Out-of-control gas prices are choking off the American dream for working families.The e-mail is about how John McCain and George Bush are killing working families by giving giant tax breaks to Big Oil. A perfectly legitimate point to attack, but does the attack have to come in language that actually helps the GOP?
Isn't this what McCain was arguing when he proposed the gas-tax holiday? Isn't stabilizing the supply of oil a reason (unstated) for going to war in Iraq? Isn't this the reason we need to drill in Alaska (and California, New Mexico, Louisiana and everywhere else)? Could this line of reasoning be why the blue wing and the green wing of the Democratic party mix as well as the evangelicals and the Wall Streeters do in the Republican party?
The blue/green divide in the Democratic party is going to be a major problem in the coming years and I greatly fear that the GOP's tax-cutting, drilling, and anti-cap and trade arguments will become Labor's arguments. I fear that Labor did not learn a lesson from the Pacific Northwest timer unions...even if you buy into the bosses' anti-environmental bullshit, they are still going to shut you down the moment it becomes more profitable to use their money somewhere else.
15 comments:
Uncle, you sometimes imply that the bourgeois ur-intelligentsia would do better organizing an economy than rank and file workers would.
Let me argue this...
The labor movement shortchanges workers when they focus solely on pocketbook issues, rather than quality of life issues. Or social issues. I think my disgust with the whole concept of "our" issues being pocketbook issues has been registered.
Moreover, I think we drive away our allies (non-bourgeois ur-intellectual and bourgeois ur-intellectual alike) when we do bullshit like this. Not only will the South Eugene liberals think this is short-sited, but so will the Marcola hippies. When only 18% of the workforce is organized into unions, maybe we should looking for allies, rather than driving them away.
Of course, my main concern here is that the allies we seem to be attracting would be the Republicans who also think we should be doing whatever it takes to make gas as cheap as possible so that we can all keep driving our American Ford F350s.
Wait... there's hippies in Marcola?
I don't think highlighting rising gas costs necessarily implies support for tax holidays. If rising gas costs don't strike you as a quality of life issue, then you must have some sorta stipend I don't kow about.
More importantly, I don't think that evoking a sense of economic injustice as a rallying cry for an historic election is of necessity a harbinger of any Working Families Party-style foreclosure upon social or "green" issues. I think it's (one of) John McCain's achilles heel(s), actually. And if Obama
Most importantly, I don't think that's what the Dems or the AFL-CIO are doing. To the extent that you believe the polling, the majority of Americans who claim "the economy" as their #1 issue are as much to blame for both candidates' pandering as the labor movement is.
If the working people of the USA are all going to be expected to buy biodiesel Jettas or solar-powered Fieros, they will first have to be able to afford them. Against hippies who want to change people's consciousness one fishing lesson at a time, and against marketeers who posit that America can consume its way out of the energy crisis... The question of how to make cheaper cars, or cheaper energy, or richer workers will require the shifing of wealth and capital assets towards a) investing in new ways of living and, b) creating a society that can afford these new modes.
shucks, sounds like all roads to a "sustainable, green" economy run through, shit, THE ECONOMY.
Which is to say that, in my opinion, the economy is "your" issue, too, Dave.
You know this when you bargain with the University, but you back off from it when debating with (perceived) marxists. That's ironic, because most of the marxists I know have just as unsteady, alienated, intermittent and/or superstitious a discourse around "the economy" as you do.
Their essentialism is as troubling for them - like a rib-bone trapped in the throat - as your conflation of the AFL's economic justice rhetoric with an unspoken economic determinism (or unspoken Reagan Democrat-ism...which one are you accusing them of?)
sorry, working and commenting at once. What I meant to say is "if Obama" cannot use the economy against McCain, he deserves to lose. - p
Except this is not so much an AFL economic justice argument as it is a chance to exploit "outrage" over the price of gas in order to get on the news while linking McCain to Bush.
How 'bout the AFL-CIO worry about worker's pocketbooks by encouraging them to by fuel-efficient cars regardless of where they are made (or more the point, regardless of the nationality of the original owner of the corporation)? If the AFL-CIO has endorsed this course of action, I missed it.
How 'bout the AFL-CIO begin to have a realistic conversation with workers about the fact that as our economy moves from being petroleum-based to something-else based, there will be some initially high costs, but that those costs will be more than offset by minimizing the chaos that will result from the continued degradation of our oil-based economy?
How 'bout the AFL-CIO revise the idea that it necessary for unions to negotiate with their employers over what kind of cars will be manufactured? No time like the present for advancing that the Big Three have no fucking clue. How 'bout not fighting tougher emissions standards, but embracing them because they just may be "better" for working people in this country than Ford selling a few more trucks will be?
The argument that a TDI Jetta (or even a Passat!) is some exotic car only we dedicated ur-intellectuals can afford might fly if a great number of our union brothers and sisters were not rolling 4x4. While a TDI or a Prius might run a couple of grand more than a Corolla or a Rabbit, I hope that you can recognize that one of the problems with Americans and the price of gas is the size of our vehicles in general. Many of our working brothers and sisters bought more expensive, less fuel-efficient cars because they got more horsepower.
As an elitist, Euro-loving snob, I will argue that gas needs to be more expensive to force people to drive less and smarter. This is, of course, not a new or shocking idea to you. I'll go ahead and counter your argument that this will harm working people by arguing that they can begin to phase out their love of huge trucks while we phase in a massive gas tax. I'll even go ahead and say we can exempt licensed truck drivers from having to pay these taxes. Everyone else can do with less driving.
Interesting that you present "cheaper cars, or cheaper energy, or richer workers" as what we are seeking to solve our problems. You seem to be arguing that we are seeking ways to make it possible for people to continue to live their lives as closely as possible to the way they live them now. Not so sure I agree.
If "the economy" is the #1 issue of concern to Americans, the AFL-CIO should have plenty to say. How railing against high gas prices and trying to tie these prices to Exxon profits doesn't seem like a logical way to go about it. Tying high gas prices to the War makes a lot more sense and doesn't have the disadvantage of alienating our green brothers and sisters. Profit taking by Big Oil is way down on the list of reasons why gas prices are so high. They are even farther down the list on why it costs so much to fill up the average American gas tank.
Let's do this...let's actually show up the the Exxon on Gateway at 7:30 in the morning to protest high gas prices (just typing those words hurt my soul) and we'll count fuel-efficient cars and SUVs/trucks.
1) "Interesting that you present "cheaper cars, or cheaper energy, or richer workers" as what we are seeking to solve our problems. You seem to be arguing that we are seeking ways to make it possible for people to continue to live their lives as closely as possible to the way they live them now. Not so sure I agree."
Do you know what institution is the most conservative, Dave? The most concerned about keeping things "as closely as possible to the way they are now"? The market economy, Dave.
You're the free-trader, not me. I am just saying that with increased costs (for fuel, transport, etc.), some sort of state-sponsored economic intervention will be necessary to either cheapen the supply of or increase the demand for the consumables you'd like to see being consumed.
2) "How 'bout the AFL-CIO begin to have a realistic conversation with workers about the fact that as our economy moves from being petroleum-based to something-else based, there will be some initially high costs, but that those costs will be more than offset by minimizing the chaos that will result from the continued degradation of our oil-based economy?"
Fuck the AFL-CIO. Why isn't _anyone_ having this conversation with the American people? Oh wait, the presumptive Dem nominee is! Now how can we support him? By attacking his opponent! On what grounds? The fact that the opponent supports oil companies over the workers they're bilking to the tune of high fuel prices! (Where's your problem again?)
3) "As an elitist, Euro-loving snob, I will argue that gas needs to be more expensive to force people to drive less and smarter."
As an elitist social science guy, I will argue that individual firms can be compelled to charge more for gas or cars, but that the market as a whole can NOT be mobilized to effect the social changes you are simultaneously putting on and taking off the table.
4) "Many of our working brothers and sisters bought more expensive, less fuel-efficient cars because they got more horsepower."
Which is why we have this blog, Uncle: so you can express your chronic frustration about working people _offstage._
Every year in America, millions of people bought their cars by refinancing their already-subprimed homes, which were sold to them by a banking system allowed to participate in this kind of usury by a Fed chair who needed to make easy credit available for people who, shit, HAVEN'T GOTTEN A RAISE IN THREE DECADES and cannot afford to live the lives they need to live if the economy is going to grow. You understand, don't you, that that's the subprime crisis in a nutshell?
Would you object to our foreclosed-upon brothers and sisters protesting against their mortgage rates bearing down upon them, even though they are legally responsible for any such jumps? Wouldn't that be "blaming the victim?" What's the difference in this situatio?
Also.... Rest assured that if flattened wages and an anti-worker political climate haven't succeeded in moving these people towards significant political/environmental change... I doubt they'll give two shits if some Druid and his Doula wife at the Sundance market make a tsk-tsk-ing sound when they contrast see their 4x4s.
Now, I hope our working sisses and bros don't blame the well-intentioned and righteous Druid, tho...it's HIS earth, too, after all____And blaming him'd be as ridiculous, and as ineffective, as blaming working people for being angry about the rising cost of living reflected in fuel prices, healthcare costs, etc_____
Would you go to a "high food prices" rally, or would that "distract" us from the "real problem" of human beings not yet being capable of photosynthesis?
5) "How 'bout the AFL-CIO revise the idea that it is necessary for unions to negotiate with their employers over what kind of cars will be manufactured?"
Why don't we just dig up the Reuthers' corpses and then ritually penetrate their ocular cavities with Change to Win pencils? FIRST you chide working people for their (costly and inconspicuous) consumption of petroleum products and big ol' trucks. But NOW we're way past that, and ready to take on "management rights" clauses?
Never a dull moment in thine ebbing and flowing back and forth from liberalism to something left-er than that. May it always be. I'm hooked. Let's do a blog together.
I will say again that propagandizing under the slogan "I'm outraged about high gas prices" feeds into Republican talking points better than it does Dem talking points.
John McCain will offer to cut your gas taxes because he feels your pain. After all, he's a tax-cuttin', pork-hatin', straight-talkin' white man who knows a thing or two about what it's like to serve his country. He believes you have a God-given right to drive the biggest Goddamn truck Detroit makes and if those ragheads don't like it, he'll show 'em the business end of few thousand frakin' missiles. Wooooo hooo!
Do I need to remind you that Hillary Clinton, friend to hard-working white Americans every where supported the gas tax holiday idea?
How much harder is it going to be to advance the idea that gas taxes need to go up if only to pay for infrastructure maintenance, if the AFL-CIO is advancing the argument that what workers want is lower gas prices.
If Barry is the one who is going to start a conversation about our oil problem, I hope that we're not going to start it from the position that doing whatever it takes to make gas cheaper is a good thing. This is (apparently) the way the AFL-CIO has decided to start the conversation.
The question as to whether I would go to a "high food prices rally," while being a righteous non-sequitur, is an interesting one. Would I be protesting the drought in India? The decision by the Thai government to restrict rice exports? The rise of the Chinese middle class? I guess I would find some tenuous link between Bush and high food prices (Albertson's donates a lot of money to the GOP, so there it is) and call for a 40-60 people to show up in the parking lot of Albertson's for twenty minutes holding signs so we can get on the news. Makes perfect sense.
Lastly, yes, how foolish of me to think that a union should focus on negotiating changes in the workplace. A union's proper role really is half-assed protest in favor of a political candidate who doesn't really even support the position you're advocating.
As for you and I starting a blog together...only if we can avoid descending into petty back-and-forth wherein one of us constantly questions the lefty credentials of the other as a standard debate tactic.
hate to break it to you Dave, but the only person who's questioning Dave's leftist credentialy is - wait for it - Dave. The same Dave, in fact, who is also the only one "debating" anything, as such.
I cannot believe we don't have a trillion readers by now. You'd think this sort of expository careening wasn't other folks' idea of a good time. Wobs, post a picture of your cute blonde son, quick! Somebody write something funny!
lexdexter, I don't even know you, but I think you're in the wrong with that last comment. Dave, questioning other people's lefty credentials? I don't see it in his comments, and I've never known him to do that. On the contrary, you made it personal from the very first comment. (In most every comment, actually.) Please give him more credit than that.
Aren't we too new a blog to be having a schism?
Dave and I are just both working through our grief over Fred Thompson's departure from the Republican race. Dave didn't have the heart to tell me Fred dropped out until two days ago, and I'll admit it set me off.
No schisms, kid. Just sparring.
sparring, eh? well, you boys (by which i pretty much mean you, lex) have fun with that. i think i'll be retreating to the relative calm and civility of my own blog for awhile.
feeling like a troll. i apologize to one and all.
Post a Comment