The Language of Betrayal

[Peter K.]

De Long:
>Yes. But look on the bright side! 4% unemployment. A bunch of
>after-tax money transferred to the working poor via the EITC. The
>first sustained growth in low-end real wages in a generation. And at
>least a halting of the rise in income inequality if not a reversal in
>relative inequality trends.
>
>I've never understood why people who care passionately about one end
>of the political spectrum relative to the other are so vulnerable to
>the "we want a choice, not an echo" line. If you think that the U.S.
>government is far to the right of where it should be, that means that
>you care a lot about a pro- vs. an anti-labor NLRB, that you care a
>lot about marginal increases in the minimum wage, that you care a lot
>about RU-486, that you care a lot about higher taxes on the rich.
>
>Only those smack in the middle of the political spectrum have an
>excuse for apathy with respect to the choice between Democrats and
>Republicans...

It's not an apathy. I suspect that the recent NLRB rulings - and the
ergonomics measures - were made in order to shore up the left flank, not
because of any heartfelt labor-friendly values within the Democratic party.
Even the New York Times is using them for propagandistic purposes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/25/opinion/25SAT3.html

Granted, the state of the economy has helped labor to a small degree, but
perhaps we should be thanking Chairman Greenspan instead of the Democratic
Party. Also, I'm willing to wager that all of these gains will be wiped out
by a downturn in the near-to-midterm future unless unions and the left
really turn up the heat. (in the following piece, an "expert" says the
chances of a hard landing are "less than 40 percent.")
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/25/business/25HONG.html

If the Republicans and/or Bush become really bad on women's issues, more
people like Maria Cantwell will be elected to the Senate and House.

Peter