The Rise of the Anti-Labor Left

There is perhaps no more distorted word in all of American political discourse than the word liberal. This particularly true in the area of economic policy, in which both President Obama and Jill Stein are considered liberals. President Obama supports free trade agreements, corporations over small businesses and opposes workers’ rights and unions, despite what his political opponents think. Jill Stein opposes free trade agreements, supports local living economies over corporations and supports workers’ rights. The source of this disconnect stems from the rightward political shift of the Democratic Party during the 1980s because of the so-called Reagan Revolution. As a result, Democrats now bear a strong resemblance to Republicans in terms of economic policy, what some call the Washington Consensus. Originally, the Washington Consensus referred only to an agreement on reform for developing nations. A cursory examination of the economic views of both parties clearly indicates that this consensus extends into domestic economic policy as well. The difference in economic policy between the Democratic and the Green Parties reflect the main difference between the activist and institutional left: the institutional left believes in governmental bandages on the neoliberal corporatist system while the activist left believes in economic cooperation at the human level with government programs as necessary. Though some prominent figures are identified as liberals, their views reflects a belief in the White Man’s Burden, a view popular during the reign of mercantilism and colonialism throughout the developing world.

The endorsement of free trade agreements by American liberals signals just how far to the right the American political spectrum shifted during the 1980s. Free trade agreements generally force farm workers in developing nations to become factory workers. American manufacturing companies then transfer factories to those countries at pay rates a fraction of what is legal in the United States. This also creates surplus labor in the United States, forcing former factory workers into lower-paying service industry jobs. All the while, corporations continue to grow and profit while donating large amounts of money to both the Republican and Democratic Parties to buy policies favorable to the corporations. Everyone accepts such behavior as a standard part of Republican orthodoxy. They ignore the fact that Bill Clinton negotiated NAFTA, perhaps the most deleterious free trade agreement of all. Furthermore, Barack Obama recently negotiated similar free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, all countries with center-right governments. Given the fact that such agreements frequently break unions and the strong connection between the Democratic Party and such deals, it is surprising that organized labor supports the Democratic Party so strongly.

For all of the Democratic Party’s rhetoric against corporate excess, they have done very little to restraint such behavior following the Great Recession. In response to Goldman Sachs’ practice of bundling bad mortgages into securities designed to fail and selling them to investors, the Democrats simply brought a few employees of Goldman Sachs before a subcommittee and yelled at them. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs received a bailout and only one person currently faces any prison time for their transgressions. Furthermore, while many Democrats talk about the benefits of small businesses and express their support for them, they do not actually pursue actions to support small businesses over corporations. Our nation’s anti-trust laws go largely unenforced and the federal government negotiates free trade agreements with other nations to facilitate corporate hegemony around the world. Moreover, the national minimum wage was last increased in 2006. Even then, many states already had a higher state minimum wage than the 2006 increase. Democrats also leave oil subsidies in place that make it more difficult for alternative energy start-ups to compete with fossil fuels. While Democrats might be rhetorically better than Republicans, the reality of their policy is disturbingly similar.

In fact, the rhetoric of certain liberal luminaries strongly resembles that of political leaders of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Both Paul Krugman and Nicholas Kristof defend the practice of outsourcing and criticize those that question its value. Both New York Times columnists claim that while working conditions in countries such as China, India and Mexico are dismal, they are significantly better than not having a job at all. Workers in China and the rest of Southeast Asia work 70-hour weeks for pennies per hour in unsanitary and the United States during the Industrial Revolution. Both columnists decry Republicans attempts to roll back workers’ rights in the United States on the part of Republicans. Such a double standard reflects a worldview similar to the White Man’s Burden of the colonial period. During this time, White Europeans believed it was their duty to civilize the, “uncivilized” people of the world and could not understand why those people were so ungrateful. Similarly, the view of Kristof and Krugman reflects a belief that the, “uncivilized” people of the world should be grateful that the power elite deem them worthy of employment, no matter how exploitative that employment may be. In general, their views reflect a kinder, gentler form of elitism that distinguishes the American left from the American right. If modernization and reform programs in Cold War constituted, “socialism with a human face” then the views of most American liberals reflect capitalism with a human face.

It is this view that distinguishes the institutional left from the activist left in the United States. Those in positions of power and authority in the United States avoid arguing for actual social and economic equity or even parity. Instead, they advocate inadequately funded welfare programs and minor adjustments that leave our abusive socio-economic system largely in place. For all of their egalitarian rhetoric, they profit from the system to the same degree that Republicans do. By contrast, the activist left, represented by Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein, economist Dr. David Korten and the Occupy Movement, believe in strong workers’ rights, the devolution of economic power from the corporate level to the human level and the end of neoliberal globalization. In short, the institutional left sees our system as broken while the activist left knows our system is functioning precisely as its designers intend.

Those of us that believe in workers’ rights, economic parity and community-based economics cannot support a party that does not support our goals. We will never achieve our goals if we continue to blindly support a party that is, by our own admission, the lesser of two evils. Those of us that seek change must make change. Part of that involves making different decisions with regard to the political party we support. This is just the first step in making our reality match our rhetoric.