What is amusing to me is that most conservatives today would have probably called themselves liberals had they lived a couple of centuries ago. Classical liberalism has much more in common with modern-day conservatism than with anything “liberals” stand for today. Perhaps we should come up with terms which are not so closely linked with keeping or changing the status quo.
Shane Vander Hart
· 8 months ago
Very true Evan!
ECM
· 8 months ago
I was speaking to my stepmom a few weeks ago and, generally, advocating a litany of traditional, conservative/libertarian, precepts and she stated, with a straight face: "you are so radical."
Now, at the time, I thought she was crazy...but after reading this, she may actually be correct :(
jim
· 8 months ago
The only political agendas unions represent are pushing for a better work place.
Shane Vander Hart
· 8 months ago
Ah... I'm not so sure about that when they so frequently endorse Democratic candidates.
It would be better if they kept out of endorsements that way some of their members wouldn't feel so conflicted.
ECM
· 8 months ago
So when a union spends tens of millions on getting a particular candidate elected president, that's only because it somehow, in the end, benefits the rank and file members? Really?
Eric Goranson
· 8 months ago
A simple review of where unions donate money (every base social cause out there from Planned Parenthood to PETA to whatever) will prove you are misguided at best to believe that Unions work for workers.
jim
· 8 months ago
Unions support candidates that support labor. For the most part the G.O.P. does not support labor unions or collective bargaining units. Everbody benefits from unions, members or not. Things like weekends, overtime pay, and the 40 hr work week all came from union contracts and were adopted by others so they could compete. The UAW for example does not donate money to planned parenthood or PETA. These organizations do not represent the worker so why would a union back them. I see first hand every day the benefits of unions and have expeienced the battle for workers rights. The truely misguided are those who speak without knowing what they speak of.
ECM
· 8 months ago
So most of your argument hinges on the benefit of unions vis-a-vis what they did 40 years ago and beyond? Have I got that about right?
And, again: spending tens of millions of union dues on one candidate (the members of which might loathe with every fiber of their being) isn't excessive to you? You honestly think that that is justified as part of a union's primary fucntions? Do you also think massive, sprawling, 50 million dollar getaway compounds for the upper level members is a reasonable expenditure of union dues? Even when the rank and file will never, ever, see the inside of such a place?
Of course there's also the fun of the UAW, parasitically, destroying the host corporations upon which they depend but, hey, who cares ab out little details like that when they're (somehow) looking out for the little guy who won't have any job in the near-future.
Eric Goranson
· 8 months ago
Most Unions (such as the NEA or ATF) give large donations to socially liberal "charities" and organizations that the rank-and-file worker would find repulsive. This is wrong.
If the UAW avoids this particular travesty, great!
However, I am in agreement with ECM that defending unions based on some sense of nostalgia over what they did 40+ years ago isn't honest or prudent. There is a reason that union membership is declining nationwide - workers are getting smart enough to know that they are inefficient pseudo-mafias that work tirelessly to sustain their power without doing much for workers. Many organizations (like Professional Educators of Iowa here in Iowa) offer many of the legal protections of unions without the ridiculous dues, inefficiency and bullying that accompanies unions.
I watch unions come up the statehouse every year fighting for the right to coerce union dues from non-union members, put EVERYTHING on the table when bargaining, demonize employers, and work tirelessly to take away the right of workers to not belong to a union. This is on top of their unscrupulous coalitions and donations to morally base organizations. This is immoral.
If you want to join a union, great! But union encroachment on my liberties is criminal.
Scott
· 8 months ago
Great post Eric. You have convinced me that I am a liberal as well!
RickD335
· 7 months ago
To be a conservative - borrowing from the root of the word and extending it into the political - one would need to prune (recognize what is dead and lop it off), graft (add in that which is helpful to the life of the organism - sometimes by having to cut into the body in order to save it), and adjust. If that were a true description (it is, by dictionary terms) then many would be conservatives. Since it does not appear to these eyes that it is so in the American political arena, I'll continue to be an independent and vote conscience and character over transitory issues.
All Comments
That just felt weird typing, LOL.
Now, at the time, I thought she was crazy...but after reading this, she may actually be correct :(
It would be better if they kept out of endorsements that way some of their members wouldn't feel so conflicted.
The UAW for example does not donate money to planned parenthood or PETA. These organizations do not represent the worker so why would a union back them. I see first hand every day the benefits of unions and have expeienced the battle for workers rights. The truely misguided are those who speak without knowing what they speak of.
And, again: spending tens of millions of union dues on one candidate (the members of which might loathe with every fiber of their being) isn't excessive to you? You honestly think that that is justified as part of a union's primary fucntions? Do you also think massive, sprawling, 50 million dollar getaway compounds for the upper level members is a reasonable expenditure of union dues? Even when the rank and file will never, ever, see the inside of such a place?
Of course there's also the fun of the UAW, parasitically, destroying the host corporations upon which they depend but, hey, who cares ab out little details like that when they're (somehow) looking out for the little guy who won't have any job in the near-future.
If the UAW avoids this particular travesty, great!
However, I am in agreement with ECM that defending unions based on some sense of nostalgia over what they did 40+ years ago isn't honest or prudent. There is a reason that union membership is declining nationwide - workers are getting smart enough to know that they are inefficient pseudo-mafias that work tirelessly to sustain their power without doing much for workers. Many organizations (like Professional Educators of Iowa here in Iowa) offer many of the legal protections of unions without the ridiculous dues, inefficiency and bullying that accompanies unions.
I watch unions come up the statehouse every year fighting for the right to coerce union dues from non-union members, put EVERYTHING on the table when bargaining, demonize employers, and work tirelessly to take away the right of workers to not belong to a union. This is on top of their unscrupulous coalitions and donations to morally base organizations. This is immoral.
If you want to join a union, great! But union encroachment on my liberties is criminal.
I want America back.