[WS:] This is only a part of the problem. A third party (labor or otherwise) has zero chance of winning elections against the Dem/Repug duopoly, but it can pull Dems to the left if the game is played properly.
By that I mean convincing the Dem establishment that union leadership is not rational in the conventional sense, and willing to take its money elsewhere if it does not get what it wants, even if this means losing the crumbs that Dems are currently throwing to it. If this threat is credible, the Dems are likely to blink because they cannot afford the damage caused by this seemingly irrational move by the unions in a closely tied election.
The trick, however, is to make the threat credible. A Labor party a la Tony Mazzochi is not a credible threat because it is obvious to almost everyone that it would attract very few popular votes. A better strategy is to organize a party with a wider popular appeal e.g. a "tea party" of a sort, but with a left leaning. Such a party would be organized on three principles: Redistribution of wealth, Accountability, and Democracy (or the RAD party.) Each of these principle is a left alternative to right wing policies and have relatively broad popular appeal. Thus redistribution of wealth counters concentration of wealth resulting from neoliberal policies. Accountability counters the law and order approach - as it implies holding elites accountable instead of merely disciplining the poor. Finally, democracy is a counterweight to dealing and wheeling, lobbying and boardroom decision making. More importantly, these principles have a broad popular appeal without bearing an obvious "labor" or "socialist" boilerplate.
Obviously, such a "third" party has no chance of winning elections, but it has the capacity of acting like a lose cannon and producing significant damage if it decides to run against Dems. So the trick is to convince Dem leadership that unions are willing to give a substantial support to such a party and sway it run against the Dems if the Dems do not give unions what they want. The threat must be credible - the union leadership must convince the Dems that it will go ballistic even if it means losing Dem patronage (which does not account to much anyway.)
This is basically the game that the "tea party" is playing - they work very hard to convince everyone that they are ideologically driven wingnuts who do not mind acting irrationally and throwing the train off the tracks if they do not get what they want. And it has been working so far. However, the sclerotic union leadership insists on playing by the book, even though they keep losing ground.
Wojtek
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Dennis Redmond wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:20 AM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?source=patrick.net&order=A
>>
>> These are only the FEC-tracked contributions, a tiny percentage of the
>> total. The AFL-CIO spent $45 million over 23 years, which works out to
>> a couple million per year -- barely enough to cover postage for a
>> single mass mailing to its members, let alone serious organizing.
>
> Counting down through that list I see that the Official Labor Movement spent
> more than $625 million.
> And received much less than nothing for it.
> Imagine what American politics would look like today if that money had been
> invested in organizing Labor's own political party!
>
>
>
>
> Shane Mage
>
> "scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities
> that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying attention to"
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>