Card Check For All

Mickey Kaus blogs in from the Zeta Quadrant:

I don't think this is an endorsement Obama had to make for political reasons. As Dick Morris says, he's sitting pretty--he can be anything he wants to be. He could be a lot more Gary Hartish! He must want to be an old-fashioned unionizer. [But he has to win the Iowa caucuses, dominated by unions--ed Teachers' unions! They're already organized. They don't need no stinking card-check.** As for New Hampshire--look what the unions did for Mondale in 1984. ... And if Obama doesn't really believe in the card-check, wouldn't it still be smart for the GOPs to make him pay a price for selling out to the unions? That's a lot more important sign that he's a business-as-usual pol than his failure to repudiate David Geffen for taking some heartfelt shots at the Clintons.. ... ]

The endorsement in question is of the Employee Free Choice Act. Kaus is, I think, stuck in a time warp. Obviously, Obama would earn the undying enmity of all the unions in Iowa and New Hampshire (and everywhere else, for that matter) if he declined to endorse EFCA. That would be bad. What's more, at this point in time everyone in progressive politics is for card check. All the bloggers are for it. Here's Jon Chait in The Los Angeles Times in favor of card check. Here's the DLC in favor of card check. Here's a New Republic editorial praising unions.

The consituency for Kaus-style union-bashing in the Democratic Party is just gone. Obama would lose the support not just of the unions but of everyone if he didn't endorse card check. What's more, Obama's a liberal community organizer -- of course he's for making it easier to form a union.

Comments

Unions are as much a "special interest" as corporations are. Is there any sort of mainstream Democratic policy that can be enacted without being derided as "liberal extremism" by some concern troll?

Posted by Steve | March 5, 2007 3:33 PM

long ago and far away, when kaus was just starting on blogging and i still read him, i entered into an email correspondence with him on some posting (no longer remember on what topic) and he made some reference to how the nytimes didn't take welfare reform seriously enough in the '80s and that justified whatever position he was taking.

which is to say, matthew has this one exactly right: kaus is in a time warp, all right - he's stilll obsessed with what he thought in the '80s.

Posted by howard | March 5, 2007 3:36 PM

The excerpt from Kaus epitomises just what a wretched writer he is: the obsessive self-referentiality, the snarky, faux-smart hypotheticals/counterfactuals, the painful overuse of the exclamation point; no wonder he's special friends with Ann.

Posted by Ben Cronin | March 5, 2007 3:39 PM

This is starting to border on an unhealthy obsession of mine, but good G-d, why does anyone treat Mickey Kaus like he is a respectable human being and in some fashion a democrat? He has the instincts of a union busting, race baiting, immigrant bashing know nothing. In other words, a Republican.

I don't understand why Josh Marshall keeps him on his blog roll. Jesus, you might as well add The Corner to the list.

If the Dems followed Mickey's sage advice, the party would have a constituency consisting of ugly, union hating, welfare queen bashing, nerdy white men who live in LA.

He's a one note know nothing with ugly instincts. Know wonder he's pals with Ann Coulter.

I've given up on Slate. Kaus, Lord Saletan, Hitchens, Jack Schaefer, and Dickerson. Who needs 'em. I have to get my Dahlia Lithwick fix in the WaPo. At least until I cancel that subscription.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | March 5, 2007 3:46 PM

I think we should bring card check to elections for Congress -- whoever can get the most signed cards collected by election day becomes Representative or Senator. Why not? It would certainly encourage participation. Turnout wouldn't be a problem.

Posted by Stefan | March 5, 2007 3:47 PM

I actually think Kaus is an exeptionally sharp writer, but I don't understand his schtick. I mean, I get the "moderate Democrat, contrarian, sensible center" persona in general, but in several years of reading Kaus, I've yet to see him adapt a position on the political left. From immigration to The Surge to unions, he's to the right of McCain.

How much longer can he go without some kind of reverse-Andrew Sullivan conversion to the wacky Right?

Posted by Ben | March 5, 2007 3:48 PM

Mickey Kaus is not a Democrat at all. Matt didn't notice that Kaus is giving advice to the GOP in that post. Kaus gives such advice because he's a card-carrying member of the right-wing attack media. That's why right-wing bloggers like Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan praise him to the skies.

Over his years at Slate, Kaus has evolved from a neo-liberal "Democrat who likes to bash Democrats" into a "right-winger who still likes to bash Democrats." Substantively, Kaus is a right-winger because of his determined support for the war, opposition to immigrants, and desire to get rid of unions. Ideologically, what Kaus contributes to the right is his perspective as somebody who has been "inside" liberal opinion and knows liberal thinking as liberals know it. As a result, Kaus is able to see liberal self-inflation (Howell Raines at the NYT) and liberal self-deception (Adam Nagourney) before the right-wingers themselves see it. He's also able to attack liberal personalities and institutions without necessarily being seen as a right-winger. In fact, almost all of Kaus' bashing is directed toward Democrats, even those Democrats like Hillary Clinton whose moderate views would be closer to his own purported views. Much like the right-wing attack media, Kaus bashes every Democrat who sticks his or head out of the water. The only difference is that Kaus bashes from an inside perspective.

This is not to say that Kaus isn't interesting as a right-wing media figure. Kausfiles is a good place to go if you want to know the kind of arguments that the right-wing media machine might be using in the near future. However, there's no reason for anyone to be interested in Kaus as either a liberal or a Democrat.

Posted by Ric Caric | March 5, 2007 3:49 PM

That's why right-wing bloggers like Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan praise him to the skies.

Actually, MK and AS have been having an increasingly public and vituperative fued, as AS has moved far to the left of MK.

Posted by Ben | March 5, 2007 3:50 PM

BTW, 'card check' elections for Congress are a tradition in the US, with us until the late 19th century, when the secret ballot was introduced by reformers known as 'progressives' who thought there was a problem with corruption in the election process. Instead we got a big fall in electoral participation.

People should be able to defend their vote in front of their neighbors and community. No of this 'secret ballot' stuff that allows people to vote against their community interest.

Posted by Stefan | March 5, 2007 3:53 PM

Why are you reading Mickey Kaus at all? What a waste of time.

Posted by Antid Oto | March 5, 2007 4:05 PM

Stefan has the right result but exactly the wrong justification. As MY has discussed, the purpose of card check is to reduce pressure on employees deciding whether to join a union. While there are, obviously, cases of abuse on both sides, empirical evidence shows that the employer, and not the union, is far more likely to exert inappropriate influence on employees during the secret ballot process.

The idea is to implement a better system; nobody believes card check is a perfect system. To the extent employees feel pressure from the union side during the card check process, it's most certainly a bug and not a feature.

Posted by Steve | March 5, 2007 4:06 PM

"The consituency for Kaus-style union-bashing in the Democratic Party is just gone."

And even more importantly, that constituency is gone in large part because unions are viewed as overwhelmingly positive by the entire national electorate - by a 2 to 1 margin.

Mickey is still operating in the 1984 universe where Democrats had some valid electoral concerns about a closeness to unions dragging down Mondale and downticket Dems.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2007 4:17 PM

Obama and Edward Said.

Unless Obama was saying, I'm withholding my alumni contribution to Columbia until you are fired, I think Marty Peretz will be unhappy.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjlkMTAyNDk4MGE1YmE5MWM4OWUzNDAxMTA2MjE2N2M=

Posted by otto | March 5, 2007 4:18 PM

Steve, how do you know that "To the extent employees feel pressure from the union side during the card check process, it's most certainly a bug and not a feature"?

One issue here is that unions in card check certification do not face an employer who opposes unionization -- if the employer did oppose unionization they'd not consented to card check in the first place. So there is not need for the union to be coercive in this case, and I'm not surprised surveys do not find union coercion in card check certification.

Posted by stefan | March 5, 2007 4:20 PM

Mickey is still operating in the 1984 universe where Democrats had some valid electoral concerns about a closeness to unions dragging down Mondale and downticket Dems.

I think he might have made it all the way to 1992 and the Clinton/Bush I election, but then was frozen in amber.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | March 5, 2007 4:25 PM

Ric Caric's comment above is excellent.

Posted by MQ | March 5, 2007 4:29 PM

Hmm, I see that Andrew Sullivan has posted a full-throated defense of the Kaus position at his site, and links to Jane Galt. I suppose he has yet to move to the left on domestic issues. Perhaps he and Mickey can finally kiss and make up (metaphorically, since Mickey often says how repulsed he is by gays)!

Posted by Ben | March 5, 2007 4:32 PM

Mickey Kaus is a guy who's found that being a quisling pays better than either being a true Democrat or a true Republican. By pretending to be a liberal, he can play the 'Even the liberal...' game that TNR plays.

He got in at Slate because (a) he's in with Kinsley, (b) Kinsley's a wh*re, and (c) because Kinsley admires that cool pretence of being contrarian, as long as it's in the service of power, and doesn't get ridiculous ideas like speaking truth to power.

He's another reason that I equate claims of 'contrarianism' with deceit and fraud.

Posted by Barry | March 5, 2007 4:40 PM

Personally, I have no idea whether I favor card check. I don't know enough about the issue. (I also, actually, share at least some of Kaus' ambivalence about unions-- it's not the biggest issue when union power has subsided so much, but he is right about things like restrictive work rules and barriers to entry into the workplace which unions sponsor.) What I do know, however, is that there is a tremendous amount of employer intimidation of those who wish to form unions.

So while there are all these procedural objections to card check (i.e., it's not a secret ballot, etc.), the real question is what would these guys do to ensure that workers who WANT to unionize get to unionize.

And the answer is probably that Kaus et al. don't want unions to form even when the workers want them. Which is a less democratic position than being for card check.

Posted by Dilan Esper | March 5, 2007 4:53 PM

Look, Kaus quotes Dick Morris in support of his opinion. That disqualifies him right there.

Posted by Farinata x | March 5, 2007 4:54 PM

Mickey is still operating in the 1984 universe where Democrats had some valid electoral concerns about a closeness to unions dragging down Mondale and downticket Dems.

Give him credit: at least 1984 is closer to the present day than 1974, which is where Joe Klein is stuck.

Posted by Tom Hilton | March 5, 2007 5:19 PM

Kaus is still in the Clinton years - where "triangulation" and Dick Morris still help water. Triangulation was the worst thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party. Unionizing is good for employees, and is good for America.

Posted by faseddie | March 5, 2007 5:24 PM

"Give him credit: at least 1984 is closer to the present day than 1974, which is where Joe Klein is stuck."

Driveby mindless pundit-o-parricides is not a welcome element in the reality based coalition.

In fact, it kinda makes you the wanker of the day.

Posted by Petey | March 5, 2007 5:24 PM

Re otto

Apparently, Mr. otto is unaware of the fact that Edward Said shuffled off this mortal coil some time ago.

Posted by SLC | March 5, 2007 5:40 PM

petey, if i've sorted your 5:24 out correctly, i disagree completely.

an excellent plank in any reality-based platform would be to see all current mainstream pundits forced to shut up for 1 year. i'll live with the cost of losing krugman if the benefit is the silencing of kaus, klein, and dozens of others.

imagine if publishers actually had to search around for some new voices? you think punditry might become more reality-based? i do....

Posted by howard | March 5, 2007 5:42 PM

This looks like another of those generational things. I'm old enough to remember the 1970s, when the unions still wielded real power, and more than occasionally abused it. Like when they struck the WaPo in 1973, and destroyed a lot of printing presses on the way out the door.

But in beginning in the late 1970s, union-busting became pretty much a science in the hands of corporations. And then in 1981, Reagan broke the PATCO strike, which signalled to management everywhere that union-busting was in season.

That's the era we've been in for the past 25+ years. But Kaus and those like him are trapped in a time-warp, still battling the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s, as they project them, in their minds, onto today's political landscape.

I'm 53 years old. I can tell that it's no longer 1969, or even 1979. Why can't guys like Kaus, Klein (Joe, not Ezra), Broder, etc. figure this out? And if they can't and I can, why don't I have a column in Time, or on the WaPo op-ed page, or somewhere like that?

Posted by RT | March 5, 2007 6:00 PM

Petey: as we used to say in Santa Cruz, thanks for sharing.

Posted by Tom Hilton | March 5, 2007 6:16 PM

What I find infuriating here is Kaus's smug certainty that Obama must, deep down, agree with Kaus's position on this issue. The only reason he doesn't come out in a full throated defense of Kausism is his fear of the massive power of the modern American union movement.

What a narcissist.

Posted by rufustfyrfly | March 5, 2007 6:28 PM

Idiot pundits are a dime a dozen. Get a load of this guy from The Plank who cites a poll supposedly showing that the Democratic Party is pushing card check in opposition to the views of 89% of the public.

And he doesn't stop for a moment to think "gee, does that make sense?" Let's see, these are the same Dems who are paralyzed by indecision on the war, notwithstanding that a solid majority has wanted them to end the war for some time. Yet they're so beholden to "special interests" that they want to piss off 89% of the public. Yeah, I'm sure that's the case.

Posted by Steve | March 5, 2007 7:10 PM

I stopped reading at "As Dick Morris says ..."

I should have stopped reading at "Mickey Kaus blogs ..."

Posted by BobT | March 5, 2007 7:14 PM

Speaking of Obasama, I was purusing his mother's apparent ancestry the other day (after that story about her people being slave owners came out) and noted the surnames Eltonhead and Conway back there. For genealogy nerds like myself, these names mean one thing: James Madison. Me guesses (without having checked it out) Barack "fresh face" Obama may be something like a third cousin to Jimmy Madison (which isn't quite as cool as Linus's third cousin connection to Tommy Jefferson but almost [wink]).

Posted by Linus | March 5, 2007 8:51 PM

"The consituency for Kaus-style union-bashing in the Democratic Party is just gone."

I don't think there is such a thing as "Kaus Democrat". Zell Miller retired.

Posted by DonB | March 5, 2007 8:54 PM

"Over his years at Slate, Kaus has evolved from a neo-liberal "Democrat who likes to bash Democrats" into a "right-winger who still likes to bash Democrats."

Kaus is not a Democrat. He likes striking poses as a "concerned Democrat" because he thinks it makes him look edgy and sophisticated with the cool kids. The act has gotten stale.

Kaus is basically a right wing republican. He is also an Ann Coulter groupie.

Posted by DonB | March 5, 2007 9:01 PM

"but in several years of reading Kaus, I've yet to see him adapt a position on the political left. From immigration to The Surge to unions, he's to the right of McCain."

What does that tell you?

He is a right wing republican.

For the last 6 years with the GOP in control of all three branches of govt Kaus has dedicated 100% of his columns to bashing; the Clintons/Kerry/Gore/Pelosi/Daily Kos..................

Kaus is just just another GOP hack.

Posted by DonB | March 5, 2007 9:07 PM

Just look at how hideous looking he (Kaus). is. It's some ghastly combination of a baboon, Quasimodo and The Phantom Of The Opera. Lon Chaney, Sr. couldn't have contrived the makeup to be this vile. What's the line- "After 40, a man gets the face he deserves"? I mean the fear, the preposterous loathing, the anxiety-ridden bilious jealousy...Sure, if I want to be sick- I'll check the guy out- but why would I want to be sick? Why would anyone?

Posted by Trevor | March 5, 2007 9:20 PM

Stephen, your idealism about people defending their vote in front of their community is amusingly idealistic. 19th century elections were mostly determined by patronage, gang violence and intimidation and paternalism. Your assesment of the impact of progressivism is also mistaken. Progressives were probably able gian influence becomes of the weakening of party power and discipline leading to reduced voting, not the other way around.

Posted by Gabe | March 5, 2007 10:53 PM

The worst thing about Kaus is that he never bases his arguments on empirical research. He never explains why he thinks that there are tons of bad teachers, or why he thinks that merit pay would dramatically change the quality of teaching in the US. He just thinks that it would, so it becomes a Self-Evident Law of Kaus(!) that every other intelligent person must agree with(!) or risk being seen as "irresponsible." David Broder and Cokie Roberts are like this too, only to a much lesser extent.

Posted by Father Figure | March 5, 2007 11:41 PM

What does it profit a man to gain the world's endorsement, and lose that of Kaus?

But, you see, if Obama endorses card check, he loses the Kaus endorsement. Kaus was agin' Kerry, and we all know that this is the crucial factor that let Bush win in 2004. Just ask Kaus if you don't believe me!

Posted by Glen Tomkins | March 6, 2007 12:22 AM

Pauline Kael famously (although possibly apocraphally) wondered after the 1972 election how George McGovern could have lost, as "No one I know voted for Nixon."

Reading the comments above makes me concerned that George Bush has succeeded in miring Democrats into group-think of the worst kind. Even Matthew, normally a highly intelligent thinker and writer, resorts to such silliness as "Everyone (italicized, no less) in progressive politics is for card check." Well perhaps, if by everyone he means everyone not old enough to remember what a freaking disaster the Democratic Party was in the early 80s when it was held in thrall by this type of nonsense.

Y'all can purge Mickey Kaus and do whatever else you want to, and you may even win an election or two. But if you don't figure out that 75% of the country thinks that card check and related nonsense is just sucking up to the special interests, then you're gonna spend an awful lot more time bitching at DailyKos than influencing policy in the White House.

Posted by Ken | March 6, 2007 9:34 AM

I'd like a cite for that 75% figure, Ken. Methinks you're just making it up. Times change, and the balance of power has swung drastically away from workers and towards management. Under these circumstances unions have a very different meaning than, say, the UK in the late 1970s. And we're not "purging" Mickey Kaus. He hates our guts and puts Democrats down at every opportunity. I have yet to see a column where he has anything positive to say about Democrats - and barely a peep from him about anything negative about Republicans. This sentence alone marks you as a concern troll...

Posted by Marc | March 6, 2007 1:15 PM

Sure, here you go:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/wm1363.cfm

Look, mainstream America hates the Bush administration because it is corrupt, incompetent and has involved us in a moral, financial and strategic disaster in Iraq. Those of us to the left of center also hate the Bush administration because it pursues foolhardy economic policies which benefit a very small circle of the super-rich.

But Democrats will make a huge mistake and will suffer accordingly at the polls if they try to translate hatred for the Bush administration into support for Mondale-era policies like card check.

Posted by Ken | March 6, 2007 3:02 PM

Also, in case you won't on principle click on the Heritage Foundation site, here's a quote from the Zogby site:

"A recent McLaughlin poll indicates that 79 percent of Americans oppose card check legislation that would end private-ballot elections. About 66 percent of union members agree and think that companies should never be allowed to skip private-ballot elections before they recognize a union."

Posted by Ken | March 6, 2007 4:41 PM

Mickey Kaus is not for people into cognitive dissonance, but for people who care about policy, he's absolutely worth reading.

Especially on teachers unions. Steve Jobs is right -- they are central to our education problems. They are a fundamentally reactionary force, doing things like fighting for bilingual education to preserve jobs and sabotaging charter schools because they fear charter schools' success would make the status quo look even worse. The idea that teachers unions are embraced by progressives is baffling.

I have posted here about this before only to be mocked as a nut job or union hater. But teachers unions, because of their key and pernicious role in education, are not just any union. They need to be looked at critically. The-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend isn't sane, rational or productive in trying to figure out how to help schools. Among those who have figured out teachers unions are part of the problem: L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- a former union organizer!

Does that make Villaraigosa persona non grata among those on the left who demand everyone march in a row? Probably. It's just a matter of time.

Posted by Chris | March 6, 2007 5:15 PM

Chris and Ken,

Why don't you two run along and bash unions at some right wing blog.

The notion that teachers unions are the problem with the education system is reductionist bullshit. The public school systems that do not function well in the country generally have student bodies with high poverty rates and the all of the difficulties that go with it, significant numbers of students whose first language is other than English, kids from unstable homes with high levels of violence, substance abuse, and unemployment. Teachers can only do so much.

Unions have been under unrelenting attack for the last 25 years. The labor laws designed to protect union advocates are a bad joke. The loss of power of private sector unions has had an extremely negative effect on workers overall -- 50% of employees in the US don't have a retirement plan for God's sake.

And Steve Jobs can kiss my ass. Since when do progressives take their cues from fucking plutocrats? Even high tech ones.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | March 6, 2007 5:46 PM

Thanks for illustrating my point about cognitive dissonance. No dissent allowed. The following is from the Sept. 28, 1992, New York Times:

Probably the most ferocious, and the most consequential, battles that Mr. Clinton has fought as Governor come under the banner of improving education. In 1983, responding to a court challenge to Arkansas's school aid formula, Governor Clinton pushed through legislation to increase spending on education, reduce class sizes and introduce teacher-competency testing. The package encountered fierce resistance from the state teachers' union, which resented the testing provision ...

END

Bill Clinton should be ashamed! He should keep his views to himself! All teachers=good. Always! All issues! They're nothing short of saints, every last one!

Posted by Chris | March 6, 2007 7:14 PM

No, Chris, it's not that all teachers are saints or always good or anything of the sort. It's that all employees have the right to join together for purposes of collective bargaining without interference or, in point of fact, input from their employers. It's the choice of employees.

And yes, all teachers, like any other employee, should be protected from arbitrary management acts, like being terminated without just cause. The claim that teachers cannot be fired is a canard -- you just have to prove just cause.

And no, you actually aren't a progressive if you don't believe in these principles. You're just another schmuck like Kaus. Another clown who identifies more with the corporate elite than working people, but maybe thinks you should be able to get an abortion legally or that gays shouldn't be villified and this somehow makes you a liberal. Maybe you drive a Prius.

By the way, Clinton doesn't exactly define the parameters of liberalism for most of us. He's basically a moderate Republican circa 1975.

Posted by klein's tiny left nut | March 6, 2007 9:03 PM

Haven't you noticed yet?
When a Republican makes a policy proposal, backs a measure, or just makes some off-the-cuff comment, the media portrays it as representing his principles.
When a Democrat makes a policy proposal or backs a measure, the narrative is all "horse-race" - who is he trying to win over? What group is he hoping to buy the support of?
Over and over and over again, the narrative is simple: Republicans have principles. Democrats don't.

Posted by Jeremy | March 7, 2007 2:42 AM

Wow, a heritage foundation poll! Card check doesn't "eliminate" balloting elections; it is an alternative.

There is no evidence that we are awash in bad teachers. Ken and Chris sound suspiciously like Kaus; all anger against unions, no evidence.

Posted by Father Figure | March 7, 2007 11:39 PM

Mickey Kaus' argument lifts post ergo propter hoc to a plateau I've seldom seen in a real live person educated beyond the level of high school debate.

Kaus argues that we should be skeptical of card check because Wagner Act unionization led to the financial difficulties that companies like Ford are experiencing today. That's like coming out against electricity because we're now experiencing global warming.

There are a whole lot of intervening factors that have led to Ford's difficulties, but I don't think serious people would pinpoint the UAW as the leading one. Not only has the union worked side by side with the auto companies to keep them afloat, but labor has not infrequently used its lobbying power to help companies obtain bailouts.

Mickey, get the message: even Robert Rubin supports greater unionization now. Nuff said.

Posted by Lou Mandarini | March 12, 2007 8:43 PM