Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Andy Stern Pushes the Dems (via Huffington)

One of the celebrities posting on opening day of Arianna Huffington's mega-blog is SEIU's Andy Stern. Wherever one falls in the Big Debate About The Future Of The Labor Movement, Stern asks some hard questions about the Democratic Party:
What were the Democrats thinking when they highlighted wealth over work--choosing people making the rules over those playing by them.

When Democrats ask why workers vote against a party that represents their economic interests -- you have to ask what party is that?

Is it Bob Rubin's Wall Street party or, as Thomas Frank describes in his book, the party perceived in the heartland as Northeast intellectual, Volvo driving, Chardonnay drinking liberals, or the party of those who work for a living?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

now i'm sure you've thought of this, but if Stern is so set on new ideas, someone should pitch the old fusion to him.

Civilis said...

I'm glad to see WFP create a blog! To the party of the future!

Joe Hill said...

Andy Stern has recognized that there is a two party system in the US. And, the sun comes up in the morning. He had discovered that both are Liberal in the clasical sense. Neither explicitly represents workers. So what? The structure of our government drives politics into a two-party system. You can't disinvent the two-party system so you pay your money and you take your choice.
The great Bush acheivement is the consolidation of religious dogmatists behind his program. The religious values people voting over their economic interests in the manner described by Thomas Franks is really a political triumph over materialism. That privatism is the beneficiary of this tendency is coincident upon the particular political relations of our time and culture. But values winning over materialism doesn't necessarily mean that privatism must prevail. Different values could come forth in the culture at a different time.