Editorial: Which side are we on?

by the Editors

Credit: WHYY

Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner.

The staunchly pro-worker Senator from Vermont was propelled to a popular vote victory in the controversy-marred Iowa caucuses by a multiracial, working class coalition, drawing support from refugees, migrants, and workers of color. In an electrifying moment the morning of the caucuses, third shift meat packing workers—many of them Ethiopian immigrants—cast their votes for Sanders in a UFCW union hall in Ottumwa. 

Sanders caucus victory relied upon a commanding advantage with Iowans of color, the Muslim community, and union workers. His advantage among young voters was staggering, reflecting the sobering realities faced by millennials that entered the workforce amidst the most devastating economic meltdown since the Great Depression. In a state wildly unrepresentative of the country—and especially unrepresentative of the Democratic base—Sanders improbably won based on a wide-ranging coalition reflecting the American working class.

If there were any illusions prior to Sanders’ Iowa victory—and there were many—they have been dispelled. With his win, a stunning $25 million in contributions in the month of January, and a lead in New Hampshire, the march to Milwaukee has begun.

The media has belatedly come to the realization that Sanders is well positioned to win; in the month prior to the Iowa caucus, pundits and an increasing chorus of Democratic establishment figures voiced increasing alarm at the thought of his nomination. Commanding fourth quarter fundraising figures, record-breaking numbers of unique grassroots contributions, and a surge in the polls—including recent more favorable head-to-head polls against Trump—made the reality inescapable.

Some figures already realized that the future is with the Democratic Party’s progressive wing—or even with independents, like Sanders, who stand to the left of it. Peter Daou, a noted liberal activist who previously worked for Hillary Clinton and functioned as a surrogate for Clinton in 2016, made his mea culpa. He now backs Sanders and advises an array of pro-worker insurgent Congressional candidates like Lindsey Boylan, Rebecca Parson, Lauren Ashcraft, and Melanie D’Arrigo.

But labor—the largest organized vehicle active in American politics, and a powerhouse behind the Democratic Party—has been wracked with indecision.

Few national or international unions have endorsed; some influential unions, such as UNITE HERE, have publicly stated they will not endorse in the primary. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which was criticized for endorsing Hillary Clinton early in the summer of 2015, has taken a painstakingly deliberate approach to endorsement. Powerhouses like the National Education Association (NEA), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Teamsters, and United Food and Commercial Workers’ (UFCW) likewise have yet to weigh in. 

Some powerful locals, such as SEIU Local 1984 (Sanders), UTLA (Sanders), UPTE-CWA (Sanders), UFCW Local 21 (Sanders), UNITE HERE Local 11 (Sanders/Warren), and UFCW Local 1776 (Biden) have issued their own endorsements. Like UNITE HERE Local 11, the National Union of Healthcare Workers’—a small independent healthcare union in California—hedged their bets by splitting an endorsement between Warren and Sanders. Pete Buttigieg lacks any union endorsements. 

Indecision and hedging is a function of the crowded field, the seeming uncertainty about paths to victory, and the fear of “getting it wrong” and risking member backlash—especially for public sector unions coping with the new reality of the nationwide open shop. Exacerbating the problem, organized labor’s reliance on Democratic Party politicians, long-standing relationships with party elders like Joe Biden, and pressure from influential Democrats and campaign surrogates has pulled unions in different directions. Rather than risk rank-and-file unrest or backlash from political allies, inaction can seem preferable. 

It’s a deep irony that even as striking workers lead the national discussion in a way unseen in a generation, many unions can’t decide what the path forward looks like.

Biden, who—in spite of his record—was favored by many union leaders, no longer has a viable path to victory. Elizabeth Warren, who has been friendlier to organized labor than the vast majority of Democratic politicians, likewise lacks a viable path to victory after her third place finish in Iowa. With the Iowa caucuses over and New Hampshire fast approaching, we are faced with two choices: Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg. 

For all his polish and for all his dissembling toward workers, Pete Buttigieg is unequivocally on the side of the boss. In his memoir, he derisively recalls the efforts of the “social justice warriors” of the Progressive Student Labor Movement who acted in solidarity with Harvard janitorial and facilities workers in fighting for a living wage. As a consultant for McKinsey he allegedly engaged in price fixing in unionized grocers in Canada, slashed-and-burned through BlueCross BlueShield of Michigan, and pushed privatization of the heavily unionized Postal Service. 

When interacting with union members he has shown himself to be wildly out of touch with American workers and the world of the labor movement. In a much-derided video he asked striking General Motors workers “how long they could last” on the picket line, and he recently mistakenly implied that UNITE HERE workers were engaged in a strike rather than a week-long fast—which would have been in violation of the Railway Labor Act. His contempt for workers, and his comfort with the elite, is obvious.

The nakedly ambitious son of Notre Dame academics—who never once set foot in a public school at any level as a student—claims blue collar credentials because of his youth in Indiana, but he is lying. There is no polite way to put it: he is claiming an authenticity and background that is not his.

We needn’t even address the wine cave.

In contrast, there is no question that Bernie Sanders is a son of the working class. There is no question he is the most pro-worker candidate in the field; there is an argument to be made that he is the most pro-worker official holding federal office. Likewise, there is no question that he has stood for workers his entire life. And there is no question that if elected, Bernie Sanders would be the most pro-worker president to ever serve in the White House.

If elected, a Sanders presidency would make more possible. Whether through Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, or the Workplace Democracy Act, policies advanced by Sanders and his pledge to act as “Organizer-in-Chief” holds the potential to set the stage for the most dramatic expansion of worker power since the New Deal. There is no doubt that his vision for America—and the vision shared by his supporters—is one in which workers deal with the boss from a position of strength.

Until recently, the primary question was whether he could win the nomination, and whether he could win the White House. With his victory in Iowa, his commanding advantage heading into New Hampshire, and his sustained momentum, there should be no lingering question that he is the frontrunner with the most viable path to the nomination, and with the most viable path to defeat Donald Trump. 

So why is labor still undecided?

Unions, guided by realpolitik and lingering “plain and simple unionism,” often prioritize maintaining relationships with Democratic politicians that take union votes and working families for granted. Where we once led elected politicians, we now are too often led by them. This presents a serious problem for organized labor, given the steadily increasing influence of corporate cash and big finance in American politics: forces with which Pete Buttigieg is most comfortable. Establishment politicians have tried to serve both God and Mammon, and found themselves on the side of Mammon. Too many unions have been dragged with them. 

While cultivating relationships with power brokers may make some sense in the short term—especially in the context of fighting defensive actions in the war on workers—it does not make sense in the long term, and puts labor in a position in which our power is derived from our access and leverage with elite actors rather than the power of militant organized members. Because we believe and have built our power to come from Beltway elites, rather than strength to force those elites to act in accordance with our agenda, there are often hard limits on institutional labor’s willingness to pressure the power elite.

Make no mistake: Pete Buttigieg is the pick of the elite actors that hold American workers in contempt. His willingness to truly champion—or even passively support—the rights of American workers is fundamentally suspect. He cannot be trusted to prioritize workers over the boss.

Unions are the primary organized voice for the American working class. Our loyalty is to workers and to each other, not to elected officials; politicians must answer to the needs of workers or be replaced. We cannot be true to our sisters, brothers, and siblings—the ones that struggle against bosses, including bosses that give to the Democratic Party, to put food on their tables—while refusing to demand that politicians are loyal to their struggle.

Sanders is loyal to the fight for workers’ rights, and his victory in Iowa shows that he can win the nomination. Polling and grassroots enthusiasm shows that he can beat Trump. For the first time in generations, we have a chance to elect something more than the lesser of two evils. We have an opportunity to elect the most pro-worker president in American history, and we must seize it. Sanders may be an imperfect candidate, but we know which side he’s on. He will fight for American workers with the urgency demanded by our political moment; Pete Buttigieg will not.

But which side are we on?

The editorial represents the viewpoint of a majority of the editorial collective.