Tag: Democrats

Contrary viewpoints — Part 1 On Sen. Edward M. Kennedy

I have some links to pass along today, progressives/liberals taking a slightly different approach to some of the issues in the news:

Part 1 on Ted Kennedy, in which Doug Henwood, editor of the Left Business Observer, takes on the Kennedy myth and reminds us that deregulation was a very bipartisan affair

Henwood, in his blog, stands as the scold in the room, taking on Kennedy from the left in a way that was all too absent during the week’s coverage of his death. Kennedy was an interesting character — personal flaws, old-fashioned liberalism, etc., and the occasional contradiction. Kennedy — “soul” of the Democrats, friend of the common man, Liberal Lion (and yes I know I trafficked in some of this last week) — was also a significant player in the late-1970s push for deregulation.

Often, we talk about the Reagan years when discussion deregulation but the reality is that Carter and the Democrats got the ball rolling.

Once upon a time, working for an airline or driving a truck was a pretty good way to make a living without an advanced degree: union jobs with high pay and decent benefits. A major reason for that is that both industries were federally regulated, with competition kept to a minimum. Starting in the early 1970s, an odd coalition of right-wingers, mainstream economists, liberals, and consumer advocates (including Ralph Nader) began agitating for the deregulation of these industries. All agreed that competition would bring down prices and improve service.

Among the leading agitators was Teddy Kennedy. The right has been noting this in their memorials for “The Lion,” but not the weepy left.

Why was Kennedy such a passionate deregulator? Greg Tarpinian, former director of the Labor Research Association who went on to work for Baby Jimmy Hoffa, once speculated to me that it was because merchant capital always wants to reduce transport costs—the merchant in question being Teddy’s father,
Bootlegger Joe. Maybe.

In any case, Kennedy surrounded himself with aides who worked on drafting the deregulatory legislation. Many of them subsequently went on to work for Frank Lorenzo, the ghoulish executive who busted unions at Continental and Eastern airlines in the early 1980s. (Kennedy’s long-time ad agency also did PR work for Lorenzo.)

And what was the result of all this deregulation? Massive downward mobility for workers.

I’d forgotten this connection (not the Democrats’ role, just the Kennedy role) and I suspect — given Nader’s involvement — that the issues were actually the Teamsters, the antipathy that both the New Left and the Kennedy family had for Hoffa and his union, and the growing consumer advocacy movement.

The federal takeover of the Teamsters, I think, shows that they were right to be wary of the union’s power. But the focus on consumers to the exclusion of nearly all else was foolish, as history shows; the assumption that opening these industries to an unfettered market would lower prices and cause no pain was not based in reality. Someone ultimately had to pay the cost of those lowered prices — otherwise the lost revenue would have resulted in lost profit. And it was obvious that it wasn’t going to be the CEOs.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Earning his way onto the team

Apparently, if Arlen Specter wants to be a Democrat — and I think the jury is still out on whether that is what he really wants — he is going to have to earn his perks. That’s the message that Senate Democrats sent their new colleague today, voting to deny the 29-year veteran seniority on five committees. Given his recent votes and statements — he is opposing the Employee Free Choice Act, voted against the president’s budget and his almost aggressive nose-thumbing at his new colleagues — it probably was important to send the new Democrat a message.

Specter’s initial warm welcome from his new party has given way to a more tepid greeting, as liberal groups chafe at Specter’s continued opposition to key elements of the party agenda — like the $3.4 trillion budget, which he voted against last week, and the Employee Free Choice Act.

Specter did little to ingratiate himself with his new party colleagues over the weekend, when he disputed a Wall Street Journal report that said he promised President Barack Obama he would loyally support his agenda.

“I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that,” Specter insisted Sunday on “Meet the Press.”

So, what exactly does he bring to the table for the Dems?

If Specter was being principled, rather than just seeking to save his political life, he would have done what Joe Lieberman did (did I actually just write that?) and run as an independent, rather than switching party affiliation but acting like his old Republican self.

And the Democrats, reviewing Specter’s not-as-moderate-as-he-says record, would have extracted a lot more promises from him — like support for EFCA.

But we’re talking about Washington, a city where party affiliation is more important than almost everything else.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Healing, what healing?

There remains a split among Democrats, with some Clinton supporters still smarting over criticism leveled against their candidate during the primaries.

Consider this post today from Talk Left, which was one of the more vociferous Clinton supporters among liberal blogs. Big Tent Democrat makes the questionable point that the Obama campaign “is in a difficult position to combat” the GOP’s use of the race card

BECAUSE of the outrageous and disgraceful accusations that were hurled at Bill and Hillary Clinton during the primaries by many of his supporters.

Criticism of the Clintons, according to Clinton supporters, was never legitimate criticism, but always unfair attacks. Big Tent goes so far as to take what I think was a fairly even-handed critique from Eugene Robinson

From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right. That’s why she is falling short — and that’s why she should be persuaded to quit now, rather than later, before her majestic sense of entitlement splits the party along racial lines.

is portrayed as Robinson “disgracefully smearing Hillary Clinton.” Significantly, it ignores the context of the quote — Clinton’s comment that she could better connect with “working, hardworking Americans, white Americans” — making a mockery of the notion of smear.

That’s not to say that Clinton supporters, especially female Clinton supporters, shouldn’t be angry, as well. Mysogyny was an ugly subtext of too much of not only Obama’s campaign, but of the campaigns of Edwards and the other Democrats.

An honest assessment of the primary campaign would admit that plenty of abhorent nonsense was pushed by both camps.

Liberals — in particular, those who were Clinton supporters — need to take a step back, assess the reality of the November race and realize what is at stake. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have far more in common, in terms of values and vision, than either have with John McCain. And with several Supreme Court slots likely to open — slots now held by the court’s liberals — do former Clinton supporters want to be responsible for allowing McCain to fill the vacancies?

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.