Labor Boycotts MCI Fundraising Bash (Re: UAW prez slams GoreonChinaPNTR

[Andrew English]

I think a likelier explanation is that China is a bigger prize for the
corporate elite than expanding NAFTA was - and Gore's support of
the China deal (after the AFL-CIO gave him an early endorsement) is
what is providing cover to liberal Dems to vote for the big business
position.

In retrospect, the AFL should have at the very least withheld endorsement of
any candidate who was not a fair trader (Bradley and Gore both being on the
corporate side)  until after this vote to maximize their leverage on the
Dems.

(Of course, in the best of all worlds, every union would be supporting the
Labor Party.)

-Andy English

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Newman <nathan.newman at yale.edu>
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: Labor Boycotts MCI Fundraising Bash (Re: UAW prez slams
GoreonChinaPNTR


>
>On Wed, 24 May 2000, Andrew  English wrote:
>
>> If China PNTR passes, it will be because of the pressures from
>> the White House on wavering Dems.   The left critics of labor's
>> tactics on this issue are a tiny force with no significant impact
>> on this battle.    The main ally of the corporate elite is Clinton.
>
>Of course White House pressure matters, but we defeated the same
>Clinton-GOP alliance on fast-track legislation, where 3/4 of Dems voted no
>on expanding NAFTA and the power of Clinton to unilaterally negotiate
>trade deals.
>
>But where we won on fast-track, we are going to lose on the PNTR vote.  It
>is not the only difference, but the significant left-liberal defense of
>PNTR for China has given ideological cover for a number of previously
>"fair trade" Dems to cross over on this vote.
>
>There is sometimes this bizarre argument that when we win a vote, it is
>because of the power of left mobilization, but when we lose, it is
>explained away by the irrelevance of left power.  The reality is that the
>left has limited but real power to influence both politics and
>legislation, and when the left is divided, it inevitably tips results to
>corporate interests.
>
>We won defeat of "fast track" against Clinton and the GOP.  We lost PNTR
>against the same forces.  There are other parts of the explanation, but
>the fact that significant left forces were defending PNTR gave a bunch of
>progressive Congresssmen an excuse to go where White House pressure was
>pushing them.
>
>-- Nathan Newman
>