it can be spun, doug. you're making an unsustainable assumption that the democratic party has become more "liberal" and "pro Union" since most of its dixiecrats defected to the republicans.
the record of the democratic party is a hard right turn following the republicans. sam smith's web site has Paul Rockwell's article cautioning democrats against this, without success http://prorev.com/rockwell.htm , referring to the practice as The Democrats' Right Wing Follies: "...even some centrist Democrats may recall their own history and try to recover their lost progressive heritage." Lost indeed.
it's pure speculation on your part to assume how today's neoDixiecrat and DLC democrats would vote if taft-hartley was introduced today. do you believe democrats would vote in meaningful numbers against the MNCs and other rich corporate donors who fund their campaigns and party with such extravagance?
didn't the NAFTA vote, with so much more at stake for the nation, show the democrat's true lack of character? if 40 percent favored NAFTA, which is destructive and controversial not only regarding union interests but to US environmental laws, sovereignty, etc., i wouldn't be surprised to see taft-hartley pass today with neoDemocrat votes in favor.
>Most of the Dems listed are from the South (including Pat Robertson's
>father) - they'd be Republicans today.
i don't think that was nathan's argument as i read it. 40 percent in favor of NAFTA from a party without those former dixiecrats (now republicans) is a lot of democrat votes against labor. how do you think zell miller would have voted on taft-hartley?
are you saying today's democratic party is more pro-labor and more liberal than the 1947 democratic party?
cockburn quoted Adam Lapin:
"Only 71 House Democrats voted to sustain the President's veto while 106 voted to override it. In the Senate 20 Democrats voted to override the veto and 22 voted to sustain it."
to quote cockburn:
"The Democrats have produced no laws, indeed have campaigned against laws -that would make that attainable."
this speaks for itself regarding today's democrats (and the history of the democratic party since 1948), taking into consideration the results of the combination of traditional southern racism with nixon's southern strategy.
as cockburn said, taft-hartley override was a bipartisan vote with not only southern democrats from the democratic party voting in favor:
"There you have it: the law that was to enable capital to destroy organized labor when it became convenient was passed by a bipartisan vote (and with more than just Southern Democrats), something you will never learn from the AFL-CIO, or from a thousand hoarse throats at Democratic rallies when the candidate is whoring for the labor vote. In the Clinton years, union membership as a percentage of the work force dropped, as well it might, because he did nothing to try to change laws or to intervene in disputes."
please bear in mind that when the outcome of a vote is certain, members of congress -- particularly democrats -- often vote in a way more pleasing to some of their constituents when they know the votes they cast are loosing votes. this reality is solely a matter of real politick.
R
>>Democrats voting to over-ride Truman's veto of Taft-Hartley: 24
>>
>>Byrd Va
>>John Connally Tx
>>Eastland, Miss
>>Ellender La
>>Fulbright Ar
>>George Ga
>>Hatch NM
>>Hoey NC
>>Holland Fl
>>Maybank SC
>>McLellan AK
>>McKellar TN
>>O'Connor MD
>>O'Daniel TX
>>Overton LA
>>Robertson Va
>>Russell GA
>>Stewart TN
>>Tydings MD
>>Umstead NC
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk