As another Labor Day wraps up, this blog post on The Washington Examiner reports that support for labor unions is at an all-time low. The public supports unions by a bare minimum of 48 percent to 45 percent, a statistical dead heat and a far cry from the comfortable support unions have traditionally enjoyed. This is an issue that brings out mixed reactions in a lot of people and one’s reaction to unions is often less about political philosophy and more about perception and personal experience. If the word “union” conjures up images of school teachers on tenure and government bureaucrats who can’t be fired, coupled with major league baseball players resisting steroid testing, then you’re not going to be real fond of organized labor. For others though, that same word brings to mind the auto worker or the steel worker or the coal miner working collectively to get better wages, benefits and working conditions, you might be a bit more positive. If your own personal experience has seen you work with great employers who cared about their people and tried to do right by them, then you are likely to see union organizers as annoying pests at best and bullies at worst. But if you’ve worked for a trail of unscrupulous bosses who grinded you up while paying out little, that you might take a more benign view of an institution designed to marshal the collective power of workers.
I believe unions are a needed check against bad employers. I also believe that organized labor has been the willing and pliant tool for left-wing social causes and used the dues of their rank-and-file to get the money for their activities. So my support comes with a cautious arm at length. And I do not support the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which would prevent union elections from being on secret ballot and would empower activist bullies.
Michael Barone at Real Clear Politics writes that Obama is headed into a difficult September, with key decisions on three crucial issues ahead—health care, Afghanistan and Iran. We’ve discussed health care at length over the summer in this space and will be doing so again, so I’ll pass on that. But Obama’s choice in Afghanistan is crucial—he must support the necessary troop increases needed to secure that country. Our invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was undeniably just—even the Left’s criticism of taking over the nation that openly housed Bin Laden was muted. And one of the more reasonable criticisms made of George W. Bush’s Iraq mission was that it distracted attention from Afghanistan and the ultimate hunting down of Bin Laden. Barack simply cannot let this mission fail, and it’s one he’s given his rhetorical support.
Barone notes that an interesting thread in all three of Obama’s key choices is that each one, at some level, presents him with a clear path—either choose to govern in accordance with his leftist political base, or with the broad center of the country. His cool response to a crisis in the stock market in September ’08 enabled him to pull away in the presidential race. Will he be able to stay calm this time around in the face of a tenacious base of liberal activists?
Mike Lupica of The New York Daily News is angry that parents are unhappy that Barack wants to address their kids in school, and in a puerile and juvenile column, goes on to call said parents every name in the book. Even Minnesota’s GOP governor Tim Pawlenty gets caught in the Lupica name-calling machine for a statement as mild as “I don't think [the President] needs to force [his speech on education] upon the nation's schoolchildren…”
I’m also one of the loons that Lupica refers too. For all the protests that the president’s speech is not political, every move a politician makes is inherently political, and this is not exactly something done behind closed doors and away from the public eye. If a president is going to get this kind of audience to the nation’s schools, then fairness dictates that a Republican leader ought to be able to appear as well, just as we have on the State of the Union.
Lupica is a tough-talking little guy who’s the poster boy for those who feel the need to compensate for some perceived physical inadequacy. He normally writes his shrill commentary in the sports section, but with the Yankees pulling away in the AL East, the Mets in the tank and the NFL still around the corner, he’s apparently decided to expand his lack of knowledge into the political world. How about a compromise? Barack can force himself upon the nation’s children, but Lupica stops forcing himself on the political pages? At least Barack can be civil to people he disagrees with.
Recent Comments