Commonweal Institute Blog

This post originally appeared at Speak Out California

This last week I worked with SEIU to help publicize a strike by security guards at Kaiser Permanente facilities in California. (That work was sponsored by SEIU, but this is not a sponsored post.)

The security guards at Kaiser facilities in California work for a company named Inter-Con Security, which then contracts with Kaiser. All other employees at Kaiser are unionized, and Kaiser is a responsible company with their employee relationships. And in other states like Oregon, the Kaiser security guards are unionized. But, for some reason, the security guards in California are not employees of Kaiser and the contractor, Inter-Con, is fighting unionization. In fact they are engaging in tactics that are not legal, including intimidation, interrogation of employees to find out who is trying to form the union, and other anti-union tactics. (It is legal to form a union and supposedly protected by law.) This week the guards went on strike to demand that these illegal tactics stop, and that laws against such tactics be enforced.

There are, of course, bigger issues in any strike and any drive to unionize. What it comes down to is that corporations are able to amass incredible power and wealth, while individuals on their own are not. So when individuals find themselves up against corporations they have little to no ability to stand up against this massed power and concentrated wealth. Employees are just one example of this dilemma. Most employees are not in a situation that makes it possible to ask for fair pay, benefits, sick pay, health insurance, etc.

Over time, though, workers learned that if they can organize into a single unit and act together they are able to fight back. This is known as organized labor, or unions. And by going on strike, shutting down the corporation's ability to bring in the bucks, they gain leverage over the corporation and can improve their situation. This is, in fact, what brought America its middle class -- weekends off, 40-hour workweeks, sick leave, vacations, pensions, raises, reasonable pay, etc. And, in fact, you can see that since the decline of the labor movement many of these benefits have been disappearing. We have been losing pensions and health care and raises, etc.

But it is not just employees who have a difficult time standing up against corporate power. Look at the vast power of the tobacco and oil industries to set the country's priorities. As many as 3-400,000 Americans still die each year from cigarettes that were marketed to children who did not have the maturity to resist while addiction to tobacco is especially strong if it begins at an early age. Yet we are still unable to fight back against the horror this industry inflicts.

And the oil companies and coal are able to fight efforts to reign in their power. We are unable to get our government to fund sufficient alternatives to automobiles, like urban rail systems and other mass transit, or high-speed trains between cities. And alternatives to oil and coal energy generation like solar, wind and research into others are all stymied or severely underfunded even though we know entire, new job-creating industries could be launched.

Our hopes for one-person-one-vote ideas about democracy continue to suffer from the one-dollar-one-vote corporate assault. It is not clear what the eventual outcome of this battle will be.

This post originally appeared at Speak Out California

On the same day that Barack Obama raised one million dollars in one minute for his campaign George Lakoff's Rockridge Institute announced that they will be closing their doors.

In the comments at the OpenLeft blog post, The Rockridge Era Ends, Paul Rosenberg wrote,

As If We Needed Any More Proof That Democrats STILL Don't Get It!
This is really terrible news--not just because of the loss of Rockridge, as if that wasn't bad enough, but because it shows so clearly that there is NO recognition of the need to build progressive infrastructure.

Just look at how many millions have been raised by the Presidential campaigns this cycle. And just a tiny fraction of it could have not just kept Rockridge afloat, but DOUBLED it in size. ...

Donating a dollar to a progressive infrastructure organization like Speak Out California and Commonweal Institute today is like giving ten dollars to EACH progressive candidate in every local, state and nation race this November, two years later, and every election following.

Let me explain what I mean. Progressive infrastructure organizations like Speak Out California and Commonweal Institute are working to help the public understand and appreciate what progressives are about. By explaining the benefits of a progressive approach they help build public acceptance of and demand for progressive policies and candidates -- across the board. As more people understand why progressive solutions benefit them more than conservative proposals, they develop a lasting positive identification with the progressive "brand." Then later, during the election cycle, they vote for progressive candidates -- across the board.

This is how the conservatives have been so successful. They work year-round to convince people to identify as conservatives. (You've probably complained or heard people complain that that have managed to turn "liberal" into a bad word in people's minds.) When election time comes around it's as though all that their candidates have to do is point at the opponent and shout "liberal" to win. They ride a wave of nationally-advanced propaganda convincing people to support "tort reform" or "tax relief." This has been going on for years, so at election time everything is laid out for them on a silver platter, with the public prepared and primed.

Progressive candidates, on the other hand, are generally on their own, starting from scratch for each election. Their general campaign begins in the late summer or fall, they have to decide what "issues" to run on, they have to develop a message from scratch, by themselves, and then they have to reach their voters from scratch. And they have to do all of this on their own in just a few months. No wonder conservatives, even with their awful "you're on your own" philosophy, have managed to do so well and gain so much traction.

This is why building up a national progressive advocacy infrastructure would leverage all of those campaign donations and help us build a sustainable progressive majority. A few dollars to progressive advocacy organizations on any given TODAY builds long-term support for every progressive candidate on any given TOMORROW. It provides leverage -- lowering the need for massive election-cycle funding.

The demise of Rockridge Institute demonstrates that the Democratic Party donor base hasn't yet gotten that message. Instead, masses of money have to be raised for candidates at the very last minute -- for example a million dollars in one minute, the day before the big Pennsylvania primary. And almost all of that money will just literally go up in the air to pay for TV ads that leave nothing behind to show for the money. They don't build the brand, they don't tell people about the benefits of progressive ideas, they don't help other candidates... But almost nothing for the Rockridges and Speak Out California's and Commonweal Institutes.

Please think about donating to help build a solid progressive infrastructure of organizations that will work year-round to help the public understand why progressive policies and candidate are better for them than the conservative solutions. This will help build a sustainable progressive majority in America. Please help these organizations grow. It's about building a progressive ecosystem that benefits all of us.

Cross posted on Open Left

Matthew Yglesias, Matt Stoller, and myself have all pointed out a rarely noticed, elitist aspect of the constant calls for greater bipartisanship by the likes of David Broder and many other pundits. Here is Matthew Yglesias summarizing the argument:

Pushing things further, though, I would make the case that polarization is a good thing. Polarization means you know, as a citizen, how to translate political activity -- voting, volunteering, donating -- into policy results. If every Democrat is to the left of every Republican on some issue, then if you want to move the status quo to the left you support Democratic candidates but if you want to move it to the right you support Republicans. Under conditions where there's very little polarization, like the congressional politics of civil rights in the 1950s, you get chaos. Perhaps a certain Democratic incumbent is slightly better on civil rights than his Republican challenger. But the Republican ranking member on some key committee may well be better on civil rights than is the Democratic incumbent. Thus it's possible that backing the incumbent is good for civil rights unless beating the incumbent would cause the balance of power to shift and bring the Republican ranking member into the majority. What's a voter to do? Who knows?

Weak parties make the life of a Washington power broker more interesting. Basically, there's more power brokering to do. There are more horses to trade. There's more dealing to wheel. Politics becomes a fascinating game of three dimensional chess. Polarization is boring. Two parties lay out there programs, people vote, and depending on the election outcomes and the veto points in the system, legislation results. But polarization is simpler for voters. It connects actions to results. And it brings about higher levels of participation as a result.

Simply put, polarization creates transparency in the impacts of voting, while bi-partisanship creates more obscurity. When you know what Democrats stand for, then you know what you get when you vote for Democrats. When you know what Republicans stand for, then you know what you get when you vote for Republicans. When it isn't clear what they stand for, or when there is wide variance among individual Democrats and individual Republicans, then the process becomes far more obscure for everyone who isn't a Washington, D.C. insider.

I bring this argument up to place context around a new claim I want to make: there is also a distinct element of elitism among many non-partisan politics, including many of the tax-exempt 501c(3) and 501c(4) organizations that serve as the institutional framework for non-partisan politics. While some such organizations are based on small donations (PIRG), mass membership (Sierra Clud), or communicate with the public and / or grassroots on a regular basis, many are hermetically sealed from everyone except elites. The organizations I have in mind are funded almost entirely by large donations from people with a net worth of seven figures or more, communicate and direct their activities only at political and media elites, and are staffed by professional political elites who are either good at talking working the latter or raising money from the former. It is a hermetically sealed elite circle, with no need to ever come into contact with the grassroots. In such an environment, it stands to reason that even the progressive organizations that operate in such an elite political ecosystem will ultimately engage in a type of politics that is only responsible to the concerns of the elite.

This is a bit abstract, since I have not identified any specific organizations that operate in such a manner, but bear with me. Compare this elite ecosystem to electoral campaigns for federal office, which are often decried as being solely about money or considered disgusting because they raise so much money for their campaign. While Clinton, Obama and McCain have combined to raise about $450 million so far in 2007-2008, all of their donors are disclosed and huge percentages of it are now coming from small donors. In fact, in February, about 80% of their fundraising came from small, online donors, now that most of their larger contributors have maxed out. In order to do this, they all had to make direct appeals to grassroots activists, and then publicly disclose who those activists were. By contrast, some c3s and c4s never have to make an appeal to the grassroots at all, and never have to disclose their donors. Now, you tell me: which situation is more of an example of organizations who are only accountable toelite donors, and which situation is more democratic? The answer is obvious, and I think it throws into question exactly where in politics is money a problem.

Or, consider life as a blogger. In order to make ends meet, we full-time bloggers need to sell advertising, hold fundraisers, and pick up second jobs on the side. In order to sell advertising, you need a decent amount of readers, and in order to pull that off without any advertising budget of your own you need to appeal to grassroots, political junkies who can't get enough of politics. In order to hold fundraisers, you need to have a few hundred highly dedicated fans who not only read your blog, but who are willing to support it financially. And, even if you can manage this, then still every article you write, every job you take, every advertisement that appears on your site, and every gift you accept is heavily scrutinized for potential biases, conflicts of interests, or other potential disservices to the cause. Consider, for example, that after a few emails, I felt it was necessary to post an explanation for why I am in Israel right now, even though someone else is picking up the tab. The level of interaction with and direct accountability to the grassroots that bloggers face is truly extreme.

However, far from being a negative, the level of accountability that bloggers have to the grassroots is, I think, on balance a huge net positive. If all political organizations, including c3s and c4s had anywhere close to this level of accountability to the grassroots, then our political system would change dramatically. Right now, it is mainly responsive to elites, because in general it just doesn't have to deal with the grassroots. Maybe this is all not only very abstract, since I don't name any names, and perhaps this is all a little goo goo (good government) idealist of me, but if you have to go through a different group of people in order to get anything done, and if you interact with a different group of people in your political life, then you will end up engaging in a different type of politics with different sorts of outcomes. How different it would be, I have no idea. However, right now our political system is pretty much only responsive to elites, and the growing dominance of c3s and c4s that are hermetically sealed within an elite political, financial and media ecosystem is one of the reasons for this.

My flight from Washington DC to Atlanta landed late. The connection to San Francisco still wasn't due to take off for a few minutes but the airline didn't hold it.

So I go to the counter and ask what I can do? They only have one flight to San Francisco a day, and the next one is in 24 hours.

Can I get on another airline? Try Orbitz, she says.

Can you get me a room? She gives me an 800 number of a discount service.

Can I get some food? There are concession stands in the airport.

Too bad for you. We've already got your money and you're on your own.

There is nothing I can do, they already have my money.

Welcome to the New America. Welcome to the You're On Your Own (YOYO) society. Welcome to corporate domination. Did you know that it used to be illegal for airlines to treat their customers like this? But now it is expected.

We, the People used to be in charge. We set up the legal, financial and physical infrastructure that enables corporations to serve our interests. You know, that pesky "We, the People" thing. Why else would we have set up corporations except to serve us?

But now it is the other way around. Now the corporations are in charge of us. A select few grew fabulously wealthy from the system we set up to serve all the people, and have used that wealth to manipulate the system to bring all the benefits to themselves at the expense of the people.

When are we going to do something about it?

(Note - the airline employees were not nasty, considering who they have to work for and the policies they have to work under. They seemed resigned to having to tell people this stuff. That's another part of this system -- if you want to have enough money to feed your kids and pay the rent (but not get health care) you're forced to serve the corporation, and be their agents in telling people "too bad." There is a harm that comes to people from being compelled to treat others this way. And if you think you have too much integrity to do that, well we can find someone in India who is hungry enough.)

Barry Kendall and Katherine Forrest were guests on the Joan Kenley Show: Conversation Radio on March 15. The 50-minute program, titled "Election Fever and Progressive Values," was wide-ranging, from Rob Stein's fabled slide show about the conservative movement, to the state of the Obama and Clinton campaigns, to ways that progressives can promote their values through online communities. You can hear the show here.

If you've been looking for justification for your feeling that government can be a positive thing, look at the Government Is Good website.

[W]hile most of us do not think of it this way, government is actually one of the main ways that we act as good people in the world. Our contributions to government in the form of taxes go to fund a wide variety of programs and services that have eliminated enormous amounts of suffering and vastly improved millions of people's lives. In this sense, then, one of the primary reasons that government is good is because it does so much good in society. Or to be more accurate: it is because government enables us to do so much good. Democratic government is in part a manifestation of our desire to be responsible moral people, and it is the primary institutional mechanism that we use to make the world a better place.

This site will not only make you feel better about government--it will also give you lots of ammunition to counter the anti-government propaganda the Right has been putting out.

In recent years, much of the concern about immigration has focused on the growing Hispanic proportion of the US population. However, struggles about immigration have been going on for over a century, with successive attempts to define criteria for acceptable immigrants and to limit total numbers. Here are a few historical facts pulled together by a Commonweal Institute volunteer, Nancy Ellsworth:

Until the late 1800’s almost all immigrants were welcome because we [overwhelmingly, those of European ancestry] perceived a need to fill up the land. But beginning in 1875, restrictions were applied. First, laws were passed barring criminals, people with diseases, or those likely to become paupers. In 1882 the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, and in 1907 we signed a Gentleman’s Agreement with Japan that stopped the immigration of the Japanese. Then in 1917 immigrants were required to be literate in some language.

In the 1920’s a comprehensive series of laws was enacted that set limits by a national origins quota based on the census, and this was reaffirmed in the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, with exceptions for refugees displaced by war. This act also removed the ban on Asian immigration.

Exceptions were made, however, such as the “Bracero” program that allowed temporary Mexican contract workers from 1942 to 1964 because of our need for their labor. Even then, millions of illegal immigrants continued crossing the border because of economic hardship in Mexico. In 1965 the quota system was finally repealed, and an annual maximum was established “with preferential selection” that gave certain classes of immigrants priority.

Given our dilemma of so many undocumented residents, Congress in 1986 passed a law that prohibited the hiring of illegal aliens, but provided amnesty and potential naturalization for many of them. The new rules, however, did not stem the flow of people crossing the Mexican border, from Mexico and points farther south, many of whom were responding to the economic hardships there.

References:
Boyer, P.S., Ed. (2001). The Oxford Companion to United States History. NY: Oxford University
Press.
Faragher, J. M. (1998). The American Heritage Encyclopedia of American History. NY: Holt.

The Statue of Liberty was given to the United States by France in 1886. The inscription on its base reads:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

In short, broad restriction of immigration in various forms has been in place for many years, but we have chosen to ignore breaches of it when it suited the needs of our economy and the sentiments of the time. The US became selective in honoring the Statue of Liberty's idealistic welcome not long after the statue was received.

And so here we are, in 2008, trying to figure out what to do with the current large number of undocumented people and their children, many of whom have been in the US for extended periods of time, and how to effectively control our immigration. We can expect this challenge to become even greater as global climate change displaces even more people from weather-devastated areas.

Anyone with political awareness and a mind for science must be aware of the extraordinary degree to which scientists and scientific thought have been marginalized by the Bush administration. Check “science” and “Bush administration” on Google , and you’ll get nearly 1.8 million hits. The topic has been covered in the media with such titles as “Scientists and Bush Administration at Odds”, “Scientists: Bush Distorts Science”, “The Junk Science of George W. Bush”, and “Bush Misuses Science Data, Report Says.”

Having a science background myself (medicine and public health), I was excited to hear from my brother, Richard Alden, about the growing demand for presidential candidates to participate in a public debate on science and technology.

Continue reading "We Need a Science Debate in 2008" »

Think about this: When was the last time you heard, read or saw anyone in the major media explain the benefits of joining a union?

Almost all of the outlets for news and information in the United States are now owned by five corporations. From The New Media Monopoly,

When the first edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 1983, critics called Ben Bagdikian's warnings about the chilling effects of corporate ownership and mass advertising on the nation's news "alarmist." Since then, the number of corporations controlling most of America's daily newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, book publishers, and movie companies has dwindled from fifty to ten to five.

Again, think about this: When was the last time you heard, read or saw anyone in the major media explain the benefits of joining a union?

So, do you think these five corporations are using this near-total control of information for their own benefit, or not?

This one is also anti-Mexican, rather insulting, and has the obligatory anti-government message at the end as the moral of the story. It arrived on a "humor" e-mail list.

Neighborhood Trash

Wallace Lewis is the president of his homeowners association in the TOPEKA, KANSAS suburbs. They were having a terrible problem with litter near some of his association's homes. The reason according to Wallace is that six very large, luxurious new houses are being built right next to their community.

The trash was coming from the Mexican laborers working at the construction sites and included bags from McDonald's, Burger King and 7-11, plus coffee cups, napkins, cigarette butts, coke cans, empty bottles, etc. He went to see the site supervisor and even the general contractor, politely urging them to get their workers not to litter the neighborhood, to no avail. He called the city, county, and police and got no help there either.

So here's what his community did. They organized about twenty folks, named themselves The 'Inner Neighborhood Services' group, and arranged to go out at lunch time and 'police' the trash themselves. It is what they did while picking up the trash that is so hilarious. They bought navy blue baseball caps and had the initials 'INS' embroidered in gold on the caps. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what they hoped people might mistakenly think the letters really stand for.

After the Inner Neighborhood Services group's first lunch time pickup detail, with all of them wearing their caps and some carrying cameras, 46 out of the total of 68 construction workers did not show up for work the next morning -- and haven't come back yet.

It has been ten days now.

The General Contractor, I'm told, is very mad, but can't say anything publicly because he could be busted for hiring illegal aliens.

Wallace and his bunch can't be accused of impersonating federal personnel, because they have the official name of the group recorded in their homeowner association minutes along with a notation about the vote to approve formation of the new subcommittee -- and besides, they informed the INS in advance of their plans and according to Wallace, the INS said basically, 'Have at it!'

SO, FOLKS, I THINK YOU COULD SAY THAT KANSAS INGENUITY TRIUMPHS AGAIN!

***************************
Reminder: Don't forget to pay your taxes.......12 million illegal aliens are depending on you