Tag Archive for: America First

America’s Union Agenda at a Crossroads

/by

The war for the soul of America is mirrored in the war for the soul of its major political parties. The establishment Democrats contend with a progressive insurgency, the establishment Republicans contend with a populist America First insurgency. And the bipartisan corporate glue that connects the establishment Democrats to the establishment Republicans means they have more in common with each other than with their respective insurgencies.

Polling and voting results indicate that more than nine out of ten registered Republicans consistently favor the America First policies ignited by Donald Trump. On the other hand, the loss of seats in the House of Representatives by Democrats this November suggests that most registered Democrats will support a Republican before they’ll support the Democratic Socialist agenda.

Both factors – that Republican voters overwhelmingly embrace America First principles and reject globalism, and that, at the least, a majority of Democratic voters apparently reject far-left ideology, makes the Democratic party the new primary home of the establishment, and hence more attractive to billionaire donors and corporate multi-nationals. America’s billionaires and boardroom titans also realize that it is easier to coopt a far-left agenda, particularly with respect to social issues where they can exploit the synergy between, for example, “diversity” mandates and open borders, or environmentalist mandates which disproportionately harm small emerging potential competitors. Hiding behind this moral rhetoric, they amass more profit and power. There is no such opportunistic synergy to be had with Republican “America First” voters, no inauthentic gambit to exploit, so of course the big money now goes to Democrats.

This begs the question: Which party now represents the American worker? The Democrats, which is now the party of billionaires? Or Republicans, whose voters have rejected the moneyed elites that used to run their party, and have attracted a rainbow coalition of working class voters?

Do America’s Unions Care About American Workers?

This question, which political party in America is more likely to implement policies that benefit the American worker, ought to be one of the very first preoccupations of America’s union leadership. For the past several decades, including this most recent election, 90 percent of political contributions from America’s unions went to support Democrats.

But why now? For the first time, ever, unions have a political alternative in the America First movement. For the first time, there is a movement, and an American president, who has successfully implemented policies that have benefit workers instead of investors; labor instead of capital. In core areas, immigration, trade and environmental policy, Trump’s actions have helped American workers. If union leaders did not notice, union workers did.

As reported in Politico last October, “despite a bevy of national union endorsements for Biden and years of what leaders call attacks on organized labor from the Trump administration, local officials in critical battleground states said support for Trump remains solid.”

There’s no doubt that growing union membership depends on a union-friendly labor secretary, and a union friendly majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump did none of those things, so why was he popular with unions?

Democratic strategists and liberal pundits would claim that union workers are won over by Trump’s alleged xenophobia, that they are anti-immigrant. This is a predictable and very convenient way of excusing what actually happened. As the multi-national corporate establishment wormed its way into controlling both political parties, U.S. policies increasingly harmed the American worker. The evidence is written across the decades. Offshoring jobs, importing cheap immigrant labor, and shutting down the economy in the name of protecting the environment. But why would unions stand for this?

Part of it is their historical ties to the Democratic party. Part of it, to be sure, is the Republican party’s commitment – albeit half-hearted – to right-to-work laws and in general to reining in the power of organized labor. But there’s much more to this picture. America’s union leadership knows that if the wages and benefits of the American worker improve because of government policies, instead of because of union negotiations and strikes, then unions will become irrelevant.

This hidden agenda may explain why unions won’t publicly admit that increasing the supply of labor lowers the value of labor, or that offshoring jobs – and shutting down coal mining and hydraulic fracking – destroys the lives and livelihoods of workers. All of that is true, but these hardships drive desperate workers to resort to the collective power of unions. The worse things get, the more workers will turn to a union.

How America’s Unions Could Help the America First Movement

The only way America’s union leadership will renounce this cynical calculation is if union members demand changes. There are two simple choices America’s union leadership have to make. First, are they fighting for the American worker, or are they fighting for all the workers in the world? Second, are they willing to shut down American jobs and American economic security in order to supposedly save the environment, or are they committed to a balanced approach that creates millions of jobs and trillions in additional GDP?

In both of these choices, unions in America are choosing between nationalism and globalism. But the moral case they might make for globalism is thin. It doesn’t benefit the rest of the world if America becomes such a hollow shell of an economy that it can no longer exert global leadership. It doesn’t benefit the vast majority of foreign workers if a small percentage of them migrate to the United States. It doesn’t help the ability of emerging economies, anywhere, if cheap and clean fossil fuel is not developed and used, everywhere. And it certainly doesn’t benefit anyone if the United States bans fossil fuel, but China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil, and every other demographic heavyweight nation on earth keeps on using it.

The point here is that the moral argument for globalism may be sound good at its core – we all want to see everyone on earth achieve prosperity as soon as possible – but its implementation is rotten. Globalism as it is envisioned today by corporate multinationals is nothing more than economic imperialism. The Left used to understand that. Perhaps the far left still does. But the establishment Democratic party either does not understand this or they understand it perfectly well but want the donations to keep pouring in from their corporate allies.

The good news for unions, if they’re willing to stand up for the American worker again, is that by embracing realistic restrictions on immigration and by supporting an approach to environmental policy that balances the needs of the planet with the needs of the workers they represent, they’re not making a moral compromise. The vast majority of workers in the rest of the world are indifferent to the fact that a minute percentage of them can or cannot emigrate to the U.S. The development of cheap and clean fossil fuel is an all-of-the-above energy strategy that will more rapidly lift everyone in the world out of poverty. In turn, that will slow population growth and ultimately help the environment. Soon enough, leapfrog technologies such as fusion energy will power the world, and the unwarranted panic over using fossil fuel will be forgotten.

Unions in the United States should reassess their political allegiances. Are they truly willing to continue to support a political party dominated by corporate globalists whose power and profits depend on reducing the standard of living of American citizens? Or will they demand America First policies on immigration, trade, and the environment? To do so would restore their credibility with their membership, and, given their not inconsiderable political clout, hasten the day when America’s politicians and political bureaucracies are again responsive to ordinary Americans.

This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.

 *   *   *

Will America’s Politically Disenfranchised Unite?

/by

By now most America First conservatives have recognized the common agenda of libertarians and progressives. They have significant differences, of course, for example, progressives are pro-union while libertarians prefer employee choice, but on most of the biggest issues their agendas now align.

This alliance, however, is a mismatch, for two reasons. First, because progressives have far more money and institutional power, and second, because progressives are serious, whereas libertarians tend to favor symbolic gestures.

The result of this is a one-sided alliance where the only time libertarians see elements of their policy agenda move from theory to reality is when it also serves the interests of progressives. For example, libertarians:

– Support “free movement of peoples” but can’t prevent expensive welfare programs that attract economic migrants.

– Support “free trade” but are indifferent to the impact that cheap foreign labor and foreign subsidies have on eliminating manufacturing jobs for Americans.

– Support the right to be a homeless drug addict, but can’t prevent government hand-outs which attracts more homeless drug addicts, or taxpayer subsidized developments to give them free housing.

– Support “upzoning” residential neighborhoods but don’t prevent developer subsidies or greenbelts that strangle the growth of cities.

– Oppose government funded infrastructure which stops new freeway construction or projects to increase the water supply, but can’t prevent subsidized rail transit projects or water rationing.

– Support the right of big tech platforms to censor free speech, with no apparent recognition that these companies have built monopolies and are manipulating public opinion.

The common thread in all these examples is that libertarians are unable to recognize that when only half of a principle they support is adopted, it makes only makes things worse. The other half of the principle of open borders is no welfare state. The other half of the principle of free trade is fair trade. The other half of the principle of personal freedom is personal responsibility. The principle of reducing zoning restrictions inside cities is to also reduce them outside of cities. And so on. Libertarians support the progressives where their principles supposedly align, but progressives take part one and ignore part two.

Progressives are using libertarians, and the libertarians still haven’t caught on. You will now find progressive “thought leaders” welcomed at conferences funded by libertarian billionaires. These progressives sit on panels where they expound on the virtues of open borders, free trade, urban planning, sentencing reform, and “free market” solutions to climate change. Libertarian attendees fill the conference rooms – at least they used to, before life in the age of COVID, and they will again – clucking with approval and deliriously happy to have found “common ground” with the cool kids.

And when libertarians get their turn to speak at these events, expect them to, for example, expound on the ability for anyone in America to build their own search engine, internet service provider, alternative internet backbone, and cell phone manufacturing plant, because that’s how we overcome censorship. Throughout this foray into fantasyland, progressives nod indulgently, thinking to themselves, why rock the boat? Of course Big Tech operates monopolies, and we don’t normally like monopolies. But Big Tech isn’t censoring us, they’re censoring them.

The negative consequences of libertarian naivete should be obvious. As noted, their think tanks and lobbyists skew policies in critical areas towards outcomes that favor the progressive agenda. And their candidates for office often spoil the prospects for Republican candidates, most recently in Georgia on November 3, where U.S. Senate candidate David Perdue, a Republican, fell 0.3 percent sort of a majority because Libertarian Shane Hazel snarfed up 2.3 percent of the vote. Anyone who thinks Perdue wouldn’t have picked up one in seven of the Hazel voters if Hazel had not been in the race is probably….a libertarian.

Trillions, Billions, Millions – The Money Trail

To properly understand what America First conservatives are up against, it’s important to follow the money. Progressives, collectively, have literally trillions at their disposal. Just the top ten richest individuals in America have a cumulative net worth of $974 billion. Review the list – Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg, Buffet, Ellison, Ballmer, Musk, Page, Brin, and three Waltons. Anyone there who isn’t a progressive? Maybe Musk. Maybe the Waltons, and then again, maybe not.

What about the biggest companies in America? Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson, JP Morgan, Visa, Procter & Gamble. How might the political leanings of these conglomerates be characterized? Hint – click on their names to have a look at their “Diversity & Inclusion” policies. Rarely have search results appeared so fast, or so consistently at the top.

Where there’s money, there’s also the urge to spend it: Think Zuckerberg, laying down $400 million to “get out the vote,” the Biden vote, in select cities in swing states. Zuckerberg can spend $400 million the way the most of us buy a cup of coffee. And then there’s Soros, Bloomberg, Steyer, and dozens of others willing to lay down millions, if not hundreds of millions, to steer public policy according to their will.

If the progressives now control trillion dollar chunks of American wealth, and they do, libertarians control billions. The libertarians that immediately comes to mind are Charles Koch and his late brother David, whose support of “right-wing” organizations earned them years of enmity from progressives. But the Kochs, and the organizations they funded, were never devoted to America First conservative ideology, they were devoted to globalism, and libertarianism, in that order.

That would explain why the Koch network withheld support for three Republican U.S. Senate candidates in 2018. One of them, Dean Heller, who was the incumbent U.S. Senator in Nevada, subsequently lost to Democrat Jacky Rosen, endangering the GOP’s razor thin majority. More recently, Charles Koch was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying “partisanship was a mistake.” That’s because the common ground libertarians have with progressives is now in the open. But the Koch money, and libertarian money in general, was never anywhere close to the scale of progressive wealth.

Last of all in line for money are the America First conservatives. As candidates, they will face progressives who will use their trillions to destroy them, as libertarians withhold their billions and at best, stand on the sidelines. If these America First conservative candidates are lucky, they’ll raise a few million, mostly from small individual donors. Very few wealthy individuals have been willing to step up. If it weren’t for the personal magnetism and powerful message of Donald Trump, and the populist movement he ignited, there wouldn’t be an America First movement. It would lack critical mass. It would be irrelevant.

Globalism Unites Libertarian and Progressive Elites

Before Donald Trump was president, before there was MAGA, before Americans realized their national sovereignty was at risk, it was easier for the elites to maintain the illusion of competition between Republicans and Democrats. Libertarians and progressives, for that matter, and especially at the grassroots, were far more focused on the issues where they disagreed. But then in came Trump, totally unexpected, terminating the Transpacific Partnership negotiations, withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords, increasing border security, approving the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines, demanding trade reciprocity, pressuring NATO allies to pull their weight, and standing up to China.

These actions threatened wealth. They threatened every trillion dollar and billion dollar interest group in America. They served notice, for the first time in decades, that the American people mattered more than America’s super rich. And with this, the progressive trillions and the libertarian billions found the ultimate common ground, their mutual commitment to globalism. But they may have grossly miscalculated.

Even if their preferred candidate, Joe Biden, takes office in January, his announced cabinet choices may have finally awakened the progressive grassroots. His appointees are a combination of Wall Street kingpins and Obama administration military interventionists – uniparty neocons wearing blue. His administration may be expected to resume exporting jobs, importing welfare recipients, and starting wars. Meanwhile his progressive policies on the environment will make housing and energy unaffordable across the nation, and his progressive polices on “system racism” will create more racial tension while solving absolutely nothing.

There is a possibility that a Biden presidency will split the progressive grassroots. Many of them will start to realize that Trump might not have been so bad after all. Some will look at Biden’s unabashedly corporate, globalist, neocon cabinet and have a Red Pill moment. They will realize that corporations are taking over the world and the privilege of American citizenship is not something to lightly discard. Others, and we are already seeing this, will be Hispanics and Blacks who will recognize that Biden’s globalism is a bigger threat to their upward mobility than Donald Trump’s MAGA movement, and they will join the growing number of Hispanics and Blacks who are already a big part of the America First grassroots. Their defection will realign America, and the America First wing of the Republican party will retake control of Congress in 2022 and Trump, or his handpicked successor, will win the presidential election in 2024.

This is the most benign of scenarios if Biden and his China beholden globalist gang take office, and it is not unlikely. But there are other possible outcomes. What is extremely unlikely is that the progressives in America unanimously accept a Biden presidency. It is possible the most toxic among them, the communists, the anarchists, and the hardcore BLM and Antifa militants, will reject the Biden regime as illegitimate, and intensify their violence with a clarified target – all corporate wealth, all federal power. And there is a possibility that the most hardcore among the American right, the militias, the Three Percenters, and others, will align with these progressive militants in an alliance against a common foe.

The corporate elites that circled the wagons and did everything they could to destroy Bernie Sanders in the primaries and Donald Trump in the general election have installed a president who is a transparent sham. They have shown everyone who is really in charge. That may be a miscalculation with historic consequences.

This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.

 *   *   *