But why should any country listen to this advice when the people advocating it refuse to abide by it? With banks collapsing in the past weeks, we have seen the Bush Administration act in a very Keynesian manner. Sure, they haven’t increased spending on welfare, but they have poured large sums of money into Wall Street to prop up a failing model. The government has taken a large role in business. What does this say to those nations which have been pushed into following the opposite model, that of tightening spending in economic downturns? I think the best quote on this came from the leader of the Congressional Sandinista (FSLN) majority in Nicaragua, Edwin Castro, who stated that “We think the Bush administration should follow the same policies that they and the International Monetary Fund have always told us to follow when we have economic problems - a structural adjustment that requires cutting government spending and reducing the role of government.” We have seen a government which has been the dominating voice for structural readjustment in this form engage in “socialism for the wealthy” in the past few weeks. Indeed, the hypocrisy is obvious and would be laughable if the result of all of this wasn’t so dire.

Sadly, all this money they are spending has gone straight to those who can handle the collapse the best. We haven’t seen the sort of actions that countries used (with some success) during the late 90s crisis in Asia, that being increasing benefits for the unemployed and impoverished. If we have 700 billion to pay to banks, and billions more to fight an endless war, surely we have a few billion for emergency welfare. It’s time for those who advocate a more just world to maturely and forcefully support an end to the dangerous and hypocritical policies associated with the Washington Consensus. I applaud the Latin American nations who have already neglected the advice forced on them in the past and look forward to models like the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas and the Banco del Sur which build on respect for governmental interests in welfare to provide mutual aid in a number of sectors It is my dream that we see this become the model for international development for our generation.

What happened to the global warming issue? Over the past 2 centuries, the world as we know it has changed in ways no one could have fathomed at any other time in history. The earth’s climate has been gradually altered in much the same way the structures of power and sovereign rule were shaken forever following the heady days of the French Revolution. Another thing that should have been shaken in much the same way is the economy. We have to act now to reduce emissions, conserve energy, and attempt to ameliorate the ill effects of climate change on our environment. The consequences are dire. Projections of sea level changes have shown that many of the poorest regions of the world are in danger of being reclaimed by the sea, dispersing their already dense populations into untouched, already crowded nearby urban areas. Bangladesh might cease to be in a few centuries, and God knows what the evacuation of those lands and any mass migration to already densely populated cities, likely in Asia and likely possessing large poor populations already, will do for the health of millions, possibly billions, of humans. Terrorists might take out a few members of the world population this month, but global warming could start reducing the globe’s population at a rate a terrorist could only dream of.

We have to act, and we have to make tough decisions and actions now. We have to take the pain of modestly high gas prices (for the US) now so that we can ensure the survival of a healthy planet later as we try to reduce emissions and slow the process. The only way to truly ensure that actions such as these are taken is through regulation, whether we like it or not. It’s not in the interest of profit margins to conserve. With the role for government clear, the Democratic Party took the lead on climate change.

Without serious pressure from the American people, they very well might drop it. In fact, it’s safe to say they will. Yesterday, the House approved the offshore oil drilling ban. To be fair, this was largely the fault of the Republicans being in lock-step (and fighting tooth and nail for this) and the Democratic Party attempting to appease representatives who represent conservative districts or oil economy dependent regions (for instance, the state about 3 miles to my South right now). The lifting of the ban will have little effect on the price of gas at the pump. All that has been done is that new sources for profit have been opened up for oil companies to plunder. The “Drill Baby Drill!” crowd cheers this, and in my opinion has successfully convinced enough of the American people that even a temporary move like this will somehow make them better off, somehow bring back their health care and home.

It is time to see oil in a new way. It is a public good. Like water, housing, and health care, we cannot subject it to a profit-driven model. We must subject it rather to the test of allowance for human survival. It must be regulated. At the same time, it must be not expanded in quantity, but reduced in necessity. The top way to do this is through conservation. There is a clear role those who believe in true social justice can play in the energy and global warming debate. We need to emphasize what public goods are. Public goods must be defined as what is necessary for life and thus should not be subjected to the profit motive. In the case of oil, not only is it a public good in that it is necessary to operate the economy, it is also a harmful threat to our very being. By nationalizing our oil supply (or at least strictly regulating is use), passing better emissions standards, limiting new drilling, promoting new fuel sources, and pushing hard for conservation (the best way to lower energy prices), we can help with regards to global warming and energy security and curb the vices which drive up oil prices and hurt the consumer all while driving up the amount of harmful items in our air. The question is now, will we have the political will to do what is necessary to better regulate what could kill us and the rest of the world.

It is our clear role to define energy and the restriction of its use to better the environment as a public good and obligation to all citizens, at this very moment, with the same tenacity with which we have defined health care as a public good and right. We can afford to act, we have the obligation to act as a major polluter, and to not act would be a crime for which no atonement will be possible.

Andy Stern didn’t come up in a working class family, but he has gone out of his way to understand them throughout a life that has been marked by family tragedy (his youngest daughter died young of a spinal defect) and unpopular but timely beliefs among certain segments of the labor establishment. He is undeniably a man of immense character. Stern understands that while he has been very successful in steering the SEIU towards being the model for labor organizing in the United States, he has his detractors, both on the anti-union right and the left (especially among AFL-CIO status quo supporters and some militants). He tries to engage all sides in his vision of the future not just for labor, but for all working people. Stern offers an agenda for working people that he lays out at the end: a tax structure that fairly taxes wealth while rewarding work, a few visions for universal health care including Medicare for all as well as offering the plans now open to Congress and the military to all, proper funding for schools and educational technology, and so on. The real provocative parts of the book come in the middle, when he discusses why he took the SEIU out of the AFL-CIO.

His plan began the year before the Change to Win founding, when at the 2004 SEIU convention in San Francisco, he gave the AFL-CIO, who he believed had become disorganized, too concerned with party politics, and not committed to a coherent vision, an ultimatum: change, or see something else built in the coming years. AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, a former SEIU chief himself, was sympathetic but had his hands tied by the other constituent groups who were strongly tied to the status quo, fearing, as Stern believes, new accountability standards and a loss of influence within the high-money, high-stakes game of party politics. To me, the defining example of the negative direction of the AFL-CIO at this point comes through a story Stern relates about United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard. He responded to the proposed agenda to grow labor’s numbers, not simply its PAC money as many unions had become content with doing, by lamenting that USW was having trouble organizing, of all things, nurses. Stern believes this sort of incoherent focus on money over a focused agenda for organizing as many people under good contracts as possible eventually led the CtW members out of the AFL-CIO to form an organization that would organize the professions each union knew best (the SEIU focuses on health care, janitors, etc; UFCW on meatpacking and food processing, and so on) and take the lion’s share of dues and put them towards organizing action. It was a strategy that has, so far, paid off. The SEIU continues to grow by leaps and bounds, and the constituent CtW unions have a new life.

Stern’s party-politics skepticism is well-founded. He relates many of his experiences in dealing with the Democratic Party in particular and how it takes labor for granted, often working against it while begging for unions to fill campaign coffers. The “New Democrat” period, from the 1988 Presidential loss to the present, has epitomized this, as big time Democratic donors have often been union busting businesspeople who are friends with party bosses (particularly the Clintons). To prove the independence of his organization, Stern has gone as far as to donate to both major parties, and has attempted to meet with as many leaders as possible, friend and foe, to discuss the interests of working people in this country as well as the world over.

I was particularly happy that Stern proposed greater international cooperation. It is not enough to simply fight trade agreements and put infinite trust in the government to solve the trade issues that undermine industry and communities in this country, all while exploiting cheap labor pools around the world. Stern has a great mind for the challenges of the globalized economy and the challenges it poses to labor and human rights interests. Instead of simply trapping jobs in this country, we should work to bring up the living standards of the countries which are ripe for outsourcing. There needs to be an enforceable standard for basic living wages the world over. Tax shelters must be shut off. Consumers must know the cost of convenience in many cases.

I can see how some socialists would not approve of Stern’s actions in building the SEIU. Sometimes he promises not to strike in return for being allowed to organize. He works with seemingly inhospitable interests. He has divided labor during a time when many think we need a strong united front. In my opinion, this overlooks the extreme necessity of the times we live in. We must be focused on making any gains possible. We currently live in an age where millions of jobs are seconds away from being sent away forever, destroying communities. Has labor done its job to prevent this? I agree with Stern that more money should have been put towards the unions themselves and not blind faith in the Democrats. It is clear that they are not always the allies we need. Of course, labor has not always been the victim in my opinion either. Individual unions have sacrificed quality of service to growth at times. The expertise that a union has in an area should be built upon. As Stern agrees, we don’t need steel getting into health care, we have others for that. Labor must be focused and resilient to face its present challenges.

Next time: State of the Unions by Phil Dine, a book discussing recent setbacks in labor and possible ways to turn it around while improving our economy.

The preceding quotation landed in my inbox today courtesy of a progressive religious activism group I follow. While most members would likely describe themselves as “liberal”, “progressive”, “populist”, even some “compassionate conservatives” (think Christian Democrats of Europe, not the current president), there are strong egalitarian undercurrents in this non-profit, general activist organization. As a religious person myself (raised Christian, still essentially Christian, though Unitarian Universalist, open, inclusive, questioning of all things, and still searching as well), my religious morals drive my convictions. After turning away from the church of my youth and being fairly non-religious for a few years, I found myself going through a re-awakening of sorts in the past year. This re-awakening led to the Unitarian church, led me to follow Sojourners, and, most important to this article, led me to involve myself with the national and international political participation through DSA.

Before I go on, I must mention that the work Sojourners does is nothing like the work of certain other churches. Aid is not dependent on belief, just need. To tie it to moral and political conditions would not only be reprehensible, but would also go against the teachings the organization is built on. I do not agree with or condone any organization, from the first Catholic explorers to the present-day missionaries from the conservative American churches, that conditionally gives aid. In any event, Sojourners is not an aid organization, they are an advocacy group fighting for things like fair trade, debt relief, living wages, and hunger reduction worldwide.

So what does the quote have to do with us? Well, here in America, and worldwide, we all see the need for a new social and political movement based on timeless ideals. It will have to be built on sustainability, which will require equitable distribution of income, fair trade rules, and the meeting of the basic needs of all. Who will participate in such a movement? Who will lead it? It will, as you well know, take crazy people such as ourselves. We are like the Doctors Without Borders (Activists Without Borders?). We won’t be restricted to party lines, simply waiting on the Democratic (or Green, or whatever) Party to come to a point where the prime issues are our issues. It might be pragmatic to work with a party for short-term gains, but inevitably people with a far-reaching vision such as ours must leave any big tents for broader pastures.

Like those doctors, we have natural allies in the “crazy Christian”, as well as other “crazy” religious groups. To live a faith, be it a belief simply in humanity or God or a written law, is to be devoted to seeing your beliefs through, be they personal or public values. So many of the world’s faiths have strong commitments to many of our similar values, and they make key allies in the struggles which must be won: the struggles against poverty, inequality, hunger, disease, and other negative affects which a callous world economy has left with people worldwide. Some of the most well-known and successful socialist movements all over the world have been headed by religious socialists, from Oscar Romero in Latin America, to Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement in the United States, to the Christian Socialists who became major parts of the
Labor and Socialist parties of Europe, socialism and faith have won major victories.

Whether you are simply religious, simply socialist, or an amalgam of both (as well as many other moral and political persuasions), you have allies all over the world and in your backyard you’ve only begun to meet. To see our plans through, we will have to build a new big tent: people of all types who are committed to global justice. Socialists have always been at the fore-front by their very nature, as have religious people, both socialist and otherwise. I know more orthodox Marxists might squirm at the mention of alliances with people of faith, but more than likely you’ve already allied with them. Besides, Jesus came not just to make peace, but to deliver the sword and, to the followers of liberation theology, liberate humanity from evil. With secular socialists, religious persons, and religious socialists working side-by-side, who will stand against us? Our cause, after all, is all of humanity.

People complain about Iowa getting too much play in the early election, but it’s beneficial to American industry that their issues come to the forefront. Why? Because Iowa exemplifies what made America great in the past (aside from our great diversity): agriculture, manufacturing, and community. Iowans care about all three things, which can be seen in their economy (which is adaptive to their location, but also applicable to much of the rest of the country as well, especially the Midwest and Southeast) and their social lives. After all, is there any better sense of solidarity and community than coming together with neighbors from church, unions, and the local Rotarians or chapter of NOW to stand up and be counted on behalf of your chosen candidate in a community center, all while the worst snowstorms in the continental US attempt to blow down the door and strand you far from home for the night (believe me, I spent a winter in Iowa a few years back, 4 feet of snow in 12 hours is not fun). All of this aside, the claims that Iowa is not representative enough of the US to play such a role is largely bogus. Of course, the fact that I was born and raised in the rural South probably makes me more likely to believe this (I type this as I listen to Lynard Skynard’s “Tuesday’s Gone”), but without the Iowas of the nation producing agriculture and manufacturing, the US economy would be an afterthought in the world and we’d have never had a middle class, and many of us would have never been able to escape the working class to get the educations that have brought us to the point where we can critique the American system and attempt to make it more egalitarian and devoid of sexist, racist, and bigoted content, but I digress.

As the campaign centers over Iowa, the issues that have been front and center in the media, like the war, national security, and the right wing bugaboo of immigration, take a back seat to the economy, especially trade and globalization. If you’re gonna stump in Iowa, be ready to explain why you do or do not support NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, and other policies of their ilk. If you’re a Democrat, and you’re stumping at the local Steelworkers or Machinists union hall, you better have opposed these free trade agreements, or be ready with a damn good explanation why gutting the job market of their neck of the woods was worth it for free trade. Sure, working class people want to hear that you’re on their side on future trade issues, but what of free trade now? Is it realistic to merely cancel these agreements and expect the jobs to come back? Unless you’re delusional enough to believe that Dennis Kucinich has a shot (godspeed, Dennis), you’ll probably admit that, yes, under our current political and electoral system, these examples of globalization are largely irreversible. Thankfully, we still have the capacity to invest in reviving communities and workers with retraining for good, union jobs in the service sector. We also have the ability to invest in new manufacturing jobs, especially in the rising green manufacturing area (and yes, union workers do make solar panels already, I checked). However, change is hard on those who lose their jobs, and thus here we are, at primary time, and jobs are front and center again. Globalization might benefit in the long run by lowering prices for your goods, but that’s hard to explain in Flint or Buffalo or Iowa City to people who lost their jobs, communities, and ability to buy these goods.

We’ve all read about the alternative to free trade. Under fair trade agreements, trading partners agree to labor standards which will hopefully allow for a more equal exchange of goods. The ideal arrangement would be that workers in the US would be able to afford products made in Mexico, and workers in Mexico would be paid enough to be able to afford American-made goods. It’s a win-win situation for everyone. We know how free trade made this work. We can buy Mexican-made cars, but the Mexican workers who make them have wages so low that they come here for work, and Mexican communities never escape poverty. We must demand living wages not only for our citizens, but for all citizens of the world. Workers in Mexico must be assured a living wage, just as everyone should.

This is where the American union movement should come into play.

Unions in the United States, especially the larger, more powerful congresses like the AFL-CIO, need to be at the forefront of the movement for a living wage and good labor standards here in the US. It’s time that they did they same for all workers, especially in a seemingly inevitably globalizing economy. They should be uniting with their Latin American or Asian union counterparts, many of which don’t have nearly the pull that their American counterparts can have (due to a number of factors), to oppose free trade agreements, promote fair trade, and fight for better standards for all the workers of the world.

An example of this has already appeared in the recent debate over the US-South Korea trade agreement. The United Auto Workers and the Korean Metal Worker’s Union have joined forces to oppose this agreement and its unequal trade provisions (http://www.uaw.org/dclink/050107KFTAjointstatement.pdf). Transnational solidarity like this should become commonplace in a global economy. This past summer, when President Bush signed an executive order to carry out one of the final provisions of NAFTA, allowing Mexican truck companies access to the entire US, the Teamsters, instead of protesting at the border (along with bigoted immigration opponents), should have been uniting with Mexican truckers to fight for equal safety and wage standards and attempting to bring these Mexican workers under collective bargaining agreements, either with Mexican ally unions, or under an international Teamsters union. Locals in Burlington, Iowa and Spring Hill, Tennessee should be in contact with their counterparts in Hermosillo and Ciudad Juarez, trading organizing resources and standing with them in solidarity, demanding better treatment for Ford and GM workers in Mexico as well as in the United States, not simply imploring everyone to buy American.

The surest way to continue the fight for working people the world over isn’t protectionism as has become the battle cry for proponents of American manufacturing, from Kucinich to everyone’s favorite bigot, Lou Dobbs, it’s international solidarity which aims to better living standards and protect jobs in communities all over the world instead of simply allowing jobs to race to the bottom without doing anything to lift up workers out of poverty, or keeping them from sliding towards it. Within YDS or DSA, we need to be in the forefront of international cooperation. We have the Socialist International for a reason, and it’s time we used it on issues such as these. With the communication technology we enjoy today, we should be in contact with activists in the PRD of Mexico and other allied groups, many of which have the ears of the governing parties. Never before has the need for workers of the world to unite been more imperative, and the fact that we as members of the international Left have failed so far at recognizing this means that now, more than ever, “the (global) economy, stupid” as the major political issue for workers in America and all over the world should be at the center of our activism.