Mediaboss Marketing

Bill Knight / Opinion columnist

Conservatives occasionally concede that organized labor has been a reason for rising standards of living and making the middle class, and The Atlantic magazine shows that unions provide common ground for progressives and conservatives alike.

Historically, conservative pundits and politicians have praised unions. Columnist George Will in 1977 said, I think American labor unions get a large share of the credit for making us a middle-class country.

In 1991, Republican economist George Schultz (Secretary of Labor under Richard Nixon and Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan) said a healthy workplace [needs] some system of checks and balances and unions provided an effective system of industrial jurisprudence, a check on corporations focus on profits.

In The Atlantic, Jonathan Rauch recalls a 2016 brunch with conservative Eli Lehrer, who runs Washingtons Republican-leaning R Street Institute, and Andy Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union.

Lehrer believes the time has come for the American Right to reconsider its decades-long war on unions, Rauch says. Their collapse, he says, has fueled the growth of government and of the welfare state, which has stepped in to regulate workplaces and provide job security as unions have died out.

Stern thinks unions cannot survive unless they innovate and change, but laws intended to protect and preserve them get in the way, Rauch adds.

The journal National Affairs this summer published Lehrer and Sterns essay about the need for change. In How to Modernize Labor Law, the two write, The fundamental federal rules governing employer-worker relations were written for a different era.

That era was the Great Depression. It resulted in 1935s National Labor Relations Act, but it hasnt substantially changed except for court rulings and sometimes-partisan National Labor Relations Board decisions since 1947s anti-union Taft-Hartley Act.

Meanwhile, regular working people are worried about pay but also anxious, if not angry, about how theyre treated. Last years campaign showed that many workers feel voiceless and powerless, that unhappy workers are angry voters, and that angry voters can lash out against trade, immigration, and even democracy.

Private-sector unions are close to extinct, Rauch writes. In the 1950s, more than one in three private-sector workers belonged to a union; today, unionization is down to 6 percent of the private-sector workforce, lower than it was a century ago before the modern labor movement took off.

The decline of unions is one of the countrys most pressing problems and at least as much a social and political problem as an economic one, he continues. Old-style, mid-20th-century industrial unions had their flaws. But when unions work as they should, they serve important social functions. They can smooth the jagged edges of globalization by giving workers bargaining power. They are associated with lower income inequality. Perhaps most important, they offer workers a way to be heard.

Other models exist for workers organizing, from Europes works councils, which give workers a voice in company affairs, to Germanys permitting unions to organize sectors rather than employers, offering incentives to workers and companies to cooperate for better competitiveness.

Unfortunately, in America in 2017, we dont know how a truly modern union would look, writes Rauch, because it is mostly illegal to find out.

Efforts to legislate reforms have fizzled (most recently, during President Obamas first term, when Democrats had more power), and the GOP-dominated Capitol makes change doubtful. But Stern and Lehrer suggest a workaround like giving states authority to grant labor-law waivers permitting experimentation. For example, if employers and unions had an interesting model that met certain guidelines, they could try it.

The Stern-Lehrer waiver idea is a no-brainer if we want to address the deeper causes of the malaise and distemper afflicting Americas lower-middle class, Rauch writes. Although income stagnation is certainly one culprit, another is the decline of the civic organizations and social institutions that help people feel connected. Service fraternities, volunteer clubs, youth groups, churches, political parties, widespread military service, unions and the rest in their prime all fostered social interaction a sense of social cohesion even when times were much tougher. None matters more than unions.

GOP President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s seem to know this, but also saw the relationship as unchanging.

Only a handful of reactionaries harbor the ugly thought of breaking unions and depriving working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice, Ike said. I have no use for those regardless of their political party who hold some vain and foolish dream of spinning the clock back to days when organized labor was huddled, almost as a hapless mass. Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice.

Contact Bill at Bill.Knight@hotmail.com.

Go here to read the rest:
Knight: Unions offer balance to conservatives, progressives - Washington Times-Reporter

Anyone watching the Democratic leaders in the months since Donald Trump was elected president will likely agree: The party is in nearly complete disarray. There is less consensus, however, about exactly why Democrats are having such a difficult time defining themselves in the post-Trump electoral landscape.

Democratic candidates have fallen in special election after special election this spring, most recently in Jon Ossoffs nearly four-point loss to Republican Karen Handel in Georgias sixth district, despite the historic $23 million Ossoff raised and the extra millions poured into the race by the national Democratic party.

In the wake of that demoralizing defeat, some have suggested that the partys top leadership is the main issue, and Democratic politicians in the House have begun openly grumbling against minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Others on the Left believe that Democratic candidates have been losing because theyve stayed too close to the center, rather than endorsing the increasingly progressive policies some voters desire. Still others have posited that the underlying issue is the partys dismissive attitude toward religious values and even organized religion itself.

While the problems afflicting the party must stem from some combination of these factors, Democrats scorn for religion should be their biggest concern. That scorn is compounded by the partys sudden and dramatic swerve to the Left on key social issues abortion, contraception, religious liberty, and marriage, to name a few in a quest for votes from far-Left, progressive Americans.

Mr. Sanderss non-Christian background may have hurt him in the South; he did poorly among African-American voters, despite his consistent civil rights record. But he did what few other secular candidates have done: He won a sympathetic hearing from conservative evangelicals with a speech that gave a religious grounding for his economic views, complete with biblical citations. When Mr. Sanders spoke at Liberty University, he did not pretend to share evangelical Christians faith, but he showed respect for his audiences religious tradition.

Williams concluded by arguing that Democratic politicians must convince religious voters that they are not enemies of faith, and they ought to do so by grounding their policy proposals in the religious values of prospective voters.

This week, in a New York Times column, Annette Gordon-Reed and Peter Onuf offered an alternative model. The co-authors suggested that Thomas Jeffersons unique attitude toward religion which pervaded his contributions to the nations founding and early government could serve as a model for todays Democrats, especially Jeffersons vigorous embrace of civil religion and peaceful pluralism.

These debates may provide Democrats a method of attaining electoral success, perhaps even in the near future. But while each suggestion hints at a way of combating negative public perception, neither of these models can eliminate the underlying obstacle: progressivisms inherent contradiction of religion.

Progressivism has always been premised on the notion that man has a changeable nature and thus is able to achieve perfection during his time on earth. As a result, progressives consistently maintain that government is responsible for transforming men and women into perfect creatures. They develop programs and reforms suited not for man as he is, but for man as he ought to be (and, progressives would argue, for man as he could become, with the right societal structures).

Against that idea, most religious believers contend that man is flawed by his very nature and incapable of perfecting himself without the help of God, and that perfection is in fact unattainable during earthly life. While sects and denominations differ vastly, religion itself and indeed any dependence on a Creator is a direct contradiction to the progressive conception of man as changeable and perfectible.

In short, progressivism and religion understood as a fundamental reliance on God rather than on oneself or on other men are inherently incompatible. Where progressivism asserts that properly ordered government can and should transform man into a perfect being who lives in a man-made utopia, religion insists that God, not government, is responsible for changing mens hearts.

To be sure, many religious Americans believe that progressive social programs are helping to carry out Gods work caring for the worlds poor and needy. But that underlying contradiction remains a stumbling block for many faithful voters, especially when seen in conjunction with Democrats increasing repudiation of traditional values. Unless Democratic politicians understand and address those legitimate concerns, they wont sway those who reject the notion that government should take the place of God.

READ MORE: You Gotta Lie: The Tangled Progressive Web Backward-Looking Progressives Americas Progressive Auto-Immune Crisis Continues Apace

Alexandra DeSanctis is a William F. Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute.

Continued here:
Why Progressivism and Religion Don't Go Together - National Review

Common Dreams

Progressives Demand Voting Rights Overhaul Amid GOP Suppression Efforts Common Dreams "Lots of folks believe that neither old party can fill the political vacuumand they could be right. But Congressman Beyer has offered his party an opportunity to rise above partisanship and stand on principle," writes John Nichols. (Photo: Michael ...

Go here to see the original:
Progressives Demand Voting Rights Overhaul Amid GOP Suppression Efforts - Common Dreams

by Anthony Flaccovento

For the past several years, as most of rural Virginia has become increasingly red, a number of us have been arguing that this shift is as much about a lack of real alternatives as it is about a genuine change in values. As someone who has lived in southwest Virginia for the past 32 years, who has worked with farmers, loggers, miners and small business people, Ive found as many places of agreement as disagreement, particularly on basic economic issues. During my run for U.S. Congress in 2012, I fared better in the coal counties of the 9th District than overall, with a message that attacked inequality and trickle-down economics, and proposed leveling the playing field with bottom up economic policies. A message I might add, that didnt shy away from the need to care for our land and to transition beyond coal.

So for folks like me, its been particularly painful to see our region become such a tough place for Democrats seeking office, and to overwhelmingly support Donald Trump for president.

There are many reasons for this steady movement to the right, from the outsized impact of Fox News to the role that churches have played in shaping perceptions of their congregants. But one reason that simply does not get enough attention is this: the Democratic Party and the progressive movement both have, for the most part, written off rural America. Its true. Ive experienced this first hand, not just as a Congressional candidate, but in my speaking, writing and advocacy work intended to elevate both the problems and the solutions emerging in small towns and rural communities. Whether focused on politics or the economy, progressive and liberal organizations are largely clueless when it comes to rural communities. And its not a priority for them to change that.

A month after Trumps election, a dozen or so folks from southwest Virginia began meeting to consider what we could do, and especially, what we needed to do differently. This group, which calls itself Progressive 9th, includes farmers, academics, working people, students and activists. Some are long-time Dems, while others lean more towards being Independent.

With the goal of changing and greatly improving our politics and public debate, our group has just completed and released the Rural Progressive Platform. You read that right: its a Progressive Platform, written by rural residents, grounded in rural values, priorities and language. The full platform is four pages long and is accompanied by a one page synopsis, both of which can be found here(also, see below). They are not intended to address every issue of importance to rural people or to political progressives, but rather to fundamentally reframe the debate and to offer more authentic and constructive ways to discuss economic, environmental and community issues.

We invite all readers of Blue Virginia, rural and urban alike, to read and consider the Rural Progressive Platform, to share it widely, and to use it or adapt it as you need. We particularly hope that local and statewide elected officials, candidates for office and Democratic Party leaders at all levels will review the platform. We believe that it could help us begin to overcome our severe polarization and political dysfunction, not by aiming for some lukewarm middle ground, but by identifying and prioritizing the core values shared by both Progressives and rural people.

Anthony Flaccavento is a farmer and sustainable economic development consultant from Abingdon, Virginia, who was the Democratic candidate for Congress in 2012. He started Progressive 9th, along with Michael Hudson of Blacksburg, and a dozen other people from eight different counties in southwest Virginia. For more information, please visit the Rural Progressive Politics website at https://ruralprogressivepolitics.wordpress.com/

****************************************************************

Rural Progressive PlatformJune 2017

ARural Progressive Platformmust be built upon three central elements: land, livelihood and community. Over generations, these three pillars of rural life have shaped the economies and cultures of much of the countryside; they have forged our commitment to self-reliance and belief in hard work. Though much of rural America has changed greatly over the past several decades, land, livelihood and community continue to shape the way we see the world, ourselves, and therefore our politics.

What follows here is a framework for Progressive Values within a rural context, particularly that of Central Appalachia. It frequently uses us and we, not to stereotype or diminish others them but because we write from our own experience, in our own words. This platform is not intended to be comprehensive, but should be understood as a background document from which rural progressives can develop more focused and fully developed positions, or platforms better suited to their particular regions. It is accompanied by a one page summary, which we hope will help spread the ideas more widely.

Our land

In southwest Virginia, our forests provide lumber for building, wood for heating, deer and turkey for food and ginseng for a little bit of cash. Cattle and sheep graze on lush pastures, while narrow strips of bottom land have grown tobacco, produce and home gardens. Creeks and rivers offer bass, trout and perch, as well as irrigation for crops. And underneath all of this, in some parts of our area has been coal, which historically provided well-paying jobs and a good chunk of the tax base for many local services.

In Kansas, they have prairies; in Louisiana, bayous. Though each place is different, rural regions share a sense thatnature is part of how we meet our needs, feed ourselves, create jobs and livelihoods. That the mountains, forests, valleys and streams are apractical part of our livesand economies. No doubt this is at least part of why we look at a chainsaw or a rifle so differently from most city folks. Yet its also true that many urban communities have begun to revitalize and rebuild their own land base, whether as community gardens, farms or public parks. The time is right for rural and urban folks to come together around the idea of working landscapes that respect the environment while helping people meet their needs.

Our livelihoods

There are environmentalists in rural communities and small towns across Appalachia, the Midwest and every other part of the country. Nevertheless, because the environmental movement has emerged most strongly in cities or suburbs, its focus has been onprotectingthe environment, more so than using it well to meet peoples needs. It often seems that environmentalists forget just how much everyone depends upon the food, materials and energy that primarily come from rural areas, thanks to the work that rural folks do. Raising food, cutting logs, mining coal or minerals, drilling for gas these are some of the jobs we do, along with the mechanics, the welders and carpenters, the engineers and the truck drivers that finish the work and get these products to market. If we seem to resent people telling us how to manage our land, its because we do a lot of the work that enables so many others to eat well, be warm and live comfortably.

Of course our jobs are far more diverse now, and many rural people no longer even raise a garden, let alone work in the outdoors. But the sense of livelihood, of taking care of our own needs through hard, sometimes dangerous work, of being self-reliant, that sense is still strong in most rural people, still part of what we believe and what we want. Were encouraged to see that an increasing number of people in cities, especially young people, are yearning to work with their hands, to learn how to raise food or live closer to the land.

Our community

In rural places, family and neighborliness are the starting point for community. And church. Small towns and rural places, like many bigger cities, have seen community eroded by empty store fronts, consolidated schools, addiction and more. Even so, we still tend to set down roots in our place, so when were told to just move to where the jobs are, we think its a choice we shouldnt have to make.

We believe that a caring local community offers the best means to support and help our neighbors.

Its true that too often weve not welcomed people who look or act differently from our norms. But not always. After 911 and Katrina, many first responders traveled from rural towns to New York and New Orleans. For years, the UMWA offered help to Chinese miners in their struggles to make their coal mines safer. We can be neighborly to others, far away. But we need to believe that our own communities are valued and respected, not dismissed or ridiculed.

If land, livelihood and community are central to rural identity and culture, what would a progressive platform look like in these places? How should it be different from the progressive ideas and language that we usually hear? What are some examples of public policies to support these values?

Rural Progressive values and the land:

We love the land and all it has to offer. However, we want people who dont live from the land, who experience nature mostly through tourism or recreation, to understand this: Its hard to make a living from the land without harm, without impact. Farmers understand this, as do fishermen, hunters, loggers and miners. Those of us who farm, fish or hunt see ourselves as good stewards, because we know that our livelihoods depend on healthy land.

If were going to do a better job sustaining the environment while still meeting peoples needs,progressive policies must make partners of those who live from the land, rather than just regulating and restricting what happens in the countryside.Progressive policies should make major investments in the most promising rural sustainable businesses, particularly in communities historically dependent on coal. Rebuilding local economies so that people can care for themselves and their families should be as much of a priority as protecting the environment. We need to see that we are truly in this environment thing together, sharing the challenges equally.

Policy examples:

Rural Progressive values and livelihoods:

We say without hesitation thatworking men and women must be at the center of a Rural Progressive platform and must form the foundation of the broader progressive movement. Working folks in rural Appalachia and urban Baltimore might look different, but in city and country alike working people often do work that is physically demanding, work that requires a practical intelligence, and jobs that so many others have come to take for granted. We think its long past due that ruralandurban workers share in the wealth our work creates, and be respected by politicians with their actions, not just their words.

We come from generations of resourceful people, folks who were poor but didnt know it because they made the most out of what they had. A Rural Progressive platform should thus be built onresponsibilitiesat least as much asrights, with policies that help people help themselves, and build on our strengths and assets.

Policy examples:

Rural Progressive values and community:

Weve not yet given up on community real community, built around a place.We need progressive economic, tax and trade policy that supports healthy, self-reliant local communities, instead of polices that suck the life out of our businesses, homes and downtowns.

Strengthening local communities should be a central goal of progressive policies.

Policy examples:

Rural citizens believe in fairness and understand that some people start with advantages that ordinary people just dont have. After all, Jesus honored the widow, who gave in spite of her poverty, and rebuked the Pharisees, who gave only from their surplus. It seems fair, then, to ask more of those with wealth and privilege, to oppose policies that further their economic or political power, and to protect and care for those who are struggling.

Policy examples

Download a PDF of the platformhere. Download a one-page synopsis of the platformhere.

Follow this link:
Rural Progressives: It's Not an Oxymoron - Blue Virginia (press release) (blog)

Protesters outside the office of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Penn.(Photo: Marc Levy, AP)

Progressive activists are staging sit-ins outside the offices of GOP senators on Thursday, recreating recent scenes from Capitol Hill in several states including Republican strongholds like Kentucky and Tennessee.

Its part of a strategy to use the current congressional recess to pressure GOP senators who are in the midst of negotiations over replacing the Affordable Care Act. A version of the plan, which a Congressional Budget Office estimate says could cause 22 million Americans to lose health insurance, has already passed the U.S. House and Democrats are unified in opposition to it.

Senate health care bill would lead to 22 million more uninsured, CBO says

The groups, including Our Revolution, which is affiliated with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the Working Families Party and Democracy Spring, say hundreds will risk arrest as they converge on 21 states, with key events targeting SenateMajority Leader Mitch McConnell as well as Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Marco Rubio of Florida, Rob Portman of Ohio, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. The protests are notable in that they also target GOP strongholds, including Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas.

Trumpcare has never been about health care, said Working Families Party national director Dan Cantor. Its a naked attempt to steal health care from millions of Americans in order to pay for massive tax cuts for the richest people in history. It's despicable. Even Republican senators must know in their hearts that this is wrong. But still they press forward, Cantor said in a statement.

As Republicans attempt to find a consensus on health care, Democrats are hitting hard the effects the GOP blueprint would have on rural communities, which overwhelmingly voted for President Trump in the November election. Later on Thursday, Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn., plans to join former U.S. Agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack to detail the impact the plan would have on rural Pennsylvania.

If passed in its current form, the GOP health care scheme would make health care unaffordable for millions, kill jobs, threaten rural hospitals and funding for local school districts, and make it harder for people with opioid addiction to access treatment, Caseys office said in a statement.

Republicans have been arguing that Obamacare is collapsing since a number of insurance providers have pulled out of the individual insurance markets in different states. Democrats say the Trump administration's threats to withhold insurer payments via Obamacare has helped cause the problem.

Read more:

United against 'Trumpcare', Democrats divided on next steps

Poll: Only 12% of Americans support the Senate health care plan

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2tVgO2A

Continue reading here:
Progressives stage health care sit-ins outside Republican lawmaker offices - USA TODAY