Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker on Monday will call for sweeping restrictions on organized labor in the U.S., seeking to replicate nationwide his successful effort as Wisconsin's governor to curb the power of unions.A few thoughts:
At a town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Walker will propose eliminating unions for employees of the federal government, making all workplaces right-to-work unless individual states vote otherwise, scrapping the federal agency that oversees unfair labor practices and making it more difficult for unions to organize.
Many of Walker's proposals are focused on unions for workers at all levels of government, while others would also affect private-sector unions. Labor law experts said such an effort, if successful, would substantially reduce the power of organized labor in America.
- The idea of having states vote to reject right-to-work is audacious. It's probably a nonstarter as well, but it's worth getting the proposal out there.
- Public sector unions are the real problem, because they make it possible to have union supporters on both sides of the table in any negotiations. If you try a scheme like that in the private sector, you go to prison.
- Unions hate Walker anyway, so he might as well go after them hammer and tong.
The key for Walker, and all the other Republican candidates, is to get specific and force The Donald to start getting specific as well. Trump wins if he gets to use the force of his personality to drive the debate. As long as the debate is about personalities and borscht belt insults, Trump the Insult Comic Dog will continue to dominate. He's turned the campaign into a Friar's Club roast (vid is NSFW, of course):
Look for other candidates to start making like Walker and rolling out larger proposals. It's their only chance.
22 comments:
Well, this is the time in the campaign season when the policy proposals usually start rolling out. The question for Walker is whether or not he's done too much damage to his reputation to repair it with going back to his political well of squaring off against the unions. I think it can work in his case, but I have images of Rick Perry's excellent tax reform plan from the fall of 2011 (which Steve Forbes loved, btw) which did nothing to save his campaign implosion, as a reference.
walker needs to go populist. mark a stark contrast between govt labor and everybody else, and come out strong for the coal miners and such... Us Vs Them. those govt guys are screwing you hard working americans.
Serious question for the peanut gallery: Are y'all going to vote for Trump if he's your nominee?
Nope. I think Obama is the worst president of my lifetime and an execrable human being and I have no interest in electing the same kind of no-nothing asshole on the other side of the aisle. Of course one could make the case that Hilary is worse than Trump. She's almost certainly more criminal. But why participate if this is what's on offer?
Brian,
Not. A. Chance. Assuming that absolute worst case scenario happens, I'll leave that part of my ballot blank.
Might as well ask the counter question - is Bernie! getting your vote if he somehow pulls off the nomination?
I'd certainly vote for Bernie before I vote for Hillary. And I probably will in the primary.
I'd just write in Juan Peron. It would be more honest.
What WB said, except for one thing; given Trump's history of gold plated deals with government entities, I don't know that I can assert that he's somehow less criminal than Hilliary.
Regarding Walker's position, I think he missed a golden chance to say something about government unions. Historically, unions did well when they acted as a bulwark against dominant employers who used their position to bully employees. Now, does that situation exist in the federal government, and why? Is the federal government employing a lot of people who couldn't get jobs elsewhere? Why? Why is working for the government a living Hell, keeping a man in debt to the "company store" for decades?
Regarding Walker's position, I think he missed a golden chance to say something about government unions.
Uh, Bubba? Isn't proposing an end to public sector unions saying something?
since i'm not a Republican, i cant answer Brian's question directly. but i might... if i bother to show up at all, it would likely be for Trump just to say 'to hell with all of them'.
Mr. D: well, yes, but it's saying something very dumb. He played into Trump's game, pissed off the good portion of Americans that still like unions, and persuaded nobody of anything they didn't already believe.
If this country wants to recover from the debacle that is the Obama administration, we've got to start engaging minds. That means asking what government workers have in common with the subject of "16 tons", and why.
Bubba, this is an evenly split country. There is a certain portion of the gubmint union population that agrees with Walker and they would support him in any event. The others aren't going to respond to an intellectual appeal no matter how you couch the discussion. You can't expect to hum Tennessee Ernie Ford and think it's going to bring about an epiphany. It just won't.
The point here is to motivate the people who do agree with you, and to get the base fired up about the election. Walker isn't aiming his message at union members. He's aiming it at taxpayers who are fed up with government depredations. If your folks are more motivated than your opponents are, you win. Republicans are in a position to lose this election precisely because the rank and file doesn't believe that the current leadership (read: Boehner and McConnell) will do a damned thing to change things. They didn't believe Romney would do anything, either, so they stayed home in 2012. Trump's popularity is a middle finger raised at the current leadership. Walker has a chance to be the outsider if he makes this argument. The reason Walker's been coming up short is that he can't match Trump's bluster. Then again, no one else can. No point in trying, really.
What Walker can say is that he's actually delivered the goods in Wisconsin. Trump knows this about Walker, too, which is why he's been spending so much time parroting Mary Burke's old 2014 talking points in his attacks against Walker. Trump knows most people aren't going to study the matter closely enough to see the truth. Trump may be a phony and a charlatan, but he's very bright and he knows how to use the system to his advantage. Walker and the other candidates are trying to learn to speak to a national audience on the job. Trump has been doing it for years.
You may be right, but if we're, as a nation, at a point where we cannot engage minds, we are screwed no matter who replaces Mr. Soetoro.
You may be right, but if we're, as a nation, at a point where we cannot engage minds, we are screwed no matter who replaces Mr. Soetoro.
I didn't say that, Bubba. All I'm suggesting is that you can't approach the matter as if you're conducting an episode of Firing Line. Any candidate worth a darn will have the means to engage an audience on an intellectual level, but that's only going to appeal to a fraction of the electorate. You can post all the position papers you wish on the campaign website and even direct the audience to the materials, but a large percentage will not bother with such things. I'd prefer to vote for a candidate who understands Bastiat, but you can't explain the parable of the broken window in a 30-second ad. You have to engage your audience where they are, not where you wish they were.
Yeah, but does it take more than 30 seconds to say "you know, this is the situation that gave birth to unions--are we to argue that today's government fits that model?"?
It's worth noting that Reagan was great at this--his radio talks were generally just a couple of minutes long, and they built off obvious points like this. And at this point in the campaign, the main people paying attention are the wonks and political junkies--they will give you a minute or two to make your point. No need to throw bombs like this.
For that matter, I seem to remember even Obama doing a bit of this, especially back in 2008. I disagreed with most of what he said, but props to him for at least trying.
Yeah, but does it take more than 30 seconds to say "you know, this is the situation that gave birth to unions--are we to argue that today's government fits that model?"?
First of all, people don't know. And good luck with setting up the historical context. If you ask people to identify Gompers, they'll guess it's a brand of adult diaper. Then we make the philosophical argument about public sector unionism in the remaining time? Meanwhile, Trump will use his 30 seconds to bash anyone in his path. Bastiat is low energy!
Reagan was great at it, but he's not coming back, Bubba.
Yeah, but neither are Aristotle or Plato coming back, but that ought not prevent us from trying to emulate them. And really, the argument that the masses don't get it doesn't wash, because the journalists and others they're listening to do, and will communicate according to how they perceive it.
Democrats can get away, largely speaking, with using a billyclub in debate, but Republicans--especially conservative ones--cannot. We might as well wake up to that reality and start winning elections.
You use Aristotle. The Dems use Alinsky. See what happens. Or just look at the last few election cycles instead.
Yes, the Democrats use Alinsky, and let's take a look at what happened in 2010 and 2014. Fact of the matter is that you can't sustain a party whose major base is religious conservatives on gangland tactics like those of Alinsky and Obama, and even the irreligious get the willies at some of what they see.
For example, Hilliary's support among women has dropped by over a third as people realize that the Russians and Chinese have probably been reading classified information before the Secretary of State does. Another example is how union membership has plunged as people consider that the high union wage means bupkus when there are no union jobs.
So I'd argue that this is exactly the kind of case we ought to make. People will eventually see through Alinsky tactics, but the truth is opaque.
2010 and 2014 are off-year elections, Bubba. The Republicans may win in this cycle because the Democrats have a singularly poor field of candidates, but I wouldn't bet on it. And if I'm not making myself clear -- I'm not arguing that Republicans should emulate the Democrats. Not at all. I'm just cautioning you that coming on with Aristotle isn't going to hunt. Again, you have to speak to people where they are, not where you think they ought to be.
The arguments you find compelling aren't the same ones that are going to reach the people who need to vote. The whole point of the Trump boom is that he's seen as the antidote to the fecklessness of Boehner, McConnell, et al. The intellectual arguments you're suggesting aren't what is needed. People don't words, Bubba. They want action. And while we both recognize that Trump is really about words and bluster, the perception is that he's a man of action. And that perception matters. And we ignore it at our peril.
Mark, Trump, and to a degree others, are already emulating the Democrats in a lot of their rhetoric. In contrast, remember what Reagan did wonderfully, Gingrich did well, and hey--what even Obama did, albeit deceitfully in my view.
The trouble with "rallying the troops" is that it's really an emotional response that lasts.....well, about as long as emotions do. I know it gets temporary numbers, but the long term effect is the same as when an "evangelist" comes hootin' and hollerin' at the local fundagelical-pentamatic church. No new tushes in seats two weeks later.
Engage the mind.
Obama didn't engage the mind. He was a deus ex machina from the get-go. This thing with Trump is madness, but it's the same dynamic that drove a lot of the adulation we saw 8 years ago. You can demand we engage the mind until the cows come home, but at this moment it's not gonna work.
People are looking for a hero and a way to give Boehner and McConnell the finger. Trump fills the bill on both desires, at least for now. You don't see that you're behind the Maginot Line. As the Clash sang, "let fury have hour, anger can be power, do you know that you can use it."
Post a Comment