On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: > “I’m worried about Trump versus Hillary,” Mr. Poklinkoski said. He noted > that at home Governor Walker had successfully portrayed himself as an > anti-tax, blue-collar politician, an image that helped him divide > Wisconsin’s workers during the state’s labor battles. “If you have a > right-wing populist, you can beat a corporate Democrat,” Mr. Poklinkoski > said. “Scott Walker did it three times here.”[...] >
This is an informative article overall, but I am not sure I get this description of Scott Walker as a "right-wing populist". Where is the populism in anything he guys says or does? -raghu. > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/campaign-stops/which-side-are-you-on-hillary.html > > Which Side Are You On, Hillary? > By DAN KAUFMAN > MARCH 12, 2016 > > “We’ve got to stand up for unions,” Hillary Clinton declared in her > closing statement during the Democratic debate in Milwaukee last month. The > line offered the labor-friendly audience a comforting rebuke to Gov. Scott > Walker’s relentless attacks on Wisconsin’s unions. It generated passionate > applause. > > But Mrs. Clinton’s show of support contrasted with her long indifference > to the concerns of organized labor. The results of Michigan’s primary last > week highlighted this problem; exit polls showed that Mrs. Clinton narrowly > lost union households to Senator Bernie Sanders. Over all, nearly 60 > percent of Democratic voters thought free-trade agreements, which Mrs. > Clinton has generally supported, caused job losses. Mr. Sanders won a > majority of those voters, too, which raises the possibility of further > upsets on Tuesday in primaries in Illinois and Ohio, where opposition to > free-trade pacts is strong. > > Mrs. Clinton’s troubles with labor began before she arrived in Washington. > From 1986 to 1992, as a corporate lawyer in Arkansas, she served on the > board of Walmart. By then, Sam Walton, the company’s founder, was notorious > for his anti-union fervor; in the early 1970s, Mr. Walton hired an attorney > named John E. Tate to break up an organizing campaign at two Missouri > Walmart stores. For decades afterward, Mr. Tate drove Walmart’s successful > anti-union strategy. In 1988, Mr. Tate joined Walmart’s board, where he > served alongside Mrs. Clinton. > > During Mrs. Clinton’s first presidential run, a former Walmart board > member told ABC News that he could not recall her ever defending unions > during more than 20 private board meetings. “She was not a dissenter,” > Donald G. Soderquist, the vice chairman of the board during Mrs. Clinton’s > tenure, told The Los Angeles Times in 2007. “She was a part of those > decisions.” > > “I’m always proud of Walmart and what we do and the way we do it better > than anybody else,” Mrs. Clinton said at a 1990 shareholders meeting in > Fayetteville, Ark. But over the years, as Walmart’s reputation was sullied > by allegations of unsafe working conditions, overtime theft and sex > discrimination, Mrs. Clinton distanced herself from the company. Still, the > Walton family’s fondness for her endures; in December, Alice L. Walton, Mr. > Walton’s daughter, donated more than $350,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund. > > It is Mrs. Clinton’s past support for free-trade agreements, though, that > has most antagonized labor. In 1996, she said that the two-year-old North > American Free Trade Agreement was “proving its worth,” a position she > reaffirmed years later as a senator. In 2000, while running for her Senate > seat, Mrs. Clinton supported China’s entry into the World Trade > Organization and granting the country Permanent Normal Trade Relations. > > More recently, as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton praised the 12-country > Trans-Pacific Partnership repeatedly (at one point she called it the “gold > standard” of free-trade deals) and lobbied foreign governments for its > adoption. But last October, Mrs. Clinton announced that she opposed the > agreement. > > During her 2008 presidential campaign, Mrs. Clinton also publicly opposed > free-trade agreements with Panama, South Korea and Colombia, the last of > which was opposed by human rights groups as well as organized labor in > Colombia and the United States. “I will do everything I can to urge the > Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement,” she said at a > gathering of the Communications Workers of America in Washington. > > But recently released emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private server show that > as secretary of state Mrs. Clinton lobbied Congress to support the > agreement with Colombia, which passed in 2011. Describing her effort to > sway Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, Mrs. Clinton > wrote to a State Department official: “I told him that at the rate we were > going, Columbian workers were going to end up w the same or better rights > than workers in Wisconsin and Indiana and, maybe even, Michigan.” According > to Escuela Nacional Sindical, a Colombian labor rights group, 105 union > activists have been assassinated since the agreement passed. > > Robert E. Scott, a senior economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy > Institute, estimates that NAFTA is responsible for the net loss of roughly > 700,000 American jobs to Mexico, while China’s admittance to the W.T.O. > cost the United States more than three million jobs. Roughly three-quarters > of those losses were in the more heavily unionized manufacturing sector, > contributing to the steep decline in private sector union membership, which > went from 15.7 percent in 1993 to a nadir of 6.6 percent in 2014, the > lowest figure in a century. > > Mr. Scott’s research has shown that these agreements not only drive down > manufacturing wages, but they also have a ripple effect, pushing down the > pay in other jobs typically held by workers without a college education: > home health care worker, truck driver, waitress. A 2013 paper by Mr. > Scott’s colleague at E.P.I., Josh Bivens, found that, on average, > noncollege-educated American workers, the people who make up roughly 70 > percent of the labor force, lose nearly $2,000 a year in wages owing to the > growth of trade with low-wage countries promoted by free-trade agreements. > > The depth of Mrs. Clinton’s estrangement from labor may not be known until > April 5, when Wisconsin holds its primary. Since 1960, no Democrat has won > the general election without winning the state, and a loss to Mr. Sanders > in Wisconsin could foreshadow trouble against Donald Trump, whose > opposition to free trade helped propel him to victory in Michigan. Exit > polls there showed that a majority of Republican voters also believe that > free trade takes away American jobs. Mr. Trump decisively won that group. > “You know, Michigan has been stripped,” Mr. Trump told CNN’s Anderson > Cooper the day after his victory. “You look at those empty factories all > over the place. And nobody hits that message better than me.” > > While Mrs. Clinton’s pro-union shout out at the debate resonated widely, > many of Wisconsin’s labor activists remain skeptical. “A lot of our job > problems stem from NAFTA, and the TPP will kill us,” Gerry Miller, a United > Steelworkers welder at a Caterpillar plant in South Milwaukee, told me last > month. “We can’t compete with people being paid two dollars a day in > Vietnam. The thing that we’re most upset about is the pandering. Democrats > like Clinton speak labor out of one side of their mouth, but the corporate > interests pull the strings.” (Mr. Scott estimates that adoption of TPP will > result in the net loss of roughly 40,000 jobs in Wisconsin, 215,000 in > Michigan and 113,000 in Ohio.) > > While Mrs. Clinton has received the endorsement of many of the large > national unions, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. has not yet taken sides. Many union > locals have chosen to back Mr. Sanders. David Poklinkoski, the president of > IBEW Local 2304, a Wisconsin utility union, said his local had never > endorsed anyone for any office before, but recently passed a unanimous > resolution endorsing Mr. Sanders. Mr. Poklinkoski praised the senator’s > consistent opposition to free-trade agreements. > > After the Milwaukee debate, Mr. Poklinkoski told me that two of his > members who watched it came away as Sanders supporters. But Mr. Poklinkoski > was alarmed to hear that the men’s second choice was Mr. Trump. Mr. > Poklinkoski believes Mrs. Clinton could be vulnerable in Wisconsin. > > “I’m worried about Trump versus Hillary,” Mr. Poklinkoski said. He noted > that at home Governor Walker had successfully portrayed himself as an > anti-tax, blue-collar politician, an image that helped him divide > Wisconsin’s workers during the state’s labor battles. “If you have a > right-wing populist, you can beat a corporate Democrat,” Mr. Poklinkoski > said. “Scott Walker did it three times here.” > > *Dan Kaufman is a researcher and musician who writes frequently about the > labor movement in Wisconsin.* > > === > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > [email protected] > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
