Showing posts sorted by date for query HOOVER DEPRESSION. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query HOOVER DEPRESSION. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, November 19, 2024

It's time for Democrats to declare class warfare



Thom Hartmann
November 18, 2024
ALTERNET

If my hypothesis from yesterday — that Democrats best way to win elections and regain political power is to engage in class warfare against the GOP and the billionaires that fund it — the immediate question is, “How?”

The last century has seen two presidents engage in class warfare in a big and direct way that not only won them multiple elections but also altered the electoral map of America: Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. There are multiple lessons to learn from both.

When FDR came into power in March of 1933, the nation was in shambles because of a decade of Republican mishandling of the economy. In the early 1920s, Republican President Warren Harding dropped the top income tax rate from 91% down to 25% and loosened oversight of Wall Street.

The short-term result was an explosion of riches at the top, referred to as “The Roaring 20s,” and violent actions against attempts to form labor unions. The longer-term result was the infamous Black Tuesday of October 29, 1929 which kicked off the Republican Great Depression.

President Roosevelt correctly identified America’s morbidly rich, who’d seized control of the GOP after the end of the Taft presidency in 1913, as the cause of the financial disaster and proclaimed that they and their captive Republicans had declared class war against average working class Americans.

ALSO READ: Trump finds a new lawman is who even more lawless than he is

“For out of this modern civilization,” Roosevelt told America, “economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. … It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself.”

He used the language of class warfare; as with all wars, the first step is to identify the enemy. For FDR it was the morbidly rich of his era who weren’t content to just run their businesses and make money but also lusted for the political power they’d been given during the 1920s by Republican presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.
“These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America,” Roosevelt proclaimed. “What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power.”
He paused for a moment, then thundered, “Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power!”

The crowd at Madison Square Garden roared when he said that. They knew that Republican politicians had worked hand-in-glove with wealthy industrialists to suppress unions, evade taxes, and accumulate fortunes beyond anything ever seen in America. That the GOP had been running an often-violent class war against them for at least the past decade.

And they were over it. Over the greed, over the theft, and over the self-righteous proclamations that the Constitution protected their avarice. Average working people knew these “economic royalists” weren’t patriots; they were looters, vandals, and political arsonists. FDR gave voice to their anger, disillusionment, and disgust.

“In vain,” Roosevelt said, “they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.”

Republicans had declared class warfare; FDR, like he would later do with the Japanese and Germans, led the charge to fight back and defeat them.

And defeat them he did (even in the face of an assassination attempt); by the end of his presidency, American oligarchs had gone back to doing business and getting rich, largely avoiding politics and keeping their noses clean.

Until, that is, President Nixon put Lewis Powell on the Supreme Court and Powell began the process — from the bench — of turning America back into a full-blown oligarchy like Hoover had done in the 1920s.


The Powell Memo and the Court’s Bellotti decision (written by Powell) set the stage and outline the battle plan for the Reagan Revolution, an all-out declaration of class war against average Americans and the Democrats who’d historically defended them.

In the 1980s, Reagan cut the top income tax rate from 74 percent down to 27 percent (while repeatedly raising taxes on working-class people’s wages, tips, and Social Security), kicking off an explosion of billionaires. He and other Republican presidents and members of the Supreme Court followed up by:

— Ending enforcement of our anti-trust laws and gutting our environmental regulations.

— Killing off our media guardrails like the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Rule, along with ending ownership limits on newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations and networks.
— Fighting every effort to reduce or end student debt.
— Opposing every program proposed to broaden access to healthcare coverage.

— Attacking our right to vote.
— Privatizing Medicare with the Medicare Advantage scam (Social Security is next).
— Assailing environmental regulations that protect us and our children from cancer and other diseases.

— Going to the mat to defend hundreds of billions in annual subsidies for the fossil fuel industry and its oligarchs.
— Deregulating social media (Section 230), now taken over by rightwing billionaires.
— Packing our courts with reliable toadies for giant corporations and the wealthy.
— Stripping over $50 trillion from the working class since 1981, handing that money to the morbidly rich to stash in their offshore money bins.

— Rejecting every effort to raise the national minimum wage.
— Most recently, Trump congratulated Musk on his union-busting success.



Through this entire period, Democrats have refrained from employing FDR’s class war rhetoric to fight back. Instead, they’ve worked hard to make life better for working class people when in power and tried to limit the damage from Republican proposals and policies when they’re out of power.

This is why Vice President Harris’ claims that Democrats are here for the average person while Republicans want more tax cuts and deregulation failed to catch fire during this past election; there was no rhetoric of warfare. Instead, astonishingly, Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney and kept saying that she’d give Republicans “a seat at the table.”


As billionaire Warren Buffett famously confessed:
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

It’s far past time to take the gloves off and start punching.

Democrats have become so rusty, so wary of class warfare, that they haven’t even identified a term or metaphor to describe the rightwing billionaires for whom the GOP fronts.


From Democratic President Grover Cleveland in the 1880s saying the rich had working people under their “Iron heel” to the early 20th century when they were called Robber Barons, Democrats have had names for Republicans and the billionaires who own them.

FDR called them economic royalists. Teddy Roosevelt called them fat cats, malefactors of great wealth, parasites, and plutocrats. I’ve been calling them the morbidly rich, but there’s almost certainly a more evocative phrase out there that could be applied to greedy billionaires by this generation of progressives.

After all, elite conservatives and billionaires haven’t hesitated to use “othering” language in their war against Democrats.

Reagan and Republicans since have called us pointy-headed intellectuals, ivory tower elites, eggheads, limousine liberals, champagne socialists, latte liberals, the wine and cheese crowd, coastal elites, tax and spend liberals, bleeding hearts, do-gooders, tree huggers, environmental wackos, libtards, communists, and even feminazis.

And how do Democrats describe Republicans? “Our friends on the other side of the aisle.”

Screw that. It’s time to declare war.

And war requires a clear delineation between our side and their side, between the good guys and the enemy. Nobody is going to rush to the ramparts against somebody we’re “happy to work with on a bipartisan basis”: as Newt Gingrich taught Republicans in the 1990s and they’ve held to with a religious fervor, there can be no quarter against the other side if you want to take and hold power.

Class war sounds ugly, but it’s exactly what Republicans and their billionaire backers have been waging against working class Americans for 43 years now. It’s damn well time to fight back by declaring a class war of our own.


In an authoritarian regime it’s important to control the news — and here we go

Thom Hartmann
November 17, 2024 
ALTERNET

Kash Patel (Photo via AFP)


— Is changing the Democratic Party the way to remake our Democracy?

Donald Trump only got about a million more votes than he did in 2020, but Kamala Harris appears to have received somewhere between 6 and 10 million fewer votes than Joe Biden did that year. For the over two decades that I’ve been writing and on the radio and TV, I’ve argued that when Bill Clinton embraced Reagan’s neoliberalism in 1992 (and Obama maintained that position) the Democratic Party had taken a fatal turn to the right. I’ve written two books that cover it, in part, as well: The Hidden History of Neoliberalism: How Reaganism Gutted America
and The Hidden History of the American Dream. It appears that millions of voters essentially said, “I’m not going to vote for that nutcase Trump, but Harris isn’t speaking to the explosion in my cost-of-living expenses so to hell with her, too.” Joe Biden campaigned with Bernie Sanders and won; Kamala Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney and repeatedly said she wanted to give Republicans “a seat at the table,” which may well have been a fatal error. She thought she could pick up moderate Republicans, but there’s apparently not such a thing anymore since Fox “News” and the massive rightwing media ecosystem has come to dominate the American news and opinion landscape.

Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich, Sherrod Brown, and many other longtime Democrats have been pointing to this pre-1992 truth: if the Democratic Party is to win, it has to go back to its FDR/LBJ roots and become the party of the bottom 90 percent, instead of embracing those with a college education, movie and rock stars, and progressive billionaires like Mark Cuban. God bless them all, but Dems really need to reinvent themselves as the blue-collar party and repudiate much of the Clinton/Obama agenda of low taxes, free trade, and private/public partnerships (like Obamacare).

Amazingly, even The New York Times’ conservative columnist David Brooks agrees, writing: “The Democratic Party has one job: to combat inequality. Here was a great chasm of inequality right before their noses and somehow many Democrats didn’t see it. Many on the left focused on racial inequality, gender inequality and L.G.B.T.Q. inequality. [This is actually an untrue GOP talking point.] … As the left veered toward identitarian performance art, Donald Trump jumped into the class war with both feet. His Queens-born resentment of the Manhattan elites dovetailed magically with the class animosity being felt by rural people across the country. His message was simple: These people have betrayed you, and they are morons to boot.” Amen. Finally, check out this troubling article from data scientist Stephen Spoonamore raising questions about manipulation of vote totals in the swing states in a way that doesn’t appear in the non-swing states. I’m agnostic on this for the moment, but it’s worth reading; he’ll be on my program Monday.


— In an authoritarian regime it’s important to cow and control the news, and here we go. Kash Patel, widely rumored to be Trump’s main pick for FBI director, has a message for reporters and opinion writers who insist on continuing to call Trump a fascist or otherwise slander/defame him and his followers: “We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government but in the media. Yes, we’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections – we’re going to come after you... Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out. But yeah, we’re putting you all on notice.”

According to The Columbia Journalism Review, Trump has already sued The New York Times (naming reporters Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt, Susanne Craig, and Russ Buettner) and Penguin Random House (one of my publishers) and CBS’s 60 Minutes show for $10 billion each.

As I predicted, he appears to be following the Putin/Orbán strategy of bankrupting media outlets and reporters (rather than using cops and billy-clubs), presumably both to cow others into submission and to make the media properties available to be purchased by his allies (sort of like what just happened with The Onion buying Infowars out of bankruptcy).


Steve Bannon added his thoughts, essentially threatening or warning the journalists at MSNBC: “Weissman, you were on TV with MSNBC and all the producers, MSNBC. Preserve your documents. Ari Melber and all you hosts. Preserve your documents. All of it. You better be worried. You better lawyer up. Some of you young producers, you better call mom and dad tonight. Mom and dad, ‘You know a good lawyer?’ Lawyer up. Lawyer up.”

This is a dangerous time for anybody writing about politics. Orbán and Putin even go after random citizens who criticize them on social media; will Trump go that far? And will progressives shut up in the face of this kind of intimidation? Stay tuned…

— Speaking of authoritarianism, Texas Republicans want to outlaw websites that discuss how to get an abortion. Jessica Valenti tells the story at Abortion, Every Dayon Substack about the Republican lawmakers in Texas (and around the country) who are trying to pass legislation that would imprison people who put up websites that can be viewed in Texas (including hers) with information on abortion. They argue that abortion information is not free speech protected by the Constitution. I’d add that if the Comstock Act is enforced by the new Attorney General (as JD Vance has demanded) next year, all sorts of information about abortion will become criminalized, in addition to the devices and drugs that can be used for both abortion and birth control.


— Sarah Hurst’s Russia Report on Tulsi Gabbard will make your toes curl. I’ll let you click on it and read it yourself; it’s all about her repeated embraces of Russia and Putin. Which makes some people wonder out loud why Trump would push such objectionable candidates; surely the Senate will protect us from such people, right?

But if Trump really wants to pull a Hitler and seize absolute control of the nation within a matter of a few months, his first move would be to either negotiate or force a recess of the Senate and simply “recess appoint” all of his cabinet nominees. No hearings, no tough questions, no FBI or other background checks, no Democratic politicians’ input. He has this authority under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution: if there’s a disagreement between John Thune and Mike Johnson about when to adjourn, “...and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he [the president] may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.”

They could agree to disagree; that way they could both evade responsibility. On the other hand, if Thune simply gives in to Trump’s recent demand for recess appointments (as he told reporters yesterday he was considering), Thune can simply adjourn the Senate, something that hasn’t happened in decades; Trump can then simply do his own recess appointments (it could be done in a single hour) under the Constitution’s provision: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” or he could just appoint them as “acting“ officials.


He did that during the last year of his presidency, and went way beyond the legal time limit for several; he flagrantly broke the law last time with over 15 cabinet members and Republicans were unwilling to call him on it, although he never started that way. This will be our first clue that the nation is no longer a constitutional republic with anything resembling checks and balances, but has become an oligarchic dictatorship like Hungary.

— Blueprint of destruction: Is Trump following Orbán’s and Putin’s road to power? M. Gessen, an expert on authoritarianism, writes in The New York Times: “When Orban was re-elected, he carried out what Magyar calls an ‘autocratic breakthrough,’ changing laws and practices so that he could not be dislodged again. It helped that he had a supermajority in parliament. Trump, similarly, spent four years attacking the Biden administration, and the vote that brought it to the White House, as fraudulent, and positioning himself as the only true voice of the people. He is also returning with a power trifecta — the presidency and both houses of Congress. He too can quickly reshape American government in his image. … Kamala Harris’s campaign, of course, tried to warn Americans about this and a lot more, labeling Trump a fascist. … It’s not just what the autocrats do to stage their breakthrough, it’s how they do it: passing legislation (or signing executive orders) fast, without any discussion, sometimes late at night, in batches, all the while denigrating and delegitimizing any opposition.”

The article is definitely worth a read, chilling as it is. Gessen even gets into the role of Project 2025 in facilitating the transformation of our American form of government into one with a single strongman president at its pinnacle. This does not bode well for America.


— Former Trump administration officials who turned on him are preparing to flee the country. The Washington Post is reporting: “A retired U.S. Army officer who clashed with senior officials in Donald Trump’s first White House looked into acquiring Italian citizenship in the run-up to this month’s election but wasn’t eligible and instead packeda ‘go bag’ with cash and a list of emergency numbers in case he needs to flee. A member of Trump’s first administration who publicly denounced him is applying for foreign citizenship and weighing whether to watch and wait or leave the country before the Jan. 20 inauguration. And a former U.S. official who signed a notorious October 2020 letter suggesting that emails purportedly taken from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden could be part of a ‘Russian information operation’is seeking a passport from a European country, uncertain about whether the getaway will prove necessary but concluding, ‘You don’t want to have to scramble.’”

Reports (like this one from the Post) suggest that Trump has an “enemies list” of at least 600 people, much like Nixon’s, and he intends to go after everybody on the list on day one. Will he, like Nixon, just harass people with IRS audits? It seems more likely based on his own words that he’ll launch criminal and civil actions to jail or bankrupt his perceived enemies and those who have written or said things that have offended him.

Along those same lines, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene wants “justice” against health officials: “Dr. [Anthony] Fauci lied to the American people, abusing his power and position and role, a very powerful role paid for by the American tax people. He lied, and many, many people died. … People that perpetuated and continue to perpetuate these crimes need to be prosecuted, and that needs to be starting in the next administration, and I’m pretty sure our next attorney general will do that, and I look forward to seeing that happen.”

Washington, DC is very, very much on edge right now; I got a call Friday morning at 5:30 in the morning from the CEO of a major DC-based progressive media outlet who’d just gotten off the phone with a Clinton colleague; both are considering leaving the country. This is getting real very, very fast.


— Are Republicans coming for healthcare for both retired and working people?Millions of people signed up for Affordable Care Act insurance policies over the past three years because of hefty subsidies contained in Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

Those subsidies expire at the end of this year, and Republicans are signaling that they won’t be renewed, meaning that premiums could go from $200 a month to as much as $2400 a month. Meanwhile, Project 2025 has called for private corporate Medicare Advantage plans to become the default option for people turning 65 and signing up for Medicare. Once a critical threshold is hit (currently more than half of seniors are on the Advantage plans) it’ll be fairly easy for a Republican congress and president to end legacy Medicare; once that happens, Advantage plans, no longer having competition from real Medicare, will almost certainly become more expensive and offer less coverage.

Meanwhile, Raw Story is reporting: “Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), chairman of the House Budget Committee, told reporters earlier this week that the GOP is looking to use the filibuster-evading reconciliation process to pursue cuts to ‘mandatory programs’—a category that includes Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.” Republicans have been talking about this since the ReaganRevolution, but never actually tried (other than Reagan raising the retirement age from 65 to 67). Get ready.

— State-level authoritarians fall in line with Trump. Oklahoma’s Channel 4 (KFOR) TV News reports: “Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters emailed leaders in Oklahoma school districts on Thursday telling them they would be required to play their students and parents a video showing Walters blaming the ‘radical left’ and ‘woke teachers unions’ for ‘attacking’ religious liberty, then inviting students to join him as he prays for President-elect Donald Trump.” Walters also reportedly purchased five hundred Trump Bibles for Oklahoma schools. Welcome to the Brave New World. Compounding a religious grift with a financial one; breathtaking.

Wednesday, November 06, 2024

How an economic crash could line Trump's pockets


















Thom Hartmann, AlterNet
November 5, 2024 

America’s billionaires would love to have a recession, particularly a really severe one.


In a recent “town hall,” billionaire Elon Musk acknowledged what 23 Nobel Prize-winning economists across the country have predicted: If Trump is elected and he and Elon undertake their project to gut government spending, it will provoke a severe recession.
“We have to reduce spending to live within our means,” Musk said. “And, you know, that necessarily involves some temporary hardship, but it will ensure long-term prosperity.”

Most Republican voters aren’t taking his embrace of a recession or a short-term depression like George W. Bush brought us seriously.

“Why would the Republicans,” they’re asking, “who generally represent the interests of corporations and the rich above all else, risk crashing the stock market and economy where those very same wealthy people have their money invested?”

The question itself reveals a misunderstanding of how things work for the morbidly rich.

They are, uniquely, in a position to profit from the same economic downturns that wipe out average working people or those who’ve put their money into 401Ks invested in the market or certain stocks.

This is a story as old as capitalism. During the Republican Great Depression of the 1930s, for example, some of America’s greatest fortunes were made or massively expanded.


My (late) friend Gloria Swanson once told me over dinner in her apartment how her former manager and lover Joe Kennedy, who’d made a pile of money manipulating the stock market, bailed out as the market began its slide and even shorted the market, increasing his wealth. But once it had crashed, when everybody was broke, she said, he bought stock with a vengeance.

“Cash is king” was the phrase of the day, and Kennedy was well stocked in cash (he even bought a movie studio). By the end of the Depression, he was one of the richest men in the nation.

J. Paul Getty’s favorite phrase was, “Buy when everyone else is selling, and hold on until everyone else is buying.” It’s something you can only do at scale if you’re fabulously rich to begin with.


The afternoon of the Great Crash — October’s Black Tuesday under Republican President Hoover in 1929 — Getty skipped his parents’ golden wedding anniversary to head to Wall Street where he began buying stocks, particularly in small oil companies that were in trouble.
“It is the opportunity of a lifetime to get oil companies for practically nothing,” Getty later wrote. Out of that, he became one of the richest men in the world.

Flash forward to the modern era.

When Wall Street banks — exploiting Republican-demanded deregulation of banking and investment rules — crashed the American economy in 2007, home prices (and, thus, homeowner equity) collapsed by 21%. Over 10 million Americans lost their homes to banking predators like “Foreclosure King” Steve Mnuchin, and tens of millions of others were underwater.


The stock market plummeted by over 50% in the last year of Bush’s presidency. On October 9, 2007 the Dow was at its all-time peak of 14,164 but by March 5, 2009 it had collapsed to 6,594.

While over 8 million Americans lost their jobs and were wiped out as the Bush Crash started today’s homelessness crises, the top 1 percent saw it as a buying opportunity.

Working-class people were desperately unloading stocks in their 401Ks at a loss just to pay the bills, as wages plummeted in the face of a loose labor market.


But the morbidly rich were doing great.

Between 2009 — the bottom of the Bush Crash — and 2012 when the recovery really began, the top 1 percent of Americans saw their income grow by over 31 percent. Fully 95 percent of all the income increases in the country were seized by the top 1 percent of Americans during that period.

As the economy recovered, rich people who’d used their increased income to buy stocks at the market bottom rode the S&P 500 up by 462 percent to 2020. A billion dollars invested in 2009 became $4.62 billion in just 11 years, a period during which the combined wealth of American billionaires went up by over 80 percent.


Then they did it again 10 years later!

The Trump/Covid Crash of 2020, for example, presented America’s morbidly rich with another brand new and huge opportunity to get richer on top of a crisis brutalizing the rest of America.

Once again the market collapsed, this time under Republican Trump, and working people, now out of work, were selling their stocks at a loss just to pay the mortgage and buy food.


But for the wealthy, it was a gift from God.

March 16, 2020 — just after Trump declared a pandemic and lockdown — the Dow sustained the largest single-day crash in its entire history. For the investor class, Trump and his billionaire buddies, this was an even better opportunity than the Bush crash of 2007!

Fewer than three months later, on June 4th, we learned that the seven richest people in America had seen their fortunes increase by fully 50 percent.

And with Trump’s massive tax cut for his fellow billionaires, they could keep most all of it: by that time the average American billionaire was paying less than 3 percent in income taxes (a situation that persists to this day).


Just during that one single terrible pandemic year of 2020, the Institute for Policy Studies documents, the world's 2,365 billionaires saw their wealth increase by a full 54%, as U.S. billionaires saw their net worth surge 62 percent by $1.8 trillion. Average billionaire wealth worldwide increased 27% in that one year alone.

Billionaires’ real taxes have fallen by a full 79 percent since Reagan’s election in 1980, and a 2012 analysis found that as much as $32 trillion was safely squirreled away in tax-fraud offshore shelters.

And, apparently, they’re happily anticipating the next crash that their boys Musk and Trump, along with their bought-off Republicans in Congress, are working hard to bring to pass with threats of massive federal spending cuts.


— Economic downturns not only cut wages and present buying opportunities for the wealthy and corporate America, they also give massive companies far more leverage when negotiating with vendors, which are typically desperate smaller businesses.

— Billionaires and massive companies retain access to credit so they can leverage their buying opportunities in ways smaller companies and working class individuals can’t.

— And corporate power to fight unionization increases exponentially as workers scramble and compete for jobs that have become vanishingly rare.


But the average American can be forgiven for thinking that Republicans would be reluctant to crash the economy. Their lived experience is very different from that of Elon Musk (532% increase in wealth during the single year of 2020), Mark Zuckerberg (86% increase), or Jeff Bezos (65% increase).

During the Bush Crash, average income for the poorest 10% of Americans fell by a full 23%, making business (and billionaires) much more profitable while working people were skipping meals, selling their houses for a song, and cutting pills in half.


Thirteen years later, the Trump Crash threw 8,500,000 Americans out of work: According to the World Economic Forum, the adjusted unemployment rate hit 22.7 percent in 2020, higher than even during the Bush Crash, and it’s taken almost four years for working people to get back on track.

Small business revenue collapsed by more than a fifth under Trump, new business formation cratered, and by July 2020 one-in-five American families were behind on their rent. The rate of hunger in America doubled at the same time the GOP sought to cut food stamps (SNAP) and Medicaid benefits.

The Bush and Trump crashes, in other words, did the work the morbidly rich have been demanding for years. Wages fell, unions struggled, corporate profits hit highs literally never before seen in America, and hedge funds bought up millions of distressed single-family homes to flip into high-priced rentals.

The stock market became absurdly cheap with both crashes, providing both the multimillionaire members of Congress and their billionaire backers with what used to be once-in-a-lifetime buying opportunities.

Now, they want to do it again. And Musk is gleefully proclaiming his willingness to pull it off.

So don’t be so sure Republicans in the House and Senate won’t celebrate billionaires Trump and Musk dragging America into a second Republican Great Depression if they have a chance.

They and their billionaire buddies have almost nothing to lose and a new and even larger fortune to gain.





 

Our Fragile Infrastructure: Lessons From Hurricane Helene

Asheville, North Carolina, is known for its historic architecture, vibrant arts scene and as a gateway to the Blue Ridge Mountains. It was a favorite escape for “climate migrants” moving from California, Arizona, and other climate-challenged vicinities, until a “500 year flood” ravaged the city this fall.

Hurricane Helene was a wakeup call not just for stricken North Carolina residents but for people across the country following their tragic stories in the media and in the podcasts now favored by young voters for news. “Preppers” well equipped with supplies watched in helpless disbelief as homes washed away in a wall of water and mud, taking emergency supplies in the storm. Streets turned into rivers, and many businesses and homes suffered extensive water damage if they were not lost altogether.

The raging floods were triggered by unprecedented rainfall and winds, but a network of fragile dams also played a role. On Sept 27, when the floods hit, evacuation orders were issued to residents near a number of critical dams due to their reported “imminent failure” or “catastrophic collapse.” Flood waters were overtopping the dams to the point that in some cases the top of the dam structure could not be seen.

The dams did not collapse, but to avoid that catastrophe, floodgates and spillways had to be opened, releasing huge amounts of water over a number of days. Spokesmen said the dams had “performed as designed,” but they were designed for an earlier era with more stable, predictable climates and no population buildup below the dams.

Five days after the floods hit in East Tennessee, half a million gallons of water were still being released per second from Douglas Dam, northwest of Asheville and upstream from Knoxville on the French Broad River. (Video clip of opened floodgates.) The Watauga Dam in Tennessee was also releasing record flows, surrounding nearby homes in water. WTVC NewsChannel 9 Chattanooga reported that Chickamauga Dam, upstream from Chattanooga, released approximately 566,118 gallons of water per second.

The Nolichucky Dam, in Tennessee near the North Carolina border, was reported to have “withstood nearly twice the water flow of Niagara Falls.” (See dramatic videos on Fox Weather showing the overflow and the floodgate release continuing three weeks later, a similar clip from 11Alive adding the damage downstream, and overflow footage on WKYC Charlotte.) Other major dams in which the floodgates were opened included Cowans Ford Dam, north of Charlotte (see video clip of the floodgate release); and Waterville Dam (also called Walters Dam), upstream from Newport in Tennessee  (video). Homeowners accused Duke Energy of sacrificing poor neighborhoods for wealthier properties, but as one official said, the excess water had to go somewhere. It had to go downstream. They did what they had to do to avoid outright collapse of the dams, a much worse disaster.

Upriver from Asheville, the auxiliary spillway of the North Forks Dam was activated. It too is said to have “performed as designed,” but the result was again significant flooding. Mandatory evacuation orders were put in place from the dam to Biltmore Village in Asheville, which suffered major damage. North Forks Dam is classified as a ”high-hazard potential dam,” meaning its failure could result in potential loss of life and serious property damage.

One concerned Asheville podcaster complained that the city had known for 20 years that the North Forks Dam was inadequate and a lethal danger under flood conditions, but it hadn’t been repaired. The dam was put to the test in September, when residents were told there was no choice but for the flood gates to be opened to prevent the dam from breaking. The result was a 30 foot wall of water that swept homes and lives away, rushing so fast that people were found in the tops of trees. The podcaster’s suspicions were aroused because lithium worth billions of dollars is located in Western North Carolina, where a mining company has been trying to restart operations since 2021, over community protests.

That was also true of the nearby town of Spruce Pine, downstream from the North Toe Dam, which was submerged under eight feet of water from the combination of torrential rain and the release of the dam’s floodgates. Spruce Pine is a major producer of high-quality quartz, a rare but necessary resource for many tech products. Mining companies have been attempting to double their operations in Spruce Pine, but they too have met resistance from local landowners. For some controversial details, see here.

Asheville is also downstream from Lake Lure Dam, which was reported on Sept. 27 to be “at risk of imminent failure” as the river was overtopping the dam. Most heavily affected was Chimney Rock, the town immediately downstream from Lake Lure, known for both its rustic scenery and its lithium mines. The damage was extensive.

According to an Oct. 2 broadcast on WBTV News in Charlotte titled “Lake Lure Dam ‘high hazard’ and needed repairs at time Helene hit,” the dam, completed in 1926, does not meet current state safety requirements. Repairs were ongoing but unfinished. Lake Lure Dam is one of 1,581 dams across the state considered “high hazard,” and according to a 2022 report, North Carolina has 194 high-hazard dams in poor or unsatisfactory condition, meaning they “may require immediate or emergency remedial action.”

The High Cost of Repair

The catastrophic flooding and destruction in western North Carolina has caused a record $53 billion or more in damages and recovery needs, according to North Carolina  Gov. Roy Cooper’s administration. The storm and its aftermath caused 1,400 landslides and damaged over 160 water and sewer systems, at least 6,000 miles of roads, more than a thousand bridges and culverts, and an estimated 126,000 homes. Some 220,000 households are expected to apply for federal assistance.

Whether the federal government will have the funds, and how long it will take residents and businesses to get assistance, are yet to be determined. On Oct. 2, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told reporters that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) did not have enough funding to make it through the hurricane season, which runs to Nov. 30. President Biden said that the more urgent problem now is the Small Business Administration, which provides low interest loans to homeowners (up to $500,000) and businesses (up to $2 million) for rebuilding after disasters. The SBA announced on Oct. 15 that its funds would soon run out and that it was pausing its loan offers to disaster survivors until Congress appropriates additional funds.

Applications for those funds are complicated, and reimbursement can take years — too late for demolished businesses to get back on their feet, or displaced homeowners living in tents on their properties to rebuild.

Failing Dams Are a Nationwide Problem

Dams in poor condition are found not just in Appalachia but across the country. A May 5, 2022 NPR report cites an Associated Press analysis of dams needing repair:

More than 2,200 dams built upstream from homes or communities are in poor condition across the U.S., likely endangering lives if they were to fail. The number of high-hazard dams in need of repairs is up substantially from a similar AP review conducted just three years ago.

There are several reasons for the increased risk. Long-deferred maintenance has added more dams to the troubled list. A changing climate has subjected some dams to greater strain from intense rainstorms. Homes, businesses and highways also have cropped up below dams that were originally built in remote locations. …

The nation’s dams are on average over a half-​century old. They have come under renewed focus following extreme floods, such as the one that caused the failure of two Michigan dams and the evacuation of 10,000 people in 2020.

The $1 trillion infrastructure bill signed last year by President Joe Biden will pump about $3 billion into dam-​related projects, including hundreds of millions for state dam safety programs and repairs….

Yet it’s still just a fraction of the nearly $76 billion needed to fix the tens of thousands of dams owned by individuals, companies, community associations, state and local governments, and other entities besides the federal government, according to a report by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials [ASDSO].

Less than a year later, the ASDSO announced the release of a new report dated February 2023, stating that the current cost of rehabilitating all non-federal U.S. dams is an estimated $157.5 billion, more than double ASDSO’s estimate from 2022.

Our Neglected National Infrastructure

Repairing dams is only one of a litany of infrastructure needs across the country, including roads, highways and bridges; public transportation; ports, harbors and other maritime facilities; intercity passenger and freight railroads; freight and intermodal facilities; airports; and telecommunication networks. National spending on infrastructure has fallen to its lowest level in 70 years, to 2.5% of the nation’s GDP. That’s half the comparable level in Europe and one-third the level in China. As a result, productivity, investment and manufacturing have collapsed; and we are losing our worldwide competitive edge.

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimated in its 2021 report that $6.1 trillion is needed just to repair our nation’s infrastructure, of which $2.6 trillion is currently unfunded. The gap, which increases the longer the work is put off, is now $2.9 trillion according to the latest ASCE update. Meanwhile, the federal debt is over $34.8 trillion, with the interest tab alone topping $1 trillion annually.

How can infrastructure requirements be met without driving the federal government $3 trillion further into debt? We need some form of off-budget financing. We have done it before, notably when Congress was heavily in debt right after the American Revolution, and when the banking structure had completely collapsed in the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Alexander Hamilton, our first U.S. Treasury secretary, developed the national infrastructure bank model used by many other countries today. Winning our freedom from Great Britain left the country with what appeared to be an unpayable debt. Hamilton traded the debt along with a percentage of gold for shares in the First U.S. Bank, paying a 6% dividend. This capital was then leveraged many times over into credit to be used specifically for infrastructure and development. The Second U.S. Bank, based on the same model, funded the vibrant economic activity of the first decades of the new country.

Today, virtually our entire circulating money supply is created by banks in this way when they make loans. The new money is not inflationary so long as it creates new goods and services, allowing supply to rise with demand and keeping prices stable. The new money is liquidated when the loans are paid off with profits from sales.

In the 1930s, Roosevelt’s government pulled the country out of the Great Depression by repurposing an agency created under President Hoover into a lending machine for development on the Hamiltonian model. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was an off-budget source of revenue, allowing the government to build infrastructure all across the country and fund a world war while actually turning a profit. Many of today’s dams were built with that credit, but they are nearly a century old. They need an upgrade, which can be financed by a national infrastructure bank on the same model. A fuller discussion is here.

HR 4052 (formerly HR 3339), titled “The National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2023,” is currently before Congress and has 40 sponsors. It has been endorsed by dozens of legislatures, city and county councils, and many organizations. Like the First and Second U.S. Banks, it will be a depository bank capitalized with existing federal securities held by the private sector, for which the bank will pay an additional 2% over the interest paid by the government. The bank will then leverage this capital into roughly 10 times its value in loans, as all depository banks are entitled to do. The bill proposes to fund $5 trillion in infrastructure capitalized over a 10-year period with $500 billion in federal securities exchanged for preferred stock in the bank. Like the RFC, the bank will be a source of off-budget financing, adding no new costs to the federal budget. For more information, see https://www.nibcoalition.com/.

State-owned Banks

Leveraging available funds into new credit-dollars for disaster relief can also be done locally at the state level. The possibilities are illustrated by the century-old Bank of North Dakota, currently our only state- owned bank. The BND’s emergency capabilities were demonstrated in 1997, when record flooding and fires devastated Grand Forks, North Dakota. The town and its sister city, East Grand Forks on the Minnesota side of the river, lay in ruins. Floodwaters covered virtually the entire city and took weeks to fully recede. Property losses topped $3.5 billion.

In North Carolina, FEMA was criticized for still being absent from recovery efforts a week after the Helene emergency was declared, too late for people trapped in rivers or under debris who could be reached only by helicopter. In North Dakota by contrast, the response of the state-owned bank was immediate and comprehensive.

Soon after the floodwaters swept through Grand Forks, the BND was helping families and businesses recover.  The bank quickly established nearly $70 million in credit lines – to the city, the state National Guard, the state Division of Emergency Management, the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, and for individuals, businesses and farms. It also launched a Grand Forks disaster relief loan program and allocated $5 million to help other areas affected by the spring floods. Local financial institutions matched these funds, making a total of more than $70 million available.

Besides property damage, flooding swept away many jobs, leaving families without livelihoods. The BND coordinated with the U.S. Department of Education to ensure forbearance on student loans; worked closely with the Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Administration to gain forbearance on federally backed home loans; established a center where people could apply for federal/state housing assistance; and worked with the North Dakota Community Foundation to coordinate a disaster relief fund, for which the bank served as the deposit base. The bank also reduced interest rates on existing Family Farm and Farm Operating programs. Families used these low-interest loans to restructure debt and cover operating losses caused by wet conditions in their fields.

The city was quickly rebuilt and restored. Remarkably, no lives were lost, vs. an official death toll to date in North Carolina of 98, thought to actually be much higher. Grand Forks lost only 3% of its population to emigration between the 1997 floods and 2000, while East Grand Forks, right across the river in Minnesota, lost 17% of its population.

Small businesses  are now failing across the country at increasingly high rates. That means layoffs, need for more government assistance, lower productivity, and higher taxes. But that’s not true in North Dakota, which was rated by Forbes Magazine the best state in which to start a business in 2024. On Oct. 2, Truth in Accounting’s annual Financial State of the States report rated North Dakota ND #1 in fiscal health, with a budget surplus per taxpayer of $55,600.

Meanwhile in Helene-ravaged Appalachia

Publicly-owned state and federal banks are possibilities for future disasters, but they will be too late for the flood victims of Western North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee. Survivors’ moods have been lifted in the meantime by the extraordinary generosity of local and out-of-state volunteers, who were on the ground immediately with supplies, equipment and labor.

But it has been a month, supplies are falling off, and the need is still great. According to a podcast titled “Helene VICTIMS need THESE 5 things One Month Later!,” 98% of businesses are still open; but they are largely based on tourism, and tourists have been scarce because the news media have featured the disaster areas to the exclusion of the small surrounding towns that are still functional, beautiful and welcoming visitors.  First on the podcaster’s list of needs was prayer.

People whose houses have been lost are camping on their land, trying to hang onto properties that in some cases have been in their families for generations. With winter coming, they need heavy duty camping equipment— winter tents, winter sleeping bags, small propane tanks. Other supplies for which there is particular need are food and water, cold and flu medicines, and first aid kits.

Though the situation is still dire for many, an Oct. 31 wrapup from Gov. Roy Cooper and country music star Eric Church, following a visit to the state’s mountain area, was hopeful. So, too, is this story told with soul: HURRICANE HELENE — A Love Letter To Appalachia ♡.FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Ellen Brown is an attorney, co-chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of DebtThe Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 400+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com. Read other articles by Ellen.

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

Column: Has Trump just repeated the P.R. disaster that cost Herbert Hoover his reelection?

Michael Hiltzik
Tue, October 29, 2024 

Donald Trump addresses the New York rally Sunday at which speakers uttered unrelenting ethnic and racial slurs. (C-SPAN)
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.Generate Key Takeaways


"Well, Felix, this elects me."

The speaker was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was at home in Albany with his friend and advisor Felix Frankfurter, monitoring radio reports of a political disaster unfolding in Herbert Hoover's Washington.

It was 1932. Hoover had dispatched the military to break up a camp of World War I veterans who had massed to demand immediate payment of a bonus they had been promised for serving. News of the cavalry's gassing and trampling of civilians — the slain including an infant born during the nationwide march of the so-called Bonus Army — would dominate the front pages and tar Hoover's public image through the presidential campaign.

Flash forward 92-plus years to Donald Trump's rally Sunday at New York's Madison Square Garden, a bleak, lurid festival of racist hate and profane vituperation so vile that even fellow Republicans, who have turned a blind eye to Trump's character for years, are distancing themselves from the event.

Read more: Column: A conservative think tank says Trump policies would crater the economy — but it's being kind

Their fear may be that with this heavily promoted event, the fundamental loathsomeness of Trump's political persona and behavior may break through to the undecided voters he needs to win reelection.

The occasion evokes the line sometimes attributed (perhaps apocryphally) to Mark Twain that "History doesn't always repeat itself, but it often rhymes." For the attack on the Bonus Army and the Madison Square Garden rally share features that could bind them together as campaign turning points.

As Twain might have acknowledged, the comparison isn't perfect — among other differences, the Bonus Army attack occurred on July 28, 1932, in the middle of the presidential campaign, while the Trump rally came only 10 days before election day and after early voting by mail and in person has already started in many states. Trump threatens to turning the military on American citizens to quell demonstrations; Hoover actually did so.

But the events do rhyme. Let's take a look.

Start with the main characters. Hoover and Trump became president after winning their first campaigns for elective office, and both entered the White House as wealthy men. The similarities end there, however.

Hoover had made a name for himself in public service. During World War I he had served as chair of the Belgian Relief Commission, which shipped food to that German-occupied nation, and subsequently as head of the U.S. Food Administration, which aimed to keep food prices stable while the U.S. participated in the war. After war's end, he became director of the American Relief Commission, which provided food relief to the war-torn countries of Europe.

Hoover served as Commerce Secretary for Warren Harding and his successor, Calvin Coolidge — in which role he oversaw the interstate negotiations that would clear the way for construction of the great dam that would bear his name. Trump's public service prior to his election as president was nonexistent.

Well, Felix, this elects me.

Franklin Roosevelt to Felix Frankfurter, upon hearing of Hoover's attack on the Bonus Army

The two came to their wealth by different paths. Hoover was a self-made man, having earned a degree in engineering as a member of the first graduating class of Stanford University and making a fortune as a mining engineer. Trump inherited his wealth from his father, a real estate developer.

Hoover, like Trump, saw himself as a savior of the nation. "He has wrapped himself in the belief," his secretary of state, Henry Stimson, wrote in his diary, "that the state of the country really depended on his reelection." Trump often claims to be the only person who can save America from war and economic depression. Neither, obviously, saw themselves clearly.

On the Democratic side, Roosevelt and Kamala Harris were scorned by critics as intellectual lightweights, despite having had successful careers in government — Roosevelt as a New York state senator, assistant Navy secretary under Woodrow Wilson, and governor of New York; Harris as San Francisco district attorney, attorney general of California, U.S. senator and vice president.

Read more: Column: Trump's glorification of the 1890s in America displays his dangerous ignorance of economics and history

Despite that, FDR was disdained by former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. as having "a second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." Walter Lippmann, the reigning public intellectual of his era, deprecated FDR as "a highly impressionable person, without a firm grasp of public affairs. ... A pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be President."

Trump and his cohorts incessantly demean Harris as — to quote the ever-fading Tucker Carlson at the Sunday Trump rally — a "low-IQ former California prosecutor."

The Republican Parties of 1932 and 2024 were fragmented entities when they nominated their presidential candidates.

Hoover had proven during his term to be a technocrat utterly without political skills. GOP insurgents (led by Harold Ickes, who would go on to serve FDR as interior secretary) had mounted a "dump Hoover" movement at their national convention; it collapsed for lack of a candidate to take up the colors.

Trump prevailed at the 2024 GOP convention, though not without challenges from candidates fearful of his lack of appeal outside a core right-wing base — former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley collected a strong 40% of the vote in a series of primaries, but not enough to carry her to the nomination.

That brings us to what might be the turning points in both Republican campaigns.

For Hoover, it was his response to the Bonus Army. This was a national movement for early payment of a stipend Congress had voted for veterans of the war at a cost of up to $4 billion — but which was not scheduled to be redeemed until 1945. Veterans could borrow from the government against their bonus certifications, but only at a high rate of interest.

As the Depression tightened its grip on the nation in 1931 and amid soaring unemployment and the spread of shantytowns of dispossessed Americans known as "Hoovervilles," veterans began to gather in Washington, uncorking fears of civil disorder.

Read more: Column: The Nazi roots of the Trump-Vance smear of Haitian immigrants

Among their targets was Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, who was steadfast against early redemption. (Among Mellon's grandchildren is Timothy Mellon, who is the largest individual contributor to the Trump campaign and other Republicans in this election cycle.)

The Bonus Expeditionary Force, as the Bonus marchers called themselves, originated in Portland, Ore., with an unemployed ex-sergeant named Walter W. Waters as its commander. They started to move east — "hundreds of thousands of men, women, children, and babies ... walking, hitchhiking, hopping freights," as Paul Dickson and Thomas B. Allen reported in their 2004 book about the Bonus Army.

Most of the marchers fell away en route, but by the end of June a Hooverville-like camp housing as many as 15,000 bedraggled men and their families had sprung up in the desolate, muddy Anacostia Flats area of Washington. They were fed with donated food, treated at a medical clinic set up on the grounds, and mounted a series of marches to Capitol Hill, where a bill to accelerate the bonus payments to the present day was being debated. (It passed the House but was defeated in the Senate.)

Hoover and his aides became progressively more fretful about the settlement at Anacostia Flats, especially when its organizers began to talk about making it permanent. There was talk about its having been infiltrated by Communists and rumors of planned violence. Hoover decided early in July to have the marchers evicted and placed the responsibility in the hands of the Army chief of staff, Gen. Douglas MacArthur.

MacArthur assumed the task of deploying tanks, bayonets and tear gas on fellow citizens enthusiastically, calling the camp residents "insurrectionists." The prospect appalled MacArthur's adjutant, Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who claimed later that he tried to convince his superior that the job was beneath his dignity. MacArthur rebuffed him.

On July 28, the attack began, including cavalry troops under the command of Major George S. Patton. Two veterans were killed in the operation and 55 injured. A 12-week-old baby died after being tear-gassed. The tent camp in Anacostia was burned to the ground.

The following day, Hoover issued a statement explaining that he had acted to prevent the government from being "coerced by mob rule." He kept petulantly defending his actions to the end of his life. In his memoirs he accused the Democrats of distorting the event, implying "that I had murdered veterans on the streets of Washington." He charged that the Bonus march had been largely "organized and promoted by the Communists and included a large number of hoodlums and ex-convicts."

As it happened, Roosevelt as president was no more willing to pay the bonus early than Hoover and Mellon had been. In 1936, Congress overwhelmingly passed a measure to pay the bonus immediately — over FDR's veto.

The ramifications of the Bonus Army attack live on. It set the stage for the creation of a vast administrative infrastructure of aid for service members and veterans, starting with enactment of the GI Bill, which paid for tuition, textbooks and supplies (and $50 a month for living expenses) to grant returning veterans a college education, making American society into a meritocracy.

The bill was signed by Franklin Roosevelt in June 1944, a couple of weeks after allied troops cross the English channel on D-Day.

It also stands as a warning for Trump that taking military action against civilians will inspire a massive public backlash, which in that case contributed — no one can say how much — to Franklin Roosevelt's landslide defeat of Hoover just over three months later. Roosevelt's presidency established a new principle in American politics through the New Deal, that government exists to succor all its people, not just the wealthy.

Michael Hiltzik
Commentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize winner.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Friday, September 13, 2024

There Is No Such Thing as Spontaneous Worker Organizing

The 1930s saw the biggest labor upsurge in US history. Just like today, there was economic discontent and a general pro-labor atmosphere. But labor didn’t just passively benefit. Instead, it saw its opportunity to act, building unions for the long haul.
September 11, 2024
Source: Jacobin


A group of dressmakers on strike hold signs urging unionization and fair labor practices 1958

This engaging interview with labor historian Nelson Lichtenstein sheds light on the rise of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in the 1930s and its enduring impact on American labor.

Lichtenstein delves into the CIO’s formation, its breakthrough in organizing industrial workers, and the role of key figures like John L. Lewis and Walter Reuther. He recounts pivotal moments such as the Flint sit-down strike against General Motors and the CIO’s creative strategy of infiltrating company unions in the steel industry. Lichtenstein offers thoughtful perspectives on the CIO’s handling of racial divisions and its ties to the Democratic Party. Throughout the conversation, Lichtenstein underscores the CIO’s historical significance while drawing interesting parallels to today’s labor organizing efforts.

This interview was conducted by Benjamin Y. Fong for the Jacobin podcast Organize the Unorganized: The Rise of the CIO. Nelson Lichtenstein is research professor at UC Santa Barbara and the author of numerous books and articles relevant to Organize the Unorganized, including State of the Union: A Century of American Labor (Princeton, 2003), Walter Reuther: The Most Dangerous Man in Detroit (University of Illinois Press, 1997), and Labor’s War at Home: The CIO in World War II (Temple University Press, 2003).

Benjamin Y. Fong

What was the CIO, and what is its primary historical significance?

Nelson Lichtenstein

The letters CIO originally stood for Committee for Industrial Organization. That was a committee set up in 1935 by John L. Lewis, who was the leader of the United Mine Workers [UMW], then a very large union with six hundred thousand members. He was joined by Sidney Hillman, who was head of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, and David Dubinsky, who was head of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. At first, it was just a committee for industrial organization within the American Federation of Labor [AFL].

The committee said, “Look, we must take advantage of the situation, which is now occurring, with the [Franklin D.] Roosevelt administration and with new labor laws.” The Wagner Act was just being passed and there were a lot of strikes, all sorts of activities going on in 1933, ’34, ’35. They thought the American Federation of Labor should take advantage of this and begin new organizing campaigns in industries that were not organized and very important. Those industries were at the commanding heights of the economy. In those days, that would be like automobiles, steel, electrical products, things of that sort. They were often called the mass production industries, because they used assembly lines. They were big and run by big companies, too. The obvious analogy today would be Amazon and Walmart.

The American Federation of Labor had been reluctant to do that kind of organizing, partly because there’d been lots of defeats. There had been a huge defeat in 1919 when they tried to organize steel. There had been efforts in auto, textiles, etc. So the AFL was reluctant to plunge into this because it feared losing, but there was also a general sentiment that they were only going to organize skilled workers. Often, that meant white, older Northern European workers.

This wasn’t uniform. The Mine Workers took in all sorts of people, and they were in the AFL. But the AFL tended to be comprised of what we call craft unions. That is, skilled workers, like railroad engineers, skilled electricians, carpenters, etc. The AFL thought, “Those workers are in high demand. They have more money, they get higher wages, and we can organize them. We’ll leave aside women, we’ll leave aside immigrants, African Americans too, and we’ll leave aside people in the industries where the companies were tough and anti-union.”

The CIO challenged that thinking. And what happened over a two-year period was that the committee began to organize. The Mine Workers were the treasury, and they began to set up committees of their own, like the Steel Workers Organizing Committee, or the Packing House Workers Organizing Committee, or the Textile Workers Organizing Committee. They began to hire organizers. Many of those organizers were radicals, communists, and socialists.

All of this created conflict within the American Federation of Labor, because some other unions thought, “Well, wait a minute, you are stepping into our jurisdiction.” With the Carpenters union, for instance, they said, “If we have a few carpenters in various industrial plants, and you’re trying to organize the whole plant or the whole factory, you’re going to step on our toes.” So conflict was created.

By late 1937, the CIO had been transformed from the Committee for Industrial Organization into the Congress of Industrial Organizations, meaning that it was now an independent labor federation with its own unions in it. This lasted for eighteen years, but it was an important eighteen years. In 1955, the CIO and the AFL would merge once again and become the AFL-CIO, but in the meantime, the CIO had a dramatic and fundamental impact on the organization of American workers, and on American capitalism in general.

Benjamin Y. Fong

Why did the CIO finally break through where previous efforts at industrial unionism had failed?

Nelson Lichtenstein

Well, I think that both Lewis and Hillman recognized that this was a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We have here the Great Depression, which has delegitimized business as the backbone of prosperity and success. The Great Depression had demonstrated the weaknesses and problems of American capitalism.

Second, new labor laws were being passed. In the beginning of the New Deal, there was the National Industrial Recovery Act, which had a section called Section 7A, which was put into the legislation at the behest of the AFL and Frances Perkins, who was secretary of labor. It said workers have the right to organize unions of their own choosing. The language of Section 7A would once again be put into the Wagner Act, which was an even more powerful piece of labor legislation passed in 1935. The preamble of the Wagner Act basically says, “If we want to make capitalism work, we have to have unions because unions will create purchasing power for ordinary workers. They’ll buy things and we’ll have prosperity and commerce.”

Then, of course, there was also the growing radical mood in the nation, in the same way that today we see much pro-labor sentiment. In 1935, collective action, unionism, and radicalism were all popular. Communists, socialists, and other radicals were not numerous, but they had a growing sense of self-confidence. Some labor leaders, again, had been old mainstream labor leaders and they finally saw the light. I’m not talking about the younger crowd. Of course, they were in favor of organization, but I’m talking about the older, established ones. They said, “Look, this is the opportunity. We’ve got to do something. We’ve got to use our treasury, use our resources, even put some of those radicals on the payroll.”

The degree to which Franklin Roosevelt [FDR] was pro-labor is debatable, but certainly, he was more so than Herbert Hoover. The CIO would say to workers, “We have a friend in the White House, and he wants you to join a union.” They used that language. That wasn’t 100 percent true, but it was true to a degree.

They thought the time was ripe, and we better do it now or we won’t have a chance again. That was true, because decades later, or just even a decade or two later, once business figured out how to fight the unions and more conservative forces were in charge of the government, it became much more difficult. So this was a moment of opportunity, and the CIO said, “We have to seize that.”

Benjamin Y. Fong

What are the factors that led the Mine Workers to be the leading organization here?

Nelson Lichtenstein

The fact is that all over the world, and for more than a century, mine workers have been a core constituency in the labor movement, and often radical. Mine work is dangerous. You’re underground. Supervision is difficult. It’s not like there’s a foreman that’s over your shoulder. And in fact, the tradition is that the workers organize the work underground. And of course, if they stop work, it’s very hard to find strike breakers.

Miners all over the world have been radical. There had been militant and practically insurrectionary strikes in the United States since the 1870s, and they’re legendary. Blair Mountain was a pitched battle between the Mine Workers and the US Army in 1921. There’d been this long tradition. On the other hand, there are many, many coal mines, and they’re often run by the railroads. Winning higher wages also meant winning higher prices. So the Mine Workers were thinking in broad societal economic terms. They thought, “We have to reorganize the entire industry in order to make unionism work.”

Now, the second thing about the Mine Workers, and the specific problem that Lewis and others had, was the anti-unionism of the big steel companies. There were hundreds and hundreds of coal mines all over the place. But when it came to the steel industry, it was an oligopoly. There was just US Steel and Bethlehem, a few other giant firms. They’d always resisted unionization. These steel companies owned some coal mines themselves. They were called captive mines.

Even where the Mine Workers had been successful by 1935, and they had a big spur of organization in the early ’30s, they had been unable to organize the captive mines. Lewis thought the only way to organize the captive mines was to organize the entire steel industry. Steel was, at that time, one of the great industries of America. Really with auto, it was one of the two great industries.

If you’re going to organize the steel industry, that’s a big operation. You need lots of organizers, you need a whole new strategy to do that. And the Miners were the vanguard.

Benjamin Y. Fong

What was the relation to earlier efforts at industrial organization?

Nelson Lichtenstein

The Industrial Workers of the World [IWW] had been a radical inspiration to a generation of leftists who came of age in the ’30s. But I think the CIO leaders, and including the radicals as well, understood that the IWW strategy was limited.

To the IWW’s credit, they wanted to organize immigrants, women, farmworkers, people that AFL had ignored, and also do it on an industrial basis, meaning everyone in one factory or farm or mill, not just an elite stratum. They understood that. But on the other hand, the Industrial Workers of the World had officially, formally said, “We don’t want to sign contracts. We don’t want to create a big institution. That hampers us, becomes a burden on us. We’re against that.”

I think the CIO people, again, from the left to the right, said, “Well, no, we have a Wagner Act, which is based on the idea of having collective bargaining and signing legally enforceable contracts, and we’re going to do that.” I don’t think there’s any distinction between the most militant communist on this question and John L. Lewis.

Now you might question this, but here’s the defense of this institutional unionism. Consciousness is episodic. Today we have much union enthusiasm among Starbucks baristas and whatnot. In 1935, there was a lot of enthusiasm for the New Deal. There had been enthusiasm in 1919 for unions in many industries. So consciousness is episodic. It can rise to great, almost revolutionary heights.

But it also can ebb, it also can go down. You can have recessions; you can have repression, you can have the passage of time, and you can have labor turnover. What a union does, and a union that signs a collective bargaining contract, is that it freezes that consciousness in an institutional-legal form, so that in a period of recession or repression or just apathy, the union still exists. It’s still there. Now, maybe it’s run by bureaucrats or something, but it still exists. It doesn’t disappear. What had happened with the Industrial Workers of the World, and with many other unions that had been unable to form a contract, is that they disappeared. There’s something worse than a bad union, and that’s no union.

Benjamin Y. Fong

John L. Lewis was known as a pretty conservative guy in the ’20s. What accounts for his change in the 1930s?

Nelson Lichtenstein

Well, you’re right that in the ’20s he was a petty tyrant. There were opposition groups in the Mine Workers, and he fought them. He expelled communists and socialists in the 1920s. Not to defend the union autocracy, but if you are in an organization where you fear that its existence can be destroyed by an ill-advised strike or other activity, then you’re going to crack down. That was his view. He was aware of the fragility of the UMW.

Now, in the ’30s, he became a creative opportunist. He said, “This is my opportunity, I’ll take it.” One thing he did was that he got in touch with all the people who were expelled from the union earlier and he offered them jobs. He also was willing to hire communists and socialists because he knew they were good organizers. Lewis famously was asked at a press conference, “Hey, President Lewis, you’re hiring all these communists. What’s going on here? What are you?” And Lewis said, “Who gets the bird, the hunter or the dog?” In other words, I’m the hunter. The communists are the dogs. They’re organizing the workers, but they’re going to be organized into my organization.

He also understood that you had to have the state on your side. He understood that you couldn’t just have rank-and-file enthusiasm or radicalism. You had to have the state. Lewis had had this experience for decades of the National Guard coming in and breaking strikes, or some legislature passing anti-union laws. But he saw and expected that Roosevelt would be on the side of the union. In 1935, he famously gave something like $500,000 to the Roosevelt reelection campaign, which today is probably the equivalent of $10 million or more. In those days, that was a new thing. Famously, when Roosevelt did not come to the support of the CIO during the steel strike in 1937, Lewis denounced Roosevelt in a Labor Day speech. He said, “It ill-behooves one who has supped at labor’s table to curse with impartiality labor and its enemies when they’re locked in deadly embrace.”

Lewis expected FDR to be on the side of the unions. To a degree, while FDR was not always reliable, much of the state apparatus in the ’30s was indeed pro-union. And not just the National Labor Relations Board, which was full of liberals and radicals. There was also, for example, the La Follette investigation, a Senate committee on the violations of free speech and the rights of labor in 1937–39. It publicized the anti-union and illegal activities of corporations.

For a moment in world history, Lewis was an absolutely crucial figure. He would then, later on, become more marginal. But between 1933 and 1940, he was an extraordinarily important figure.



Benjamin Y. Fong

What happened in Flint in ’37?

Nelson Lichtenstein

Well, some might say it was a “spontaneous” action, but I will not use the word spontaneous. I want to say a quick word about spontaneity. I will not use it. I think all social historians should ban the word spontaneity. It does not exist. Nothing is spontaneous.

“Spontaneous” is a word that people who are on the outside use to explain something they can’t understand because they don’t know what’s going on inside, or that the upper class uses to explain what’s going on below. All social activity, whether radical or conservative, is part of a world of knowing, thinking and planning. There were groups of radicals, groups of unionists, who’d been fighting the foreman, fighting the company for months or years. Finally, in late 1936, early ’37, they said, “The only way we’re going to win is to have a sit-down strike.” From the point of view of a New York newspaper man, or even from that of John L. Lewis on top, it might appear spontaneous, but it wasn’t.

But when these sit-down strikes happened, Lewis, instead of repudiating them, supported them. The Wagner Act is passed in 1935, and it has a mechanism for holding elections, negotiations, and signing contracts. All the companies, and the Republican Party for that matter, were saying, “The Wagner Act is unconstitutional. We will not obey it.” So the sit-down strikes were, in a sense, designed to force the companies to obey the existing law as it was written. That was the rationale for it. “Okay, we will do something illegal, but that’s because you’re doing something illegal. And once you’ve stopped resisting unionization and resisting the Wagner Act, then we will cease our sit-down strikes.”

In auto, they began in a few plants in Detroit — and Atlanta! — but the center of the sit-down strike activity would be Flint, Michigan, which was where General Motors had its most important plants. At that time, General Motors was the model corporation, and the largest corporation, in the United States. It was both technologically and organizationally at the cutting edge. It was the corporation that was studied at every business school for fifty years. “You want to have a corporation? You want to be a successful businessman? Model yourself after General Motors.” The auto industry at the time was highly innovative. It had the excitement of Silicon Valley today. So the audacity of taking on General Motors and getting them to come to the table was really something dramatic and important, and everyone knew it.

In 1937, when you had a sit-down strike in the important motor building, Chevy Four in Flint, that stopped the entire corporation. Most workers at General Motors were not on strike. Most of them were sort of sitting at home and seeing what would happen. It was this militant minority who were in the plants and who displayed an enormous heroism and organization to sustain these sit-down strikes for six weeks, bringing in food, sometimes battling the police, etc.

Now, one of the crucial things was that, because of the mood of the country, the state of Michigan had elected a governor named Frank Murphy, who did not intervene to suppress the strike. That would’ve been the normal thing to happen, and that would happen later on. But it didn’t happen in 1937, in part because Murphy was pro-labor, in part because Roosevelt and Frances Perkins were saying, “Don’t do it.” Lewis himself dramatically would say, in a meeting with Murphy, “If you’re going to send in the National Guard to shoot up the plant, I will go to the factory, bear my breast, and you’ll have to kill me first.”

Well, that didn’t happen, and on February 11, 1937, in the governor’s office in Lansing, a contract was signed between the UAW [United Auto Workers] and General Motors. It was a very short contract, with few provisions. But the crucial thing was General Motors recognized the UAW, not as the exclusive representative of all the workers, but as a representative. And that gave the UAW a warrant to then organize everybody. And that’s what happened. They only had a few thousand members in February of 1937, but by September, they had upward of three hundred thousand and the majority of the General Motors workforce.

And after that, you got this enormous surge of unionism. One of the results of the General Motors sit-down strike, and the victory that the UAW won, was that very quickly thereafter, Myron Taylor, the head of US Steel, and John L. Lewis have a famous luncheon at the Willard Hotel in DC, and they basically agreed, “Okay, US Steel will recognize the Steel Workers Organizing Committee, basically on the same basis as UAW. Not with exclusive jurisdiction, but as a representative, and you have the right to organize in the plants.” This was the great breakthrough for the CIO. But its moment of victory would not last unchallenged for long.

Benjamin Y. Fong

Could you talk a bit more about the CIO’s steelworker organizing campaign?

Nelson Lichtenstein

Well, it is true that the decision to organize US Steel is made basically over lunch at the Willard Hotel. But in steel, there had been this history of organization going back decades. One of the things that the steel industry had done, because they’d had this experience with unionism and they didn’t like it, in early 1933, the steel companies formed company unions. These are organizations set up and funded by the company. They’re designed to include rank-and-file workers, but also some middle managers, superintendents, foreman, people of that sort.

In the mid-’30s, many of these company unions had a good deal of support from ordinary workers, but they were really controlled by the companies. Some said at the time, “These are just phony unions run by the bosses; to hell with them.” The communists had done that earlier on. But the strategy of the steelworkers union, which I think was the right one, was to say, “We want to go into the company unions and take them over,” which is what they did. Many of these company unions became locals of the Steel Workers Union.

Now, here’s what’s good about that. The management, in seeking to control the workforce and the company, would bring in levels of workers who otherwise would be excluded from the union, like foremen and certain kinds of specialists, people they viewed as loyal to the company. But once those company unions become locals of the Steelworkers, you have a denser and more extensive membership than in other places. Some of the company unions would become particularly militant Steel Workers locals later on.

But in general, the Steel Workers Organizing Committee [SWOC] is very authoritarian, run from the top. When it becomes the United Steel Workers of America, that continues. Compared to the autoworkers union, it’s considered very much a kind of top-down operation. And that’s true, but at the very bottom, there’s a lot going on that is not apparent in the newspaper headlines of that day.

Benjamin Y. Fong

What lesson do you draw from SWOC’s investment in taking over the company unions?

Nelson Lichtenstein

You go where the workers are. In electrical, they had fishing clubs. There were baseball teams. Wherever the workers are, that’s where you go. By the way, I would say that today, companies have learned that lesson. It used to be that these company unions were formed, even in the ’40s. Today it’s almost a cardinal rule: an anti-union company never creates an organization where workers could come together and talk among themselves. At Walmart, which I studied, there are not even company Walmart picnics.

Benjamin Y. Fong

Some historians have argued that the CIO constrained the radical consciousness that was awakening at that time. What do you make of that idea?

Nelson Lichtenstein

I think the history we’ve lived through subsequently demonstrates, through things like Occupy [Wall Street], that you can’t have a pure kind of consciousness. You need institutions. Capitalism is an authoritarian, hierarchical, organized system. I’m being a Leninist here. To counter that, you need another kind of organized, structured army. As C. Wright Mills said, trade union leaders mobilize discontent, and then they structure it.

I just think that that’s the lesson of labor history. Labor unions are not revolutionary organizations. They are designed to cut a deal. I’m not being cynical here, and I don’t think I’m being hostile to the most important liberatory expressions of the working class. But if you’re going to cut that deal, then you have to sort of abide by it. It’s just the nature of capitalism. So I think it would be an overstatement to say the CIO was designed to suppress radicalism.

Yes, there were expressions of radicalism all over the place, and sometimes, yes, they were suppressed, as in what Lewis did with the Chrysler workers. After General Motors won, Chrysler workers went out. While in General Motors, you might have had two or three thousand workers sitting down in the plant, at Chrysler, you had twenty-five thousand who sat down. Now, Chrysler also had a company union, which had empowered and brought into it a lot of levels of workers who were later excluded from the union, like foremen. Chrysler had a very powerful union, and they were having a sit-down strike in Detroit a month after the Flint sit-down.

Lewis basically told them, “Stop, this is too much. You’re going to get a contract. You have got to stop this massive sit-down strike,” which really was taking over the company. He used whatever power he had to stop that radicalism. There’s no doubt about that. But his argument was, “We have to cut a deal here, and if we go too far, then there’ll be a backlash.”

Benjamin Y. Fong

And there was backlash, and a stopping of the CIO’s forward momentum.

Nelson Lichtenstein

Right. In the fall of 1937, we had a recession, a severe recession, partly brought on by FDR’s failure to continue a kind of expansionary Keynesian program. But some people argue that there was also a kind of capital strike. “Okay, we’re not going to invest because the labor costs are too high, so we’re going to shut down some plants.”

Anyway, there’s a severe recession, and recessions make it difficult for unions to organize and grow, especially given the fact that there were not union shop contracts at this time. The new members who had just joined the union, some of them drifted away, and it was difficult to organize new workers. The strike in what’s called the Little Steel companies, that strike was defeated by the companies in the summer of 1937.

But then the war comes along, and by 1940, you begin to get a tremendous employment boom. A sort of second state intervention takes place in which the state is in the midst of this mobilization for war. Then later on, after Pearl Harbor, the companies and the state come back and say, “Okay, we will ensure, in return for a no-strike pledge, that the unions can gain members in the new war industries and that you’ll have a kind of modified form of union shop.” This means that a worker who is employed in an industry where the union exists, will have to join the union and pay dues. Or if they don’t, if they refuse to do it, they will lose their job.

That meant that all the unions did in fact increase their membership by about 50 percent during the war, AFL and CIO together. Partly because of the expansion of existing unions, but also there was this [National] War Labor Board, which had a mechanism for ensuring that unions were recognized in places like southern textiles or warehousing, which had been very resistant to unionism.

Now, it was kind of a Faustian bargain here, because the other side of it was that there was a no-strike pledge, and the strike is the union’s ultimate weapon. At the top level, where you’re dealing with wages, these were being controlled on a national level. But strikes are not just about gross wage levels. They’re also about the intimate, daily interaction between workers and their foremen over all sorts of grievances and problems in the shop. The right to have a strike, to curb the tyranny of a petty foreman or other supervisor, is very important.

Strikes did of course take place during World War II. They were called wildcat strikes or illegal strikes. But then both the government and union leaders would say, “No, no, stop. Go back to work. We’ve signed a no-strike pledge.” Well, that created a lot of internal tension, as well as systems of authority and even authoritarian structures of power, which would continue into the postwar period.

So it was a kind of Faustian bargain there. I would say, given our experience of the last forty to fifty years, where opposition to unionism has been so intransigent that the Faustian bargain — the side of it that said, “The union’s going to exist and grow” — looks like a little better part of the deal than it did, say, before Ronald Reagan.

Benjamin Y. Fong

How would you characterize the CIO’s legacy in confronting racial and ethnic divisions in the working class?

Nelson Lichtenstein

The answer is mixed, unquestionably. Now you have some unions, often run by the communists, that were progressive. One of the great things about the communist moment in American history is that they understood, very early on, really late ’20s and early ’30s, that there was a sizable black working class, and that you had to have unity of the races to really make fundamental progress. You can look at the communist-led unions, the ILWU [International Longshore and Warehouse Union, the food and tobacco workers. They’re exemplary, for the most part.

However, you can find all sorts of racists in other CIO unions. America is shot through with racism. The white working class in the 1930s was straightforwardly racist, even the better elements of it. Did you have integrated dances? No. Was social equality a practice? No. You can find all sorts of racism, from steel to auto, you name it.

But when it came to having an organization or certainly a strike, they said, “Well, wait a minute, you want to win? If the black workers are in the motor building, which is the most central thing in an auto company, making the motor blocks, or if the black workers are slitting the throats of the cattle, as they’re on the disassembly line in the packing house, I mean, you got to have black workers in your union. You can’t exclude them.”

One of the crucial moments in the CIO’s history came in 1941 during the Ford strike. Henry Ford had hired lots of black workers. He went to the black churches, and he thought they’d be loyal. And many were loyal. They were better jobs than you could get somewhere else. But during the strike, the autoworkers knew they had to get black workers involved. They got in touch with the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People] over the issue of black workers being strike breakers. But over the course of the strike, they convinced them not to be. There were lots of black workers in the Ford organization. By 1943, and really for many years after, the black workers were at the core of one of the most militant unions in the country. In Local 600, which had like eighty thousand workers at one point, it just became a cockpit of civil rights activism in the Midwest.

Benjamin Y. Fong

Walter Reuther emerged as the key CIO leader after the war. Could you describe his background and ascendance in the UAW and CIO?

Nelson Lichtenstein

Reuther came out of a German socialist family. He’d been sympathetic to the communists in the ’30s. He went to the Soviet Union and worked there for eighteen months. He then became a leader of the General Motors department of the UAW. He was very imaginative and brought around him a kind of socialist brain trust. He was very active in the war and was in favor of labor helping to run the defense industries in various ways. He had a famous plan for five hundred planes a day that would be run in a joint labor-management way.

While he was formally in favor of the no-strike pledge, he could see the damage this was doing. So in late 1945, he was very adamant about having a big strike at General Motors, which they did. It had a very progressive, advanced demand. It wasn’t just for more wages, but also to keep the price of General Motors cars stable so that you wouldn’t have an inflationary upheaval.

He was a dynamic figure, albeit linked eventually to anti-communism. But he was not a retrograde, not a conservative. He declared, “The UAW is the vanguard in America.” When he used that word “vanguard,” every radical wondered, “What, the Vanguard Party, you mean?” And in fact, that was what he meant, actually.

Philip Murray died in 1952, and Reuther became leader of the CIO. By that point, all the CIO leaders, and AFL too, were looking for a merger. They were looking to get back together. So there really wasn’t much to Reuther’s leadership of the CIO. It was basically preparing for the merger. By the ’50s, the AFL was growing, and it had more members than the CIO. Partly because companies liked the AFL, being not as radical as the CIO, but also because American capitalism was not going to have more and more auto plants and steel plants. We had retail, trucking, bakeries, and all sorts of other little industries where the AFL had always been. The AFL was really twice as big as the CIO by the mid-’50s. When the merger takes place, Reuther plays second fiddle to George Meany.

Reuther remains a kind of iconic, progressive figure. He has many of his own problems. He runs the UAW with, not exactly an iron hand, but a very effective autocratic hand. He always wins reelection by 99 percent of the vote. He’s trying to be progressive, but there’s the kind of iron cage of collective bargaining. It does have these structures, these legal structures. Reuther was imprisoned within it. In the book I wrote about him, I called Reuther a prisoner of the institutions he’d created. He welcomed the New Left, at least the early New Left, because he thought, “Oh, this is a new spirit of mobilization and activity.” But he was trapped within a world of Democratic Party politics in the 1960s, supportive of Lyndon B. Johnson’s war policy, and never really broke free from that. He died in 1970.

Benjamin Y. Fong

Do you think the CIO was too dependent on the Democratic Party?

Nelson Lichtenstein

Well, the state is important, and the CIO was right to understand you had to have the state on your side, or at least being neutral. But that can easily lead to a kind of dependence. There was a cult of Roosevelt, no doubt about it. And there was a kind of relation where the union political activity just consisted of giving money to Democrats. The Democratic Party, certainly back in the ’30s and ’40s, was a completely mixed bag because they had this huge southern reactionary, anti-labor, racist wing. And if you’re strengthening the Democratic Party, you’re strengthening that wing.

So some thought about a Labor Party. That was discussed and debated within lots of unions in the 1940s. Certainly the threat of having a Labor Party is a way of prodding the Democrats to be more to the left, at least the Northern Democrats. The problem is, and we see that today more so maybe even than in the ’40s, is that we have this terrible, first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system. We don’t have a parliamentary system. That’s really undemocratic, and it makes it really difficult to form labor parties. If we had a parliamentary system, I think we definitely would’ve had a Labor Party, as you had in Great Britain.

But yes, I think independent political action was another avenue that CIO leadership failed to explore. Reuther toyed around with it for a while, but basically, they didn’t explore that. Why didn’t they? It’s complicated, but it was a failure of nerve to a degree.

Benjamin Y. Fong

Any last words about the historical importance of the CIO?

Nelson Lichtenstein

This is what I’d say to twenty-two-year-old people who work at Amazon, REI, Starbucks, or some place like that. Don’t think that the people who created the great CIO unions eighty years ago were supermen or superwomen, somehow imbued with sophisticated radicalism. They were identical to you. There was hesitation. There was sitting around. There was fear. Don’t just think that this was a land of giants.

The labor movement has always grown in spurts. Long years of frustration, and then a breakthrough. You never know when that breakthrough is going to happen, and you have to be prepared for it.