|
Can the "New" Trumka Trump Trumka |
 |
|
Friday, 20 September 2013 14:21 |
|
Nader writes: "Mr. Trumka now has his hands full with Barack Obama over how these plans are jeopardized by a very complex Obamacare, which he and other labor leaders supported before the blowback occurred."
AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. (photo: Common Dreams)
Can the "New" Trumka Trump Trumka
By Ralph Nader, Common Dreams
20 September 13
 itting in the office of the AFL-CIO president, Richard Trumka, one sees books on labor history, economics, corporate crimes and proposals for change piled up everywhere. Perhaps that helps explain why Mr. Trumka, a former coal miner who became a lawyer, presented his besieged organization's quadrennial convention in Los Angeles last week with a fiery visionary "big tent" design to develop more alliances with citizen and worker organizations that are not trade unions.
Citing common ground on some public policies, Mr. Trumka wants to strengthen ties with the likes of the NAACP, Working America, the Sierra Club, the Economic Policy Institute, Women's groups, and the Taxi Drivers, the Domestic Workers Alliance and worker centers. He would like some of these organizations to be brought into the governing bodies of labor unions and the AFL-CIO's executive council.
The latter was too much for some unions fearful of being diluted or "Trojan horsed," such as the construction unions that want the XL pipeline to be built regardless of the Sierra Club's contrary position. However, the resolution approved by the assemblage did endorse Trumka's open door to advocacy on behalf of temporary workers or non-unionized poverty groups, on a more informal basis.
Eighty-eight percent of all workers are not unionized. Union membership has been declining for more than four decades. The AFL-CIO has known this, but cannot seem to push its member unions to greatly increase their organizing budgets at a time when global companies can easily leave America for China or elsewhere. On the other hand, there are tens of millions of low-income workers in the service sector whose jobs cannot be exported and who want opportunities for unionization.
Trumka has problems in implementing his vision. First, he is not in functional control of his largest member unions. Second, there is surplus labor and there are too few well-paying jobs. Third, he has allegiances to the Democratic Party leaders and President Obama who do not tolerate much public criticisms or rebellion by a weakened labor movement, which they know believes it has nowhere to go in a two-party duopoly.
The more aggressive members of the AFL-CIO are not well received by the larger more cautious counterparts. The fast growing California Nurses Association, and its national affiliate National Nurses United, want Obamacare replaced with single-payer, everybody in, nobody out, under public insurance and private delivery of health care. Single-payer or full Medicare for all, with free choice of physician and hospital, has been supported by a majority of the public, including doctors and nurses, for many years. It is more efficient and humane. Yet, because Trumka et al do not want single payer on the table, the Nurses stayed home and there was no single-payer exhibit permitted at the AFL-CIO Convention.
Yet, Obamacare has angered many established unions with Taft-Hartley healthcare plans. Mr. Trumka now has his hands full with Barack Obama over how these plans are jeopardized by a very complex Obamacare, which he and other labor leaders supported before the blowback occurred.
Will Trumka's grand inclusiveness work? Paul Tobias, who founded the National Employment Lawyers Association in 1985 to help non-unionized workers with their legal problems, says such outreach can benefit these laborers but "the devil is in the details." He has seen organized labor talk like this before. The question awaiting an answer is: How many resources/organizers will the Trumka camp put into the alliance and what is the specific agenda?
Clearly Trumka and the AFL-CIO could help many deprived workers. Underpaid workers are rallying in front of Walmarts and McDonalds demanding a living wage and union representation. Others are demanding that President Obama simply issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to pay a living wage to workers who are at the frozen federal minimum wage of $7.25.
The problems with the AFL-CIO and most unions were regularly described by the venerable labor activist, Harry Kelber, who passed away in late March just before his 99th birthday. As you can see by visiting his website, Mr. Kelber wrote scores of articles about the bureaucratization of smug labor leaders and their failure to stand up to the big employers and the Democratic Party.
With eighty years in the labor movement, Mr. Kelber was running for the presidency of the AFL-CIO just to give one alternative, however symbolic, to the AFL-CIO delegates. Under AFL-CIO rules, losing candidates get 15 minutes to speak before the Convention. Harry Kelber undoubtedly would have called on them to recover their nerve, lead by example, be more democratic, fight for single-payer health insurance, work to repeal the notoriously anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act, and above all tap union treasuries to hire many more organizers to expand union protection for tens of millions of powerless workers who can't pay for the necessities of life.
Richard Trumka dismissed Harry Kelber and others who have criticized him from the progressive Left. Too bad he doesn't apply his book learning to fearlessly advance the labor agenda, starting with abolitionist Frederick Douglass' famous phrase "power concedes nothing without a demand." That approach, in its specifics, must be directed to Barack Obama, the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and the corporate barons who are paid $10,000 per hour and have been bringing workers to their knees while pouring campaign money into the indentured Democratic Party's coffers.
Workers understand the difference between their unions' political rhetoric and independent political action for their future.
 |
|
FOCUS | Why Iran Seeks Constructive Engagement |
|
|
Friday, 20 September 2013 11:10 |
|
Rouhani writes: "We must work together to end the unhealthy rivalries and interferences that fuel violence and drive us apart. We must also pay attention to the issue of identity as a key driver of tension in, and beyond, the Middle East."
Iran's president Hassan Rouhani. (photo: Xinhua/Landov/Barcroft Media)
Why Iran Seeks Constructive Engagement
By President Hassan Rouhani, The Washington Post
20 September 13
 hree months ago, my platform of "prudence and hope" gained a broad, popular mandate. Iranians embraced my approach to domestic and international affairs because they saw it as long overdue. I'm committed to fulfilling my promises to my people, including my pledge to engage in constructive interaction with the world.
The world has changed. International politics is no longer a zero-sum game but a multi-dimensional arena where cooperation and competition often occur simultaneously. Gone is the age of blood feuds. World leaders are expected to lead in turning threats into opportunities.
The international community faces many challenges in this new world - terrorism, extremism, foreign military interference, drug trafficking, cybercrime and cultural encroachment - all within a framework that has emphasized hard power and the use of brute force.
We must pay attention to the complexities of the issues at hand to solve them. Enter my definition of constructive engagement. In a world where global politics is no longer a zero-sum game, it is - or should be - counterintuitive to pursue one's interests without considering the interests of others. A constructive approach to diplomacy doesn't mean relinquishing one's rights. It means engaging with one's counterparts, on the basis of equal footing and mutual respect, to address shared concerns and achieve shared objectives. In other words, win-win outcomes are not just favorable but also achievable. A zero-sum, Cold War mentality leads to everyone's loss.
Sadly, unilateralism often continues to overshadow constructive approaches. Security is pursued at the expense of the insecurity of others, with disastrous consequences. More than a decade and two wars after 9/11, al-Qaeda and other militant extremists continue to wreak havoc. Syria, a jewel of civilization, has become the scene of heartbreaking violence, including chemical weapons attacks, which we strongly condemn. In Iraq, 10 years after the American-led invasion, dozens still lose their lives to violence every day. Afghanistan endures similar, endemic bloodshed.
The unilateral approach, which glorifies brute force and breeds violence, is clearly incapable of solving issues we all face, such as terrorism and extremism. I say all because nobody is immune to extremist-fueled violence, even though it might rage thousands of miles away. Americans woke up to this reality 12 years ago.
My approach to foreign policy seeks to resolve these issues by addressing their underlying causes. We must work together to end the unhealthy rivalries and interferences that fuel violence and drive us apart. We must also pay attention to the issue of identity as a key driver of tension in, and beyond, the Middle East.
At their core, the vicious battles in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are over the nature of those countries' identities and their consequent roles in our region and the world. The centrality of identity extends to the case of our peaceful nuclear energy program. To us, mastering the atomic fuel cycle and generating nuclear power is as much about diversifying our energy resources as it is about who Iranians are as a nation, our demand for dignity and respect and our consequent place in the world. Without comprehending the role of identity, many issues we all face will remain unresolved.
I am committed to confronting our common challenges via a two-pronged approach.
First, we must join hands to constructively work toward national dialogue, whether in Syria or Bahrain. We must create an atmosphere where peoples of the region can decide their own fates. As part of this, I announce my government's readiness to help facilitate dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition.
Second, we must address the broader, overarching injustices and rivalries that fuel violence and tensions. A key aspect of my commitment to constructive interaction entails a sincere effort to engage with neighbors and other nations to identify and secure win-win solutions.
We and our international counterparts have spent a lot of time - perhaps too much time - discussing what we don't want rather than what we do want. This is not unique to Iran's international relations. In a climate where much of foreign policy is a direct function of domestic politics, focusing on what one doesn't want is an easy way out of difficult conundrums for many world leaders. Expressing what one does want requires more courage.
After 10 years of back-and-forth, what all sides don't want in relation to our nuclear file is clear. The same dynamic is evident in the rival approaches to Syria.
This approach can be useful for efforts to prevent cold conflicts from turning hot. But to move beyond impasses, whether in relation to Syria, my country's nuclear program or its relations with the United States, we need to aim higher. Rather than focusing on how to prevent things from getting worse, we need to think - and talk - about how to make things better. To do that, we all need to muster the courage to start conveying what we want - clearly, concisely and sincerely - and to back it up with the political will to take necessary action. This is the essence of my approach to constructive interaction.
As I depart for New York for the opening of the U.N. General Assembly, I urge my counterparts to seize the opportunity presented by Iran's recent election. I urge them to make the most of the mandate for prudent engagement that my people have given me and to respond genuinely to my government's efforts to engage in constructive dialogue. Most of all, I urge them to look beyond the pines and be brave enough to tell me what they see - if not for their national interests, then for the sake of their legacies, and our children and future generations.
|
|
|
America Is Soft on Domestic Terrorism |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 19 September 2013 13:20 |
|
Rich writes: "Perhaps the best thing we can do is at least call out the problem for what it is: state-sponsored terrorism."
Columnist Frank Rich. (photo: NYT)
America Is Soft on Domestic Terrorism
By Frank Rich, New York Magazine
19 September 13
Every week, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich talks with contributor Eric Benson about the biggest stories in politics and culture. This week: Congress shrugs off a murderous rampage in D.C., Larry Summers proves he can count, and the GOP out-mavericks James Garner.
 fter Monday's slaughter at the Washington, D.C., Navy Yard, members of Congress made it very clear that they had no desire to touch the new third-rail of American politics, gun control. Since that's off the table at a federal level, is there any political step that can be taken - even a small, imperfect one - to stop mass shootings?
Essentially, no. Perhaps the best thing we can do is at least call out the problem for what it is: state-sponsored terrorism. The American people and their elected representatives allow our own homegrown equivalent of suicide bombers - suicide shooters - legal access to weapons with which they can mow down innocents almost anywhere they please. Bloomberg's money can't solve this (indeed his political contributions on behalf of gun-law reformers may have backfired) and neither can the blather of a thousand moralizing talking heads. So now, as always happens after these bloodbaths, the real problem is put on hold again and we are back to talking about side issues. Many are calling for keeping a closer watch on government contractors, for instance, but where were they when government contractors at Blackwater, et al, were wreaking havoc on civilians during the Iraq War? That horse is long out of the barn; we have an increasingly privatized government, cheered on by the same anti-government political party that is most in thrall to the NRA.
That old hobbyhorse of violent entertainment is also back for another run: Hosts at Fox & Friends at Fox News (Elizabeth Hasselbeck) and Morning Joe at MSNBC (Mika Brzezinski) are united in angrily decrying violent video games. No doubt this makes them feel righteous, but if they really believe this is the crux of the matter, and had guts, they'd start by publicly demanding that their own parent companies dump any and all media products trading in violence. Somehow I don't think that's going to happen. Nor are we going to get better mental-health treatment for psychopaths like Aaron Alexis if the opponents of Obamacare (or any national health-care alternative) have anything to say about it. But let's do talk about it. I remain convinced that the issue of guns in American culture, as hard-wired to our national origins as slavery was, will take every bit as long to rectify as slavery, and can only happen if Americans want it to happen, which most of them don't now. So let's at least acknowledge the truth: This country is soft on domestic terrorism.
Larry Summers withdrew his name from consideration from the Federal Reserve chairmanship on Sunday. Summers was widely viewed to be Obama's preferred choice, but key Senate Democrats revolted against him. What do you make of Summers preemptive exit?
No one ever said Summers wasn't a brilliant economist! The man knows how to count, and he knew he didn't have the votes to get through the Senate. That President Obama couldn't keep even some moderate Democratic senators in line is a chastening glimpse into the laissez-faire management style (to be polite about it) that seems to have overtaken his second term. Still, I am all for this result. To me, the single biggest flaw of the Obama presidency has always been his original economic team - an assemblage of Robert Rubin protégés, who, like Summers, enabled the deregulation orgy of the Clinton years, often cashed in on it (Summers, a sometime Wall Street consultant, included), and who were more successful at saving the (still bigger-than-ever) banks than restoring American jobs after the crash. No one tainted by this history should be handed the Fed chair. It's way past time for the Democrats to move beyond the economic boys' club of the Clinton and Obama administrations.
House GOP leadership has decided to defer to its base and go for a Hail Mary play to defund Obamacare, setting the stage for a potential government shutdown and another round of debt-ceiling brinksmanship. The last month hasn't been the finest hour of Obama's presidency. Is this the fight he needs right now? Or could it send him into early lame-duck status?
If we are just talking about narrow, selfish politics, this is actually the one fight that could do Obama good. A government shutdown - or default - would be a disaster for the Republicans. The anti-government party would be blamed for the harsh consequences to follow, not the Democrats, and everyone in politics knows that except the radical right base of the GOP. Indeed, this week The Wall Street Journal editorial page has taken to all but begging its own conservative troops to abandon the kamikaze (its word) mission of holding the government hostage to the defunding of Obamacare. If the House revolutionaries are not deterred, Obama may be anything but a lame duck; he'd be handed the same lifeline that the Newt Gingrich threw to Bill Clinton.
Fox News officially announced yesterday that Megyn Kelly, famous for calling bullshit on Karl Rove last Election Night, will take over Sean Hannity's plum 9 p.m. slot. (Hannity will move to 10 p.m.) Kelly is a very different presence from Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or erstwhile Fox star Glenn Beck. What do you think Roger Ailes is up to here?
The thing to remember about Ailes is that he's a showman who wants to win - ratings even more than elections, arguably. He has an aging, tired prime-time slate - and an aging, tired audience. Fox may be No. 1 in cable news by far, but its actuarial and demographic maladies parallel that of the Republican base it serves. Kelly hardly injects variety into a channel whose Hitchcockian obsession with blonde leading ladies is so entrenched that even the casting of a brunette would constitute a diversity hire. But Kelly did one thing you never see on Fox - the unexpected - when she took down Rove on Election Night. Since everyone knows by rote what Hannity or O'Reilly is going to say on any given night, she may well attract new viewers hoping for at least an occasional element of surprise.
|
|
A Whiff of Democracy? |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5494"><span class="small">Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 18 September 2013 14:32 |
|
Weissman writes: "But, for most of us, the most enticing - and exasperating - whiff of democracy surrounds the derailing of President Obama's proposed military strike against Syria."
Darrell Willis wears a '99%' button and an American flag at the corner of LaSalle and Jackson during an Occupy Chicago protest, 10/03/11. (photo: Charles Rex Arbogast/AP)
A Whiff of Democracy?
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
18 September 13
 n New York City, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio won the Democratic primary to replace billionaire Michael Bloomberg as mayor. De Blasio ran against Wall Street and the 1%, calling for a tax on those making over $500,000 a year to pay for universal childcare. He still has a nasty struggle ahead against Republican candidate Joe Lhota, who enjoys solid business backing and has already started attacking De Blasio as a dangerous radical. No doubt, de Blasio will now tack toward the center, but those of us in the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party or further to the Left can all enjoy an Occupy moment.
Hoping to chair the Federal Reserve, Larry Summers - a former Treasury Secretary and top economic adviser to both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama - was forced to withdraw his candidacy after Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee refused to back him. With or without Summers, the Fed will remain one of America's least democratic institutions. But, as I tried to convey in "Stop Larry Summers Before He Kills Again, " he could not live down the leading role he played in the Clinton-era deregulation of Wall Street. Score another Occupy moment.
In public opinion polls and public statements of judges and intelligence officials, whistleblower Edward Snowden is receiving unexpected credit for his service to democracy in leaking so much information about the universal snooping of the National Security Agency. I can almost see a Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 - not Hillary Clinton - hinting at an official pardon. Well, almost.
But, for most of us, the most enticing - and exasperating - whiff of democracy surrounds the derailing of President Obama's proposed military strike against Syria as a response to Bashar al-Assad's reported use of chemical weapons. In London on August 29, the mother of all parliaments voted against British support for the attack. In Washington on August 30, some 186 Democratic and Republican lawmakers signed letters asking Obama to seek congressional authorization. And later that same day, against the advice of almost all of his advisers, President Obama decided to let the lawmakers have their say. Letting Congress vote on a not-so-limited military intervention certainly seems the decent, democratic, and constitutional thing to do.
Or was it? I have to wonder. The United States would not be acting in self-defense against an imminent Syrian attack, and the United Nations Security Council had not authorized military action. So, in effect, Obama was asking Congress to conspire with him in committing a war crime, which could at least curtail overseas junkets to any country willing to hand the Congressional culprits over to the International Criminal Court in the Hague. On the other hand, Obama was showing respect for the American public's overwhelming opposition to yet another war of choice.
Over the next few days, democracy showed its downside, at least as the administration and assorted war hawks saw it. In Russia for the G20 summit, Obama failed to find sufficient international support for the attack, while in Washington his aides told him that the House and possibly even the Senate looked likely to listen to their voters. Rarely in living memory has popular democracy played such a vibrant role in American foreign policy. Members of Congress were standing up against their financial contributors in military industries, the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and pro-war cheerleaders in the corporate media. What better time to turn off the vote, which Obama did by choosing a diplomatic path, all the while insisting that, as commander in chief, he retained the right to attack whenever he wanted.
By now, everyone knows the story of Kerry's ad lib in London. In response to a reporter's question, he joked that Syria could avert a U.S. attack by giving up its chemical weapons. Only minutes later, according to the Wall Street Journal, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called him. "I'd like to talk to you about your initiative, " he said.
This opened the door to serious diplomacy, which appeared prompted by the threat of force, or so we are told ad nauseum. But, as Stephen F. Cohen and Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote in The Nation, "there have been good reasons all along to think Putin would be receptive to this kind of diplomatic approach to the Syrian crisis. " Cohen is an emeritus professor of Russian studies at NYU and Princeton, and he and vanden Heuvel, his wife, know Russia well, having lived there and written about it extensively. No fans of Putin, they remind us that he has consistently argued "that aggressive American policies have been fostering dangerous instability and jihadism in the Middle East, not democracy. "
In their view, the speed with which Russia accepted "the Kerry proposal " leaves little doubt that Putin would have been receptive much earlier had Obama shown himself more serious about finding a diplomatic solution, and without any need for a military threat. They also argue - and I fully agree - that Obama would now do better working with the Russians at the United Nations "without calling for immediate military measures. " As Sergey Lavrov keeps saying, there will be plenty of time for that if the Syrians fail to meet their obligations.
The bigger question is whether Obama will meet his obligations. This includes removing his support of the Sunni rebels and their Saudi sponsors, whom he has been covertly helping at least since early 2012, but nowhere near enough to let them win. Horrific as it sounds, he still appears be following the kind of strategy spelled out in late August by Edward Luttwak, "In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins. " An old source from my days at the BBC, Luttwak also advises the Israelis and takes great joy in talking more than he might. As he wrote, "By tying down Mr. Assad's army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in a war against Al Qaeda-aligned extremist fighters, four of Washington's enemies will be engaged in war among themselves and prevented from attacking Americans or America's allies. "
This is a murderous policy that Obama can never publicly defend in open democratic debate. Worse, it leaves too much room for John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the neocons to push for their ultimate objective, bombing Iran and putting an end to our current whiff of democracy.
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How To Break Their Hold."
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
|
