislator. And its the supposed lack of any such innate pro-Labor ethic among Democrats that is the nominal reason given by Progressive partisans for Labor to abandon the Democrats. So that means – what? That by the same reasoning used to push Labor to abandon the Dems (the lack of a labor ethic), in doing so they’ll be left hanging their hopes on something that doesn’t exist (that selfsame ethic on an individual basis)? This contradiction alone should point out the built-in silliness of the dump-all-Dems argument.
But on the other hand, there is the obvious dilemma. On big ticket votes, the Dem caucus – always eager to avoid a fight – caves. A lot. And, what, Labor is just supposed to take it?
The perfect example is the god-awful two vote legislation for school budgets. An insulting idea clearly meant to institutionally hardwire a difficult hurdle to any hope of a clean and honorable process of local school budgetary approval. And yet, Senator Shumlin with a boost from folks like Senator Collins of Franklin County decided it needed to happen as a compromise – and Symington gave into the pressure to follow along. Under those circumstances, it’s hard to imagine her receiving the NEA endorsement in any way that will be easily or cleanly justifiable to the rank and file teachers. I know I’d be furious if I were one of those teachers getting that news.
So what to do? In these high profile P vs. D moments, such as Symington v Pollina, either option gains individual Unions pretty much nothing, as far as furthering their interests and power. And worse than that, both options clearly stand to further erode what standing they have left – and yet, doing nothing also courts a further marginalization. The fatalistic dynamics create all kinds of unproductive, even self-destructive flailings – such as the bizarre endorsement of Republican, anti-Union Douglas hack Michael Bertrand over Democrat Deb Markowitz (she whose office of the Secretary of State has pound-for-pound possibly the most abysmal Labor record in state government).
The solution?
Engage further. Go all in. Not on the safe terms offered by Democratic Party regulars, but on their own.
The fact is that Labor will always have to deal with Dems in some degree of partnership, so they should tell the most angry of Progressive Partisans that if they really support Unions as Unions and not just as would-be Progressive Party franchises, they should be able to see that, accept it, and get with the program. The Unions should be the drivers in the political process, not merely the vehicles for others with different institutional priorities. The truth is that ever since the Shumlin/Pollina episode laid out at the beginning of this diary, the Vermont AFL/CIO as an electoral/political force has been increasingly non-existent. Once an organization like that loses the appearence of independence and looks to be the subsidiary of another group, they become marginalized and – like it or not – that is precisely what has happened with the state AFL. The ratio of respect-to-eye rolling is way off with them, and to win back long lost ground, they need to start turning that impression around as soon as possible. The state needs the AFL-CIO to be a vital force again.
In the meantime, they should serve as a cautionary example for other Unions.
But that’s not to say that Labor should go back to being the institutional lady in waiting for all things Democrat.
Labor can play a huge role in the breaking open of the political cliques within the Democratic Party, and by doing so enhance their own standing, power, and start seeing legislative results. How? For one thing, some strategic non-endorsements might be nice. In the Bertrand-Markowitz example, just staying out of it entirely might’ve been more productive if done in an active, pointed way.
But the big thing Labor should do is get involved in Democratic primaries – by which I mean, create primaries.
The left-blogosphere’s mantra is “more and better Dems.” Or if you prefer Caoimhinn’s variant (as I do): “more and better – mostly better”. As much as a growing new media in Vermont could make this sort of transformation happen, Labor could have a much bigger effect. Again, it requires Union leadership to become less parochial in their approaches to either the Dems or the Progs, and instead become pragmatic. But the truth is, that such a change would only have to jump start in one major Union, and eventually – democracy being what it is – it would likely sweep over the others.
If Vermont’s Union leadership is not willing to look at elections and the election dynamics pragmatically, and instead would rather spend time dividing into Progs versus Dems… well, I suppose the time will come when rank and file will start asking of their elected leaders “which side are you on…”
UPDATE 3:38 PM: Right on cue, I’m forwarded the following.
Catamount Tavern News Service, Colchester, VT- On September 14th 2008 the Vermont AFL-CIO voted to endorse Progressive turned Independent Anthony Pollina in the 2008 race for governor. The vote was held at the annual Vermont AFL-CIO convention in Colchester.
Pollina on the previous day, delivered a rousing speech to the assembled union delegates which called on the expansion of workers rights and decried the policies of the Douglas administration. Democratic candidate Gay [sic] Symington and Republican Governor Jim Douglas also addressed the union members, but only Anthony (a farm organizer and generally considered a social-democrat), received a standing ovation and an endorsement.
