-By Warner Todd Huston
Politico has some interesting analysis on the purported divisions among Democrats going into the future. They may have majority control of Congress on its face, but do they have enough of a controlling majority to push through some of their most egregiously extreme measures like the pro-union card check idea contained in the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)?
According to Politico the “fault lines” in the Democratic caucus are soon to be revealed.
Unless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can whip their caucuses into unity, numerous fault lines will be revealed: Southern Democrats vs. Northern liberals on labor law; California greens vs. Rust Belt Democrats on global warming; socialized medicine adherents vs. go-slow health care reformers; anti-war liberals vs. cautious centrists on national security. And don’t forget the anti-bailout crowd vs. the powerful Michigan Democrats in both chambers when it comes to money for Detroit.
Martin Kady goes on to elucidate those divisions, one of them being the card check issue. Of course, we’ve discussed card check here many times, but essentially if passed it would eliminate any potential union member from having the right to vote for or against a union on a secret ballot, making the member’s vote open for everyone to see. This would leave the member open to any sort of union pressure and thuggery, for sure.
But, how is it a problem for the Democrats who are heavily pushing this disastrous, undemocratic bill?
The legislation is a tough call for new Southern Democratic senators such as Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Warner of Virginia, along with moderate Southerners such as Blanche L. Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, all of whom hail from less union-friendly Southern states.
If card check gets approved, states in the south that are right to work states will find an influx of jobs killing, economy wrecking unions into their manufacturing areas. If unions begin to take hold, jobs will be lost and businesses will be shuttered. It will destroy the already shaky economies of states throughout the southland.
But, there is a faulty assumption made by Politico. It assumes that these southern politicians will actually vote the interests of their constituents instead of trying to endear themselves to the leaders of the party. Further, it makes the assumption that newly elected Democrats could imagine that voting against their own voters now will harm them several years from now when they finally run for office again. Many politicians assume that anything they do now won’t be an issue years down the road.
So, constituents have to hope against hope that their representatives actually listen to them instead of trying voting in ways that will get the politician accolades from his fellows in Congress. In most cases, the voters lose this battle.
Still, it is a very good point that Politico makes. If these southern senators and representatives vote in favor of the unions and the Democratic Party leadership, they will most certainly be voting against their own constituents. It is up to the folks back home to keep the pressure on their representatives in D.C. and hope against hope that they bother to listen.
Sadly, Democrats are rarely good at listening to mere voters.
____________
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as newsbusters.org, Human Events Magazine, townhall.com, New Media Journal, Men’s News Daily and the New Media Alliance among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of publiusforum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston
Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.