Monday Ménage: Edition Compromise. The Compromisee Always Gets The Short End

Cavanagh/Gershman. McClure. Rossiter.

George [H.W.] Bush has spelled out an economic agenda for his New World Order. It is an agenda that would prove enormously lucrative to a few thousand giant corporations. And it would increasingly subject local communities, regions, and entire nations to the decisions of these unaccountable companies.

Bush and the Fortune 500 claim these free-trade pacts will enhance U.S. competitiveness and deliver progress and prosperity at home.

But labor unionists, religious leaders, farmers, environmentalists, and consumer and citizen activists across the Hemisphere have denounced these proposed agreements. They argue that this free-trade agenda will drive down wages even further, undermine unions, reduce jobs, and threaten the environment in the United States and Canada. John Cavanagh and John Gershman, ‘Free Trade’ Fiasco. the Progressive, February 1992.

Although Bill Clinton was not the first choice of organized labor in 1992 – Tom Harkin of Iowa was preferred – labor proved plenty of cash and muscle for his campaign. (The $3.7 million in “soft money” contributed by labor was second only to the $13.7 million from big business.) Then, as now, the word “union” rarely crossed Clinton’s lips.

Several months into the new Administration, the AFL-CIO seems to have few qualms about the new President’s policies. It pledges it will “do its level best to be supportive” of Clinton’s economic plan, expresses its intention to act as the Clinton “troops” to get their health-care package passed, and signals its willingness to compromise on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to lift the taxes and tariffs companies now pay when selling goods among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

The Federation is also favorably inclined toward the centerpiece of the Administration’s labor policy: increased labor-management cooperation. Laura McClure, Rush to Compromise: Labor hits the canvas for Clinton. the Progressive, June 1993.

First, last and always there was the money. Politics is marketing, and you can’t win market shares unless your name and main idea gain the same familiarity as your opponent’s. We knew we would need half a million dollars to get enough television spots on prime-time shows to penetrate voters’ consciousness. Every citizen can give up to $2,000 to a House candidate in a two-year cycle, and I spent so much time on the phone trying to get that money that my ears hurt and my soul ached.

And don’t think you can change this through campaign finance reform. There is no reform you can think of – including the most meaningful one of free and equal but limited television and radio time – that professional money-movers and lawyers can’t turn into Swiss cheese. Caleb Rossiter, THINK GLOBALLY, RUN LOCALLY: What I learned running for Congress as a Progressive. The Nation, August 23/30 1999.