I wrote
> > But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing
> > people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board?
Carrol responded
> If enough progressives think like this, by (say) 2012 the bottom line
> will be do you want someone like Buchanan or someone like Gerald R. K.
> Smith appointing the NLRB? By 2030 it will be do you want someone like
> Mussolini or someone like Pinochet appointing the NLRB?
Boy, that was a pretty slippery slope I stepped on (in the eyes of Carrol).
Many union elections are lost by unions by a very small number of votes.
Although the NLRB often has fairly minor impacts on what goes on "in the field"
they do have an impact: large enough often to cause widespread gains or losses
for union representations elections over time.
I think that the best way--right now--to support working people is to avoid the
horrors of Bush appointments to NLRB and other similar Federal agencies. And,
Gore might very well follow in the footsteps of Clinton and do some good things
in his appointments. Unions--as flawed as they are in the US--are the strongest
working peoples' organizations here in the US. They need every (minor) bit of
production they can get.
A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive
movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very sad
years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power.
If the hope is that a growing Green Party--and a 5% Nader vote--will help
things down the road, just remember what happened to the (at the time) very
popular movement started by Ross Perot and the Reform Party. Where does it
stand now?
Eric
