NOtesonline

RUSTIN FILM AIRS JANUARY 20TH

"Brother Outsider: The Life of Bayard Rustin," an 84-minute film by Nancy Kates and Bennett Singer, will air on many PBS stations on Martin Luther King's birthday (see local listings). The film recounts Bayard's evolution from a brilliant participant in often-marginal civil rights and pacifist organizations of the 40s and 50s to an adviser to Dr. King and a central, intellectually forceful strategist for the mass freedom movement of the 60s and 70s. The rich and moving narrative also takes note of the difficulties Bayard encountered as a consequence of his homosexuality.

Rachelle Horowitz, one of Bayard's protegées and longtime associates, introduced the film at a recent Washington premier sponsored by the SD-USA and other organizations. She noted the complexity of Bayard's attitude toward President Lyndon Johnson, whose leadership proved essential to the passage of civil rights legislation--a contribution many liberals were loathe to recognize. She also called attention to a statement in the film by former Congressman Andrew Young aknowledging that Bayard was generally correct in his strategic opposition to linking the civil rights struggle closely to the campaign against the war in Vietnam. (What would Bayard have thought about today's effort to bring the black leadership into line behind opposition to military action in Iraq?)

One could argue that this film does not give adequate attention to Bayard's deep engagement with the American labor movement, or his forthright opposition to both communist totalitarianism and despotisms of the right (positions symbolized in his long Chairmanship of Social Democrats USA.) But wherever you come out on all the politics, you'll love the file footage and music from that difficult but glorious movement in our history. The producers also had the lucky foresight to throw in some delicious clips of a snarling, smearing young (well, sort of) Senator Strom Thurmond.

TRADE UNIONS AND NATIONAL SECURITY

Last Thursday the new Director of the Transportation Security Administration, Retired Coast Guard Admiral James Loy, moved to block attempts to unionize as many as 56,000 airport baggage screeners, arguing that to grant them collective bargaining rights might jeopardize U.S. national security. "Fighting terrorism demands a flexible workforce that can rapidly respond to threats," Loy declared. "That can mean changes in work assignments and other conditions of employment that are not compatible with the duty to bargain with labor unions." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35419-2003Jan9.html

That statement should provoke an interesting debate. Just a year ago many observers were extolling the professionalism and dedication of union workers who responded to the September 11 attack and its gruesome aftermath. Over 400 of New York City's highly unionized police, fire and paramedical personnel put aside fear to run toward the fires of the World Trade Center. Over 200 perished.

In a fine article in The Village Voice entitled "Working Class Heroes" Tom Robbins told about the response of New York's building trades workers: "Nobody was paid that first week. Meanwhile, paying jobs at construction worksites elsewhere in the city sat abandoned as workers refused to leave the rescue effort. Finally, in an effort to get the city going again, Building Trades leader Ed Malloy sent out a written plea for his members to return to work." Steve McInnis of the New York District Council of Carpenters told Robbins, "[T]hey marched straight down to the site. Their pass was their union card and their hard hat; they didn't take 'no' for an answer."

At a Washington breakfast on January 4 for the Industrial Relations Research Association General President Harold Schaitberger of the International Association of Fire Fighters expressed exasperation that the importance the training and esprit de corps that unionism brings is now being given the brush-off. He warned that the real danger to homeland security lies in cutbacks in manpower and skills development that leave us with a weakened corps of professional "first responders."

National debate about all this could produce a new bargain: changes in century-old civil service rules to allow for greater flexibility and accountability on the part of both workers and managers, coupled with decent pay, job security, and training.

AFT & WASHINGTON TEACHERS UNION: CLEAN UP, NOT COVER UP

It's now commonplace in American public life: a big institution finds out it has a problem. Instead of facing up to the problem, it tries to cover up. And the problem gets worse. Think about the tragedy of the Archdiocese of Boston and pedophilia, or the merely disgusting scams uncovered recently in so many high-flying corporations.

Contrast this to the way the American Federation of Teachers handled charges of financial mismanagement and embezzlement of union funds that have arisen in its Washington D.C. local. The press has dwelt on colorful allegations that local union officials bought piles of electronics, furs and custom clothes with union dues collected from one of the country's most challenged public school systems. It's a pungent mess! But there is another story that often goes unnoticed. When the parent union got wind of this it conducted its own investigation, and when it found problems it went straight to the U.S. Attorney's office. No talk about how "we'll deal with this internally." It can't have been easy.

The following are complete texts of the two resolutions described at the beginning of this newsletter:

SD RESOLUTION ON IRAQ:
For Democracy in Iraq and in the Middle East

Those who hold that democracy is the real hope for the Middle East must seek ways to become full partners in defining the goals and means of a campaign to free Iraq, and to ensure that the way we deal with Iraq promotes democracy elsewhere in the region.

For a U.S.-led campaign to gain support both inside Iraq and in the wider world, its objectives must go beyond "regime change." The goals must also go beyond eliminating the Iraqi government's capacities to use or acquire weapons of mass destruction. There must be great clarity about the democratic character of the regime we will help to establish. We must also be clear about our determination to provide security to the people of Iraq, not simply to our allies and ourselves. We must demonstrate that we are prepared to stay the course and meet the costs.

As America awoke to the threats posed by terrorists and aggressive tyrants in the Middle East, the Bush Administration turned from the "more humble" foreign policy it promised in campaign debates to a posture of go-it-alone swaggering. Regrettably, critics and opponents here and abroad were then able to portray the U.S. role in the Middle East as one grounded only in selfish economic purposes (oil), our own narrow security interests, or our hostility to foreign cultures or religions.

At the same time, the Administration's conduct at home has been polarizing our politics, when national unity is needed for a difficult and dangerous foreign campaign. Many in labor and among its allies in the Democratic Party are reluctant to rally to the President's call for confrontation in Iraq.

White House wedge politicians should take notice: they would be foolish to underestimate the political challenges that lie ahead. A host of groups, not all of them provocative or ineffectual, is groping for ways to turn the skepticism that is widespread in our communities into outright opposition. It is possible that the first phase of a military campaign will be short, and that casualties will be few. But the perils of war are too often underestimated, and there are signs that some Bush advisers may be unduly self-confident, especially when it comes to security problems that may persist after the present Iraqi leadership has been dealt with.

Nevertheless, we strongly support the determined measures, including the use of U.S. military force, that will almost certainly be required to deal with Saddam Hussein. Yet there is no need to assent passively to a military campaign based short-term security concerns and poorly conceived political strategy, or to an Administration that is uncertain in its commitments to the potentially huge task of assuring a democratic outcome in Iraq. While some in the Bush Administration have shown admirable willingness to make the Middle East the next theatre of democratic transformation, others are hesitant and equivocal. Those pressing the cause of democracy deserve energetic support.

It is the challenge of democracy in the Middle East that gives Saddam Hussein such special significance. If this reckless, brutal and aggressive dictator acquires weapons that enable him to extend his power over the oil-rich, volatile, populous, democratically underdeveloped and strategically critical Middle East, the promise of democracy can be arrested, and even turned back. Economic development will slow, desperation and anger will fuel further turmoil and terrorism, and the security and quality of life even in established democracies will be curtailed. (It is its strategic importance to the region, the world, and the future of the democratic movement that distinguishes the challenge of Iraq from the challenge of North Korea.)

Because it did not build the pro-democracy case effectively, and seemed to disdain the effort to find allies, the Administration set itself up last summer for ambush on the terrain of international diplomacy. We failed to state our position in terms that engaged the moral values and practical interests of others, and became vulnerable to the charge that we are oil-greedy, highhanded "unilateralists." (Many in this Administration still do not comprehend the deep, direct and demonstrated link between the national security interests of the United States and the emergence of democracy on ground held by our opponents.)

It is, of course, imperative to prevent Saddam from threatening his neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons will surely be used to challenge the U.S. commitment to the security of the one democracy that now exists in the Middle East - Israel. Moreover, as targets of terror, the United States has the right and obligation to prevent future attacks that could make that on the World Trade Center seem small by comparison. The terrorists' announced aspiration to outdo themselves will lead them to seek out cooperative governments, and the government most likely to collaborate with them is that of Saddam Hussein.

But it is also urgent that we now turn attention once again to the unceasing savagery Saddam Hussein employs against the peoples of Iraq, and the fear and uncertainty he engenders among his neighbors and in the international economy. The dossier of atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein has persuaded Human Rights Watch and others to call for an international criminal tribunal to try him and other top Iraqi leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. But, as is so often the case, while human rights advocates speak eloquently about crimes, they often demur from realistic means for dealing with these criminals or protecting their victims.

A decision to go to war can never be taken lightly. Military action against Saddam Hussein is justified when it combines four purposes. First, it must rid the region and the world of the threat he poses, especially if he is armed with weapons of mass destruction. It must both liberate the people of Iraq and lay the foundation for democracy in Iraq. Fourth, this costly and dangerous enterprise must be built upon to advance the cause of peace and democracy throughout the region.

Every effort should be made to enlist the United Nations and other governments in this undertaking. But if that does not prove possible, the U.S. may still be justified in acting with an ad hoc group of allies, or even alone. The United Nations, a body still deeply compromised by the veto power and influence of governments that are no friends to democracy, cannot be the ultimate arbiter of democracy's morality or interests.

As former Vice-President Gore acknowledged in his speech in San Francisco, "it is abundantly clear that the existing U.N. resolutions passed 11 years ago are completely sufficient from a legal standpoint" for taking military action against Saddam Hussein. Nor would action by the U.S. alone set any dire precedent. Some contend that the recent paper by the Bush Administration setting out its justification for preventive war in a time of terrorism can be used to justify any global adventurism. Those who actually read this paper, "The National Security Strategy for the United States" may be surprised to find that it actually sets forward careful descriptions of the kind of regime and the circumstances that warrant such action. Its terms are rigorous, and respect the bounds of international law. The case it makes on the impossibility of waging merely defensive resistance against suicidally aggressive opponents who target civilians is a compelling one.

But many in the Bush Administration, who in the past have sneered at "nation-building" or "making the U.S. the world's 911 number," may not themselves accept the demanding recommendations this paper makes for contending with rogue states and extending democracy. (Many Republicans, it may be recalled, sought to prevent the Clinton Administration from using American military power to deal with the criminal Milosevic regime.)

No government should be permitted to hide behind sovereignty to commit crimes against humanity. This principle was adopted by human rights activists seeking action against the perpetrators of genocidal violence in the Balkans and Africa during the 1990s. It springs from the same logic that justified armed intervention by the Federal government against those invoking "states rights" to defend slavery and Jim Crow in the American South. This moral logic should guide us in dealing with Saddam Hussein.

The world indeed is engaged in a clash of civilizations. But this is not at its heart a clash between Islam and the West; it is a clash between democracy and a new array of violent and totalitarian forces. As in the struggle against communism, we must press our own government and others firmly to respect civil rights, civil liberties and religious freedoms, at home and elsewhere. The difficulties we confront in the Middle East have been greatly compounded because we too readily traded away concerns about human rights and democracy out of fleeting economic and security interests.

Some on the right will exploit the patriotism and anxiety of this moment for domestic political purposes. Their hope is to replay the politics of the Vietnam era and the late Cold War, reviving divisions among Democrats and allied groups, and rallying supporters of strong defense and foreign policies to the Republican camp. Some on the left have eagerly joined this familiar charade - even though trade unions, women, independent religious groups, homosexuals, intellectuals and artists are among Saddam Hussein's most sought after victims.

Yes, first the United States must seek out all the friends and allies it can get. But then it must cut the Gordian knot of extremism and violence that entangles the Middle East by deposing Saddam Hussein and bringing to birth democracy in Iraq.

This is too important a challenge to leave to the Bush Administration alone.

SD RESOLUTION ON LABOR:
Labor: Balance Wheel of Democracy

The growing difficulty that confronts the American labor movement should not only concern its immediate allies. Some of the reasons for concern are rooted in conservative and religious thought as well as liberal and social democratic traditions. They also reflect thinking that underlies the American constitutional system. They have to do with balance.

Wealth in America has become more concentrated in recent times. This not only creates great differences in life-styles and levels of consumption among our citizens, it has powerful effects upon the full array of our institutions: government, politics, education, religion and the arts.

From the close of WWII until the last decade of the 20th Century, the power of corporations and the wealthy was balanced by a strong voice for the public interest. This voice was expressed through politics and government, as well as through the institutions of what is called civil society. Some described this as a "countervailing power" that could contest the influence exerted by corporate and financial interests.

That term, however, may over-emphasize the adversarial nature of the relationship. While in some ways this array of public interest institutions does counteract private economic power, in other respects it complements and assists the private economy -- even protecting it from its own excesses. It helped create the rough balance in our society and economy that for more than a half century yielded unprecedented prosperity, the integration of many excluded groups into the mainstream, great improvements in access to education, and a consensus about America's role in the world that sustained us through to victory in the Cold War.

At the core of this public power has been a large and civically engaged trade union movement.

The programs and public policies that rested on this structure of public power were not always perfect: some continue to work well, others need to be changed because circumstances have changed, and some have simply proved flawed. Useful ideas for reforms have come from many quarters. But, because of the declining strength of the labor movement, it is now likely that we will see increasing bankruptcy and disintegration in our social and regulatory systems, not constructive reform.

Today unions only represent some 13% of the American labor force, and only 9% of the workers in private employment are unionized. Public sector unions, which boosted labor's ranks in the 1970s and 80s, are themselves embattled. In the legislative arena, labor is on the defensive. Globalization has brought great changes to our labor market, while new technologies and business restructuring have reduced union presence. Business owners have waged costly and relentless legal and public relations campaigns against union organization, campaigns that contradict the widespread impression that workers can readily join unions when they wish to.

The intensity of these anti-union campaigns is one sign of another transforming force in our economy: the growth of what might be called corporate radicalism. Contemporary business and finance have become so fast moving and complex that established systems of government regulation and even corporate governance itself cannot keep pace. Too many aggressive corporate officials devise schemes not only to frustrate unions, but also to outmaneuver understaffed regulators, to co-opt their accountants, to mislead their stockholders, and to manipulate equities markets. On top of all this, contributions by the wealthy vastly distort our elections and legislative processes - relieving corporate radicalism of critical attention it might otherwise attract.

This is not to contend that the market system is inherently and radically wrong. But it does need clear rules, and social and government institutions with the capacity to enforce those rules. These institutions must also have the capability of assuring that the wealth the market system generates can be responsibly distributed: those who are in the productive process must receive their fair share, and those outside it must have a decent standard of living.

In modern societies, trade unions have provided the underpinnings for this market-balancing social and government authority.

The erosion of labor's influence today is therefore likely to have important consequences throughout our national life. As the term "compassionate conservatism" suggests, we are turning away from the empowerment of lower income people toward the philanthropic paternalism of a bygone age. Our society includes a vast array of non-governmental and quasi-governmental institutions - churches, universities, professional and service organizations. When labor was strong, these institutions were open to some influence from the organizations of working people themselves. Now big contributors will exercise growing influence - beyond what they already have.

For some years the power of money in our elections has been growing. Although the passage of campaign finance reform may slow and re-shape this power, it is not likely to be altered in its fundamentals. Only more far-reaching reforms can truly slow the trend toward a politics of money. Big givers are effectively blocking such reforms. Only an effective trade union movement can balance their influence.

Some contend that the decline of labor will be compensated for by the growing influence of progressive ideas in the more affluent and educated sectors of the voting public. This may to some extent be possible. But experience proves middle class and professional reform movements often to be fickle and fitful, and vulnerable to sustained pressures from the institutional forces of business and finance. Only organized labor can sustain the balance.

Whatever its shortcomings, the past half-century has been one of remarkable progress toward acceptance and opportunity for groups previously denied their place in our economic and social life. The labor movement has been central to this progress, both by assuring a measure of security and a decent standard of living to many citizens, and by providing the organizational groundwork and the legislative support for campaigns for civil rights and liberties. Many who have applauded or benefited from this support may not appreciate how much things now may change.

But the greatest change of all will be felt in the families and communities where once trade union membership was common. Health insurance, reliable retirement benefits, supplementary unemployment support, respect on the job and job security are visibly in decline. The cost of living adjustments and regular raises that went with a union card are disappearing. The impact will be felt in everything from birthrates to Little League baseball.

All who are concerned about fairness, decency and balance in American life should now give the highest priority to the survival of an effective trade union movement. Unionism must be made appropriate and attractive for new groups in the labor market. Core economic and representation issues must have a higher place on the legislative and political agenda. Young people must be encouraged to find careers in the labor movement - not because it provides an army for grand transformations, but because it provides the institutional resources and advocacy that can sustain a democratic balance in turbulent times. Academics, policy thinkers, journalists and philanthropists must re-acquaint themselves with unionism, and its positive impact.

The alternative is increasingly clear -- and alarming .

Notesonline

Notesonline is a monthly electronic bulletin of news and information for the social democratic community. Penn Kemble is the volunteer editor of Notesonline and is responsible for its contents and errors.

To update your own e-mail address, or to be taken off our list, e-mail us at: notes@notesonline.cc. We are eager to add to our list the names and e-mail addresses of individuals who share our outlook and might appreciate this bulletin. Please send them to the e-mail address above. We look forward to hearing from our readers about items that you think deserve mention.

As always, Notesonline is grateful for contributions its readers make to defray our costs.  To make a contribution, make your tax-deductible check payable to The League for Industrial Democracy, and mail it to: c/o 1925 K Street, NW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20006.