----- Original Message -----
From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu>
>Are you arguing that the AFL-CIO had to run a plesicite among each
>member to decide whether they could legitimately be involved in a
>political campaign? You sound like you are mouthing the "paycheck
>protection" line of the rightwing, where elected leaders of the
>unions have no democratic legitimacy to act.
-What I am saying is the question of democracy within unions and other -liberal interest groups, as well as relations between them and -constituencies that they claim to represent:
Of course there is; I'm all for greater democratic accountability of leaders, but compared to what? A plebiscite? I'm actually not a big fan of direct democracy; it usually undermines minority rights that do far better in representative systems where candidates need to bargain for the support of minority interests.
-There ought to be discussion among rank-and-file unionists as to the -political direction of their unions, how their union dues should be -spent, which countries' bonds in which their pension funds ought not -to be invested, and all other issues of importance to their lives.
There is that debate in every election for union leadership. But the question is whether a direct vote is always better. And how can most of the union voters even make a decision early, when the candidates haven't had a chance to campaign yet? Essentially, if you want the members to vote, they have to wait until after the campaign, when the union endorsement is no longer worthwhile, so the union therefore loses any leverage on the candidate.
>All of the organizations listed above have elections for leaders,
>who in turn may collectively endorse candidate in various democratic
>votes.
-How does each of the aforementioned organization elect its leaders? -To what extent is each election democratic? What are the proportions -of their respective members who participate in the elections of their -leaders?
See my example of the Sierra Club in response to Chuck. It of course varies, but the question is always "compared to what"? The groups I cited have some of the most democratic elections and strongest grassroots locals, with broadbased participation.
>John Kerry won a primary plebiscite involving more union voters,
>black voters, latino voters, gay voters or any other kind of
>progressive voters you might mention.
-What proportions of union, Black, Latino, gay, and other progressive -voters among all union, Black, Latino, gay, and other progressive -voters participated in the Democratic Party primaries in general?
It was open to all of them, and blacks, unions, latinos and gays were a quite large percentage of all voters in those primaries.
So compared to any other vote of those groups you might cite, Kerry has the strongest democratic legitimacy.
But Yoshie, you ultimately talk a lot about the importance of democracy, but your actions say you will ignore every result of any election you don't like. It's a great rhetorical game. Every election, every vote is impure, so you can ignore them all and do as you like.
If the AFL or any organization had a vote, even the perfect vote, and you didn't like the result, I'm sure you'd find an excuse to ignore it and do your own thing. It's all about radical individualism, not a real demand for democratic accountability.
Nathan Newman