What do we remember?

Well, it's May 1st. There are a whole bunch of things traditionally celebrated on May Day, but I usually think of International Workers' Day. Most industrialized countries celebrate their Labor Day today, in memory of the workers who were brutally suppressed at Haymarket Square right here in Chicago back in the 1880's. The raw emotions so many people attached to that event in the United States led President Cleveland to put US Labor Day in September. But people still remember. For example, immigrant laborers remember. They took to the streets of Chicago in a peaceful demonstration one year ago today:

Cleveland failed to make people forget about Haymarket just by moving the holiday. Ironically, George W. Bush, the most anti-labor President since the Great Depression, has distracted people from that tragic day without doing anything labor-related. You see, Democrats remember May 1st, 2003 as the day Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Democrats sent the supplemental funding bill to Bush today as a means of commemorating that great speech.

The Bush camp has denied having anything to do with the infamous banner, but it's a powerful image nonetheless. And, not surprisingly, the denials also happen to be a lie:

White House press secretary Scott McClellan later acknowledged that the sign was produced by the White House.

Part of remembrance is using it to help guide you in the future, so it is fair to ask, what is our current mission? both in Iraq and generally?

Some have argued that our new mission should be energy independence. The Apollo Alliance has teamed unions up with activists to push for creation of a lot of new skilled jobs, ripe for unionization, by ramping up alternative energy. But what chance do a bunch of panty-waist liberals have of getting something like this going? Those sissies that care about things like jobs and planets--who cares what they think?

Well, it turns out the most macho organization on Earth, the US military, needs to care about it, too. You'd think the strategic costs alone would have made energy independence obvious to the military long ago, since getting fuel to troops in the field has become extremely problematic. And the troops in the field need nothing like they need fuel: an Abrams tank gets a whopping 0.6 miles/gallon!

But now the military officially knows the obvious, as the Boston Globe revealed today that the Department of Defense has received a report telling them about it:

A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil -- the lifeblood of fighter jets, warships, and tanks -- will make the US military's ability to respond to hot spots around the world "unsustainable in the long term."

The study, produced by a defense consulting firm, concludes that all four branches of the military must "fundamentally transform" their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels. It is "imperative" that the Department of Defense "apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations," according to the report, which was provided to the Globe.
...
The Department of Defense is the largest single energy consumer in the country. The Air Force spends about $5 billion a year on fuel, mostly to support flight operations. The Navy and Army are close behind.

Of all the cargo the military transports, more than half consists of fuel. About 80 percent of all material transported on the battlefield is fuel.
...
The costs of relying on oil to power the military are consuming an increasing share of the military's budget, the report asserts. Energy costs have doubled since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it says, and the cost of conducting operations could become so expensive in the future that the military will not be able to pay for some of its new weapon systems.

Creating three million new union jobs in alternative energy production, as the Apollo Alliance wants, seems to me like the perfect way to remember appropriate parties while moving forward with a new mission. In a few years, hopefully we can remember the days when labor was on the decline in America as income inequality was on the rise. And hopefully we can likewise look back on the days when we fought wars half-way around the world over oil.

Survey of Local Democratic Cleavages

As the authors of Crashing the Gate, a netroots essential, have written, liberals need to stop infighting to have a chance of moving forward on the national political stage. On a local level, in a situation dominated by Democrats, it's not so bad: you've got a big Democratic pie, and you're fighting to distribute it. But on a bigger scale, these street-level divisions are crucially important to resolve.

Three traditionally liberal groups that University of Chicago students are familiar with include students (duh), Blacks, and labor unions. Unfortunately, these groups don't always get along perfectly in Chicago.

You may have seen copies of the free weekly Black newspaper N'Digo (note: a saucy soul soundtrack awaits anyone who actually clicks this link) lying around the waiting rooms of various Hyde Park businesses. I picked up the latest issue yesterday at Lung Wah on 53rd, and there was an interesting editorial on a division between Blacks and labor.

The editorial's author, N'Digo publisher Hermene D. Hartman, describes the efforts of unions to target Aldermen they consider to be anti-union. So far it sounds like a reasonable thing for a union to do. Since unions are such an important way to organize liberal votes around the country, I actually wish they would do more of it.

But the problem for Hartman is that (a) many of the targeted Aldermen are highly regarded leaders in the Black community and (b) many of the unions haven't done a good job of accepting Black members into their ranks. It's quite a shame, since unions and Blacks could gain quite a bit from cooperating--in particular, getting more Black laborers organized would be a proverbial win-win situation.

Students have fewer common interests with unions and Blacks. Moreover, sometimes students have trouble getting involved in local issues. We're not from here, we're only here for a couple years, etc. But the University and the community are stuck with each other, and the administration is the permanent face of students to the community. This hasn't always worked out well.

The University has a bad history of trampling neighborhood interests in the name of redevelopment, which still creates resentment. Hyde Park has been "successfully" gentrified over the past 40 years, but the Woodlawn neighborhood (south of the Midway) has not been interfered with to the same degree. But as the University expands operations there with the construction of a big new dorm, old tensions come bubbling back to the surface.

On a more positive note, recent activism by the SOUL group to encourage the University to negotiate a better contract with about 600 of its unionized employees was a welcome example of cross-group cooperation. It's probably also a good example of really the best action students can take: pressuring the University, as our representative, to deal respectfully and fairly with local groups.

Con Union Se Vive Mejor and Homeland Security

The title of this post is Spanish. Roughly translated, it can mean everyone's life is better with unions.

And it's true: unions are great. They have some problems, of course, but they are essentially the only organized force opposing unbridled corporatism. They help their members by ensuring safe working conditions, living wages, and health insurance. They also help everyone else by pushing workplace safety legislation; union activism is responsible for the 40 hour work week and the weekend. Unions have an added appeal for Democrats, because they are a great way to organize supporters. Republicans use churches in roughly the same way, but unions lately have declined while churches have not.

That's why in 2002, when the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was being debated, Democrats tried to make sure DHS employees could unionize. This was more than just a partisan self-interest thing - it would have improved safety. Take the example of baggage screeners at airports. A union could make sure they are treated well and paid well, thereby minimizing turnover and dissatisfaction. It could make sure working conditions are productive by negotiating how much overtime screeners work, thus preserving their alertness.

Unfortunately, Democrats seemed to be caught completely off guard when Republicans claimed that the terrorists would win if we limited the flexibility of the new Department in managing its personnel. So, after Bush initially opposed the very plan of creating a DHS, Republicans successfully used the issue to depict Democrats as weak on national security. This was a major cause of the Republican routs in the 2002 midterms.

But recently there has been talk of another shot at unionizing the DHS, and I heartily commend Democrats for taking the issue up again. Republicans appear to be ready to play the same card, as Bush is expected to veto any legislation that includes anything pro-union. If Democrats go through with it, this will force Bush to be the one who obstructs a vital security bill for partisan reasons.

Democrats need to force Bush to get out his veto pen on this issue. But Democrats also have to be sure they help the media and the public make the connection between the danger to our shared security and Bush's intransigence. If they bring the legislation up, they must have that plan in place.

Incidentally, the proposal is not even particularly strong. To wit, it will empower a union to negotiate workplace conditions but not salaries. I don't really see why they should bother in such a watered-down way, since Bush & Co. hate unions more than anything. They are so reactionary in their opposition to any form of unionism that the measure won't get past his desk no matter what it looks like.

Better to just propose that the TSA union be fully empowered. In for a dime, in for a dollar, as they say. It could be argued that since the pro-union project here is doomed from the start, the whole project is just about leverage. And you get more leverage out of saying that the President blew it when you tried to meet him halfway than when you presented him with a partisan plan.

If this is indeed the rationale, then it is a prime example of the misguided thinking that helped mire the Democrats in futility for so long. This thinking is largely a product of the wing of the party that fetishizes centrism, thereby ignoring the basic principles of negotiating. Every carpet seller in the bazaar knows that you offer higher than you will settle for so that you can let the other guy talk you down. You end up with what you really wanted, and the other guy gets to think he got a bargain.

Granted, it gets a little tricky when applying this to Bush, since he is so obviously irrational. But in theory, if you went to him with a proposal for full unionization, even though you would be willing to settle for a union that can only negotiate workplace conditions, he could talk you down to that level. You could have your union, and he could tell his corporate overlords that he had really gotten a good deal out of you. Democrats would be well advised to get into the habit of playing smarter in this way. In the meantime, it's a step forward that they are proactively pushing this again.