|
|
<< SEIU: Remaking 2004 Election | Main | RIAA Shakes Down Housing Project Kid >> September 09, 2003Tapped Disses LaborWhat the hell is wrong with Tapped these days? They are going rightwing on immigration, trashing "identity politics", and now they are sounding all DLC-like in dissing labor unions. Talking about the candidates, Tapped writes: Tapped would like to hear more about Kerry's educational proposals and how they compare with those of Edwards, as well as more about how he thinks we're going to stablize Iraq and get the economy moving again.There are so many f----- up things in that quote coming from a supposedly liberal outpost that I don't know where to start. Let's start with the word "pander"-- talking about the needs of those activists who are most loyal to the overall progressive agenda is not "pandering", it's basic respect and courtesy. Second, Tapped equates labor and the manufacturing sector-- a really illiterate statement to make the day after the candidates addressed the SERVICE EMPLOYEES International Union, the largest union in the AFL-CIO. Oh yeah, what are the other largest unions? The National Education Association, the American Federations of State County and Municipal Employees, and the Teamsters-- all largely service workers of various kinds. And what's this crap about workplace changes won "half a century ago"? Who does Tapped think did the heavy lifting to pass Medicaid, push through education funding for university students, and pass the Family Leave Act? But the stupidest thing is for Tapped to listen to the candidates talking about the "right to organize", "card check" and all the other promises made to the unions and ask what does this have to do with unorganized workers. Get a clue-- already unionized workers don't need card check, they have a union. It's the non-union workers who need the right to stand up for their rights without being assaulted by union-busting tactics. The right to organize is all about having a plan to help non-union workers get the pay, workplace rights and power to fight on their own behalf. I don't understand why a magazine that usually argues for workers rights is spinning this kind of anti-union rhetoric. I hope it stops soon. Carter Wright has more in his post Reinvigorating the Economy: What TAPPED Misses. Update: TAPPED replies here and my additional reply here. Posted by Nathan at September 9, 2003 07:15 PM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsWhat the hell is wrong with Tapped these days? They are going rightwing on immigration, trashing "identity politics", and now they are sounding all DLC-like in dissing labor unions. I hear there are elections coming up. This may explain Tapped. --Kynn Posted by: Kynn Bartlett at September 9, 2003 09:49 PM Another response to TAPPED's whiff on unions: Posted by: Carter Wright at September 10, 2003 12:19 AM I totally missed that line from them when I was there earlier, and I'm with you on TAPPED: They've been putting some "funny" ideas out lately. This may or may not be meaningful, but Matthew Yglesias (from the blog of that name) just signed on with TAPPED, and I believe he writes at least some of their blog. That "half a century ago" line sounds like it was written by someone short on years. Maybe Matt? Posted by: Benedict@Large at September 10, 2003 01:18 AM Matt's also not exactly fond of unions. Posted by: Luke Francl at September 10, 2003 01:21 AM Good points. Are those who write Tapped not in touch with people there like Harold Meyerson? Carter Wright points out all of the things that labor advocates that benefit unorganized workers more than organized workers: health care, minimum wage, health and safety protections, etc. We've grown sadly accostomed to even many Democrats assuming that advocating for workers somehow means "pandering" to self serving, corrupt, special interest "union bosses." (I thought Bustamante lumping his labor contributions in with his Indian gambling contributions was indicitive of a similar mindset.) But when one of our too few articulate left mouthpieces falls into the same ignorant blather, one wonders what hope we have. This is not only symtomatic of political naivite, but also of a total lack of understanding of American political and social history (not to speak of current events). I dispair when I look at my kids' high school curriculum and their lack of current events, politics, economics or government. One would hope, however, that those writing at Tapped whould have risen above thise handicaps. Or else woe is us. Posted by: Jordan Barab at September 10, 2003 09:06 AM Maybe TAPPED just doesn't understand basic union principles. That would make sense, they're kind of an upper-class take on liberal principles, and even if they took a class in college, it's not the same thing as having lived it. The disturbing part to me was about how "those jobs aren't coming back." NOW THAT'S VISION! blech. Posted by: those anarcho punks are mysterious at September 10, 2003 02:20 PM A little early to blame Yglesias; I think his first bylined article over there appeared today. Posted by: Linkmeister at September 10, 2003 06:31 PM I've been reading blogs for, oh, several months now and have several (too many?) bookmarked. I have never gotten into reading TAPPED because, quite frankly, it sucks. Posted by: CRAPPED at September 10, 2003 08:02 PM That certainly was ridiculous. BTW a tangential comment: Anytime you hear somebody say "those jobs aren't coming back" then immediately say "oh, you think they're lying about the benefits of globalization, then?" Because that's exactly what they're saying. If globalization is going to bring everybody up to 1st world living standards (and if it isn't then ask them why not and really watch them really wiggle) then at that point shouldn't you be able to produce anything (good or service) anywhere for roughly the same cost? Act all innocent and big-eyed while you ask these questions. You can come up with further fun games: ask if they are considering a move to a "comparative advantage" country & etc. My favorite is that when they start "teaching you Economics 101" get them going on the free market and competition. Nod wisely and say: Ok, if individuals act in their own self-interests it works out to everybody's advantage, and if companies persue their own self-interest it works out best for everybody, so logically if nations persue their own self-interest it...??? Maybe- unlikely but, maybe- you can get them to see that globalization is like communism: a nice theory that works perfectly everywhere but in real life. Maybe when Homo Sapiens gives way to Homo Superior its time will have come. Hmmm, I feel like going over and torturing Prof. DeLong. But he really doesn't deserve it. Unless he subjects me to another condescending lecture on "comparative advantage"... then all bets are off. Posted by: a different chris at September 10, 2003 08:02 PM ahem, sometimes they also "pursue" their own self-interest... Posted by: a different chris at September 10, 2003 08:04 PM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|