What Kind of Country Are We?

Germany and Japan have highly unionized work forces: New Dealers made sure that unions were strong before the Allied occupation forces relinquished control. Ditto South Korea. The rationale: democracy would have a better chance to flourish, and Nazi/Fascist brutes would have less likelihood of regaining control if confronted by strong unions.

But Brazil, France, Spain, Russia, India and South Africa also have union-organized auto industries. In contrast, a large portion of the US auto industry, especially beyond the rust-belt states, is not unionized and unionization is declining rapidly. The foreign transplants, like Nissan and Honda, are unionized in virtually every other so-called 'developed country.'

Despite weakened unions, the US Chamber of Commerce's reaction to Obama's NLRB appointments, ratified in the recent filibuster deal in the US Senate, was that a major disaster had occurred. American business appears to have an aversion to unions, not just among the auto transplants in the South.

Omigod! The NLRB might actually attempt, again, to fulfill its mandate that employers not unduly interfere with union organizing elections!

As soon as FDR was gone, business rallied against unions, and in 1946 a Republican Congress passed Taft-Hartley, weakening unions and making "right-to-work" legislation viable. Since 1946, 23 states have passed such laws. Is it just coincidence that right-to-work states have fewer union workers (6.48% vs 10.8%) and lower wages?

All the southern states except Kentucky, all the plains states, almost all the Rocky Mountain states are right-to-work, and now two states from the industrial heartland (Michigan and Indiana) are, as well.

Right-to-work is a euphemism. RTL means employees in a union-organized workplace don't have to join a union, or pay union dues, but can benefit from a union contract. When workers become "free-riders" like this, unions lose money, power and eventually their contracts. Then employers don't have to face an organization representing workers.

Gerrymandering elected majorities from white, rural minorities, Tea Party state legislatures, from Wisconsin to Texas, now pass draconian abortion laws, slash services from education to Medicaid, cut taxes on the wealthy, and raise them on the poor. It's a coup that exploited the 2010 reaction to Obama and the unlimited corporate and private funds released by Citizens United. It's a coup of corporate elites, and it's frighteningly successful in the states, where it's compounded by the generations-long decline of organized labor.

The US Congress is divided between a similarly gerrymandered, reactionary House majority, and an inchoate, moderate Senate majority corrupted by corporate money. The US looks increasingly like the despotic, declining Empire of Fifth Century Rome, led by a fabulously wealthy elite dominating an increasingly impoverished majority. The coup isn't complete, but it's dangerously close. The military-industrial-security complex doesn't know it yet, but an Empire based on mass misery is like a hollowed, rotten tree: it'll go down fast in a storm, despite its sophisticated surveillance and automated weaponry.

Change one little rule

just an iota, and business groups start to wring their hands over the labor-friendly changes that could take place. A confirmed Secretary of Labor? A full NLRB board with a Democratic majority? They write as if disaster is going to strike.

Unions have had a hard time recently, and if these nominees are confirmed, because Reid finally threatened to do away with the filibuster on nominee confirmations, then already it will have a tremendous impact. Unions have had diminished clout, and the eviscerated NLRB and caretaker Labor Department hasn't helped. Even reporters for the Chamber of Commerce admit that a confirmed nominee has more power than an interim appointee and could push for rules making union organizing elections a lot easier. That, in turn, could stop the slide in unionization, and might even help it to recover some lost ground.

That's the disaster the Chamber is worried about: labor empowered, wages raised, profits possibly cut--ah, some redistribution of income and power. Since corporate profits and inequality of incomes are soaring, there is a lot of room for a more just distribution of the wealth produced, and the managerial elites might just have to rake in fewer millions. I don’t think that would be a bad thing.

But you see how a rule compromise in the Senate can change a lot of other things in the real world. It could even begin a reversal of the silent takeover of power and wealth engineered by this generation's Roman Senators.

Still, we should note: no formal rule was changed; there was an "agreement" between Democrats and enough Republicans to prevent a filibuster on Richard Cordray, the interim and now confirmed head of the Consumer Financial Protection Board that's already shown it has teeth in regulating out of control credit card companies. Supposedly, the agreement will also cover the NLRB nominees and others who have been waiting for confirmation for a good part of Obama's tenure.

The agreement also highlights the weakened status of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: John McCain brokered the agreement for the Republicans and McConnell was sidelined and ignored; that has significance for the Senate down the road, beyond the filibuster issue. While this was an interim agreement that left the filibuster in place, for now, it could lead to big changes in the distribution of power in the Senate, and in the "real world."

Nominations are a uniquely senatorial power, however. On any tax or spending issue, the House is supposed to lead, and on any other issue, it has at least veto power. Given its extremist wing in the Republican majority, it's unlikely that senatorial comity will lead to House functionality.

However, any movement away from increasing corporate power and toward buttressing the power of workers might undo what seems like an inevitable takeover, like the one that gave Roman Senators monopoly power--shared with the military--in the late, declining Roman Empire.

Not Just Conservative Libertarians

Rand Paul's filibuster may have uncovered an issue that resonates with more than his core conservative base. It's the overweening reach of the executive branch, especially the President's use of drones, and his claim that he has the power to kill citizens if he determines--without proof--they are "enemy combatants" involved in terrorism against the US. This is a real danger: any President unchecked could become like a King or dictator, with no limits to his power.

Paul's protest is consistent with the conservative-libertarian view that government must be limited. Progressives, like Democratic Senator, Ron Wyden, who supported Paul's filibuster, could make common cause on the issue of war powers, but not on the government's role in the domestic economy.

Conservatives and progressives might collaborate on cutting back the overreach of imperial powers, and ultimately, on reducing, or withdrawing support from the United States as empire.

Back in the Interwar Period, this impulse was first labeled isolationism; then it was short-sighted. The rising powers of Togo's Japan, and Hitler's Germany had to be stopped: they were determined to dominate everyone. Their hegemony could have created a terrifying world. The dominance of the US after WWII was relatively benign in comparison.

However, US super-power status has been fraying for years, and although the US is still by far the most powerful militarily, and largest economically, trends are against its maintaining preeminence for long. First of all, as Vietnam and then Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated, military might is limited: it cannot impose American control over an unruly world, despite the US spending more on its military than all other major powers combined. Often, our "adversaries" have been able, like a judo master, to use our strength against us.

In Vietnam, the Viet Cong gained a goodly proportion of its arms from a vibrant black market, because of the flood of weaponry sent by the US. In Afghanistan, we created our own enemies: the Taliban and al Qaeda, when intervening against the Soviet takeover. In Iraq, we destroyed a relatively stable dictatorship, a sometime ally (Saddam worked with the CIA until invading Kuwait). Instead, we created an unstable "democracy" naturally allied with Iran.

In addition to the limits to military power, there is America's relative economic decline, caused by the dramatic rise of the BRIC nations, especially China, and by our trade debt. The US will not have the largest economy for long, and will not be able to afford the luxury of its huge military establishment. This is especially true as the US Dollar's reserve status weakens and we have to pay our debts with dollars earned!

It's likely we're seeing the beginning of the decline of the American Empire. I hope we can manage it more benignly than did the Romans, Spanish, or Soviets. So, Rand Paul has a point.

Maybe we can become like Monty Python's post-imperial Britain. We could have more fun!

Filibuster as Empire Buster

Progressive Democratic Senators Bennet, Harkin and others are promoting a bill to reform the filibuster.

However, important Democrats, like Dianne Feinstein, are against it, and the Republicans are obviously against it: they control the Senate's business with 41% of the votes. That's a pretty good trick, when you think about it.

Republicans have used more filibusters in Congress since 2006, than have ever been used before; they're using them to block virtually all legislation, except Defense bills, rendering elections meaningless and government ungovernable.

So, it's easy to understand why no Republican Senators will vote for filibuster reform. But why won't Democrats like Senator Feinstein and fellow caucus member Senator Lieberman vote for reform or abolition. Lieberman did once endorse getting rid of the filibuster, but that was years ago--before he became a pivotal vote. That should be a clue right there.

There is a reason why even a reform of the filibuster (let alone it's abolition) is unlikely.

Senators are there for the power; that's what makes them tick. With the filibuster, all of them, every single one, has much more power than they would with simple majority rule and no power to block.

With the filibuster, Ben Nelson can hold up the nation for his state alone, and so can Lieberman, and so can Jim Bunning. Each, then, gains enormous power--negative--but useful to gain things like the Medicaid in Nebraska deal.

So, why would any power-mad Senator want to give that up?

That's the point: power. And each Senator thinks that if he retains that power for himself, he'll be better placed for re-election, regardless of what happens to the government or his party. Think of all the things he can do for his state, which could insure his re-election (he/she hopes), if he retains that power.

Instead of being a faceless member of the majority, Ben Nelson wheels and deals for his state. Instead of being a retiring and faceless member of the minority, Jim Bunning becomes a national byword.

Maybe not all Senators are motivated solely by power. Maybe some genuinely believe they are doing good for their state and The People, but at the same time, their egos are being massaged, and probably their bank accounts, too.

Also, it may be true that the filibuster could be eliminated by a majority vote (50, plus Biden), but the Senate, as an institution, is very conservative. Also, the abolition of the filibuster might be met by more Republican obstruction: they could refuse to agree to a legislative calendar, thereby blocking all business.

Democrats threatened that in 2005, when Republicans proposed abolishing the filibuster with the "nuclear option." Still, it's too bad the Republicans didn't go through with it.

The Roman Senate led to the downfall of Rome, literally. If the US Senate cannot reform, or legislate, it could be instrumental in the downfall of the American empire, as well.

A State that does not govern, does not survive.

Comments?