The Democrat party is an amalgam of special interest groups —
environmentalists, trial lawyers, minorities, college professors,
and labor unions, for example. All of these groups, however, are
not equally crucial to the survival of the party. Far and away the
most important, of course, is organized labor.
The British equivalent to our Democrat party is the Labour
party. If there were truth in labeling, that would be the name of
the Democrat party. Only the spelling would
change.
The Democrat party has numerous reasons to be worried.
Possibly the biggest is the degree to which it is dependent on
organized labor for its continued success and possibly even its
existence. Where would Democrats be without unions, and vice versa?
As much as they trumpet the value of diversity, Democrats are
dangerously under-diversified.
Only labor unions have the ability to automatically and
involuntarily extract campaign funds from their members. Unions
have become the equivalent to a guaranteed income for the Democrat
party.
Automatic payroll deduction makes unions qualitatively
different from any other Democrat support group. Republican
governors are currently making great progress in rescinding
automatic payroll deduction for public employees in several
states.
There is little or no difference between the goals of
labor unions and the Democrat party. Their political philosophies
are indistinguishable. Both, for example, view people not as
individuals but rather as members of groups, all of whom are to
have equal incomes, regardless of effort or merit. Although both
Democrats and unions would vigorously deny being socialists, both
are strongly sympathetic to socialistic ideals.
Much of the most destructive legislation of the past
eighty years has been the products of the unholy alliance between
the Democrat party and organized labor. Besides being far and away
the greatest source of campaign funds, unions have provided a
dependable army of disciplined foot soldiers for the Democrat
party.
Their alliance has been a major factor in the success of
both. The unions rely on the Democrats to bend the rules in their
favor — being exempted from anti-trust and restraint of trade
regulations, for example. Everyone else and the economy end up
worse off. Unions are rarely prosecuted for widespread corruption,
threats of violence, and blatant intimidation. They have been
allowed to play by a different set of rules.
Democrats need unions to deliver money and votes, unions
need Democrats to deliver legislation that works in their interest.
As both organized labor and the Democrat party decline in power,
what each can deliver for the other will diminish. Each side of the
symbiotic relationship must have power and vitality in order to
keep the relationship working.
If the Democrat party finds itself in the minority for an
extended period of time, it will be unable to deliver the
legislation. The energy necessary to propel the system will peter
out. In fact, it’s already begun. Democrats were unsuccessful in
passing “card check” even when they had majorities in both the
House and Senate. Unions are not happy about that.
Organized labor is 100 percent devoted to the Democrat
party. Neither should be at all surprised that Republicans are now
working to diminish the power of unions. It is only natural for
Republicans to be seeking to weaken their opponents’ basic support
apparatus. Someone should remind Democrats, “Live by the sword, die
by the sword.”
Less than seven percent of private-sector workers now
belong to unions. That is a number that probably scares the hell
out of Democrats. Thirty-six percent of government workers are
unionized. If public-sector history repeats private-sector trends,
the implications are profound. As Washington Post
columnist, Robert Samuelson, put it, “Big Labor became Little
Labor. If public-sector unions fail, Little Labor could become
Mini-Labor.” I would only add — and the once powerful Democrat
party will become the Mini-Democrat party. It’s way too soon to
know for sure, but for Democrats it could be that the party’s
over.
