Why American unions support Obama and why they're right to do so

Author: 
Eric Lee

Every four years, an odd little debate occurs on the left.

Here is what happens: an American presidential campaign begins. Someone on the American left will write an article saying that there is no real choice between Democrats and Republicans and that workers need their own party.

Then left-wing papers around the world will reprint the article, or quote it, and agree with the comrade that workers have no real choice in America and need a class party, a labour party.

Some of those who make the case here in Britain will go further and say that British workers face the same predicament, that the Labour Party hasn’t really represented them for decades and is “Labour” in name only. They will call on those workers to create or support alternative parties such as the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC).

But there are also those on the British left who say that Marxists belong in the Labour Party as a pressure group, and must be active where the workers and their unions actually are, not in some tiny, marginalised group with no influence.

They acknowledge that for decades that party has not been the kind of Labour Party we’d like, that its leaders no longer question capitalism, support privatisation and cutbacks in public services, won’t support strikes, and so on.

But it’s the only game in town, and that’s why of course we revolutionary socialists must support it, be involved in it, and pressure it to change.

The exact same arguments were made more than a generation ago by Max Shachtman and his small band of third camp socialists regarding the Democratic Party.

When Shachtman first made the case for the strategy known as “realignment”, many unions were not particularly interested in national politics. The AFL-CIO maintained a formal position of neutrality — one which stretched back to the days of Samuel Gompers, who insisted that unions would support their friends and reward their enemies, regardless of party affiliation.

That meant that some unions sometimes supported Republic candidates. The Teamsters were, a generation ago, rather chummy with Richard Nixon (and other unsavoury characters).

To be fair, a generation ago there were such things as “liberal Republicans” in the US who were not particularly anti-union or even anti-welfare state.

And 40 years ago, the AFL-CIO — for the last time — took a position of neutrality in a presidential election, not willing to back the liberal Democrat George McGovern against Nixon.

But over the last three or four decades, there’s been a seismic shift in the American labour movement and unions have become the backbone of the Democratic Party.

In November, it will be union members in their hundreds of thousands providing the bulk of the volunteers in the Obama campaign.

Unions will give many millions of dollars to support that campaign, and the campaigns of Democrats across the country in the hope that their party will win control of both houses of Congress.

And union members will vote overwhelmingly Democratic — even though their counterparts in the working class who are not union members will tend to vote Republican.

The right in America is acutely aware of this and regularly accuse the Democrats of being in the pocket of “special interests”. (For them, unions representing millions of workers are special interests, but oil companies are not.)

The American right has declared war on public sector workers and their unions, and has attempted to pass anti-union legislation, with varying degrees of success, in a number of states.

One of the reasons for this ferocious attack on those unions is their ongoing support for the Democrats.

As the Republican reasoning goes, if you can weaken the public sector unions, you weaken your political opponents.

The Democrats are far from being the kind of social democratic party that American workers need. But in that sense, they don’t differ all that much from moderate social democratic parties anywhere else in the world.

Obama didn’t pass the labour law reform that American unions demanded and so desperately need. But the Blair/Brown government didn’t repeal Thatcher’s labour laws either.

If we can understand the importance for revolutionary socialists to engage with the Labour Party in this country, with all its flaws, surely we can understand why the vast majority of America’s socialists have long been active inside the Democratic Party there.

They’re in that party for the same reason we are in Labour here: because they’re serious political people who want to work in the real world.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

false analogy

The false analogy between the Democratic Party and the Labour Party is that because trade unions give millions of dollars/pounds to them they are the same kind of party. The Labour Party might have moved to becoming more like the Democratic Party in the last couple of decades in that trade unions just hand over their money without any say in the politics of the party but is not the same yet - trade unions links to and levers within the Labour Party are weaker than they were but still exist, and could be used if the union leaderships wanted to, in a way that has never been true of the Democrats.

Before the First World War, almost all British trade unions supported the Liberal Party (with the exception of Lancashire where the millowners were Liberals and the textile workers' union supported the Tories). Trade unionists were the backbone of the Liberal Party in many constituencies, especially in mining areas in the North, and some of them became "Lib-Lab" MP's. The Labour Party was the result of trade unions and some of those MP's splitting from the Liberals. Do you think they were right to do so?

Democrats aren't Democratic

What is there to be gained from Marxists/Socialists or even trade unionists working and pumping millions of dollars into the Democratic Party?

The Democratic Party is barely a party in the traditional sense like we have in Europe, it's a banner canidates stand on, the party does not fund anyone, so anyone who does stand for them needs vast amounts of money thus restricting the possibility of Labour movement/ working class candidates,at least with the Labour Party their is some however limited possibilty for socialist and trade unionist canidates. Why argue for people to support a party that in practice is deeply anti working class/labour movement?

This seems lesser evilism to a poor extreme indeed, you in my opinion correctly criticised the SWP and it's Egyptian section for supporting a vote for the Muslim Brotherhood and then put this argument forward.

So comrades where's the Independent Working Class Politics here?

Yours
Ryan H

Hey Ryan,

Hey Ryan,

Eric Lee isn't a member of the AWL and his position does not reflect that of Solidarity; his column is for the purposes of debate and discussion which it is, quite rightly, generating here. As for me, and I would imagine most if not all members, I agree with the position outlined in the first comment that Eric is drawing a false equivalence between the Labour Party and the Democrats. Lesser-evilism indeed, as you correctly saw. You might be interested in this article and others on the site by our US comrades: here.

Comradely,
Liam

I see

Good to hear then, perhaps in future state more clearly if it is a guest writer and whether it is or is not a position held by the AWL/Solidarity. Though on the general debate of the Democratic Party my above position still stands.

Ryan H