Bleak choice for US unions

NO MATTER how long the Democratic primaries go on for, no matter who wins the Democratic nomination and no matter if a Democratic candidate wins the presidency in November, workers in the United States will not have had the chance to vote for a candidate that represents a party of labour in any presidential or congressional election.

Yes, various unions are backing Hillary Clinton and some are behind Barack Obama, while many backed John Edwards, who dropped out some time ago. But US unions are backing what they think is best on offer from a limited selection of pretty dire options.

Despite many attempts of different magnitudes in the last 100-odd years, there has never been a successful attempt at establishing a permanent US party of labour. The same is true of attempts to establish a mainstream but more full-blooded socialist party.

There have, though, been many pretenders these crowns. Most recently, the Labour Party (US) has been the main attempt to provide a party of labour. Although it was formed by several large unions in 1996, it remains small. It is unable to collect enough signatures to make it onto state election ballots.

Some would venture that it was stillborn, as it was unwilling to run local candidates, something necessary to establish itself as a political force, because this would have meant challenging the Democrats.

Aside from the US Labour Party, there are the usual plethora of far-left sectarian groups like the Progressive Labour Party, Socialist Party USA and the Socialist Labour Party. Where any left or labour-type parties manage to get on state election ballots, they do so in only a few states, so there is no national challenge for office.

The long and short of it is that workers and their unions have no party of labour, socialist or social democratic, to vote for. Vermont Senator Bernie Saunders, an independent socialist, sticks out like an oasis in a desert.

He began his political career in 1981 as mayor for Burlington, became a representative in Congress in 1990 and was elected to the Senate in 2006.
There are many reasons why the US lacks a party of labour.

The US version of the work ethic known as "the American dream" of working hard to own your own home, car and the like stresses individualism rather than collectivism and neoliberalism rather than welfare stateism.

The impact of widespread immigration to the US has also led to racial and religious divisions among workers. Meanwhile, rampant anti-communism has been used to smear labour unions as "Reds under the bed." On top of this, US nationalism in the form of imperialism and "we're No 1" has detracted from recognition of native class divides.

Finally, the exceptional strength of employers, which are allowed to act unfettered by the US state, has led to victimisation and violence against left-wing political activists.

All this leaves US workers and unions with a Catch-22 situation. Having no labour party has led some to try to create one, but their failure has meant that most trade unionists still look to the Democrats as the more viable form of labour representation. Frustration with the Democrats starts the circle once again.
In every election year, the dilemma of choosing who else should represent their interests becomes a more acute and immediate issue. Endless discussions then focus on which of existing options to vote for.

Since the 1930s, most unions have supported the Democrats through funding and political activism. This orientation was cemented by the relatively progressive and reforming eras of the New Deal under Franklin D Roosevelt and the "great society" of Lyndon B Johnson, who established minimal public health care.

However, some unions have supported the Republicans. Reagan was a union member and PATCO, the air traffic controllers' union that he bust in 1981, supported his earlier candidature for president in 1980, while the Teamsters in the present Hoffa (junior) era have supported Bush on some issues.

Today, many US workers will see the Democrats and Republicans as the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of neoliberalism.

Perhaps not so much, though, when candidates are on the stump soliciting votes by emphasising their differences.

Even the Democrats can seem relatively radical when they're trying to win votes. Back in January, Clinton, Obama and Edwards all backed the Employee Free Choice Act. Two of them have explicitly called for a bann on the permanent replacement of strikers.

But the experience of Democrats like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton once they've reached the White House has been very disappointing for unions.

Neither achieved their reforms of industrial relations and labour law - the debate still rages on whether this was their fault or whether blame lies with the opposition - and both further deregulated the economy, allowing a race to the bottom to take hold.

For these reasons and coming after two terms worth of Clinton, support grew for Green Party-backed candidate Ralph Nader in 2000. He seemed to promise genuine, progressive change. Of course, Nader took the blame for letting Bush in then and so now, with the chance of a Democrat winning in 2008, the claim of any progressive independent candidate is much weaker.

Where does this leave the workers? The unique absence of a US workers' party is only likely to be broken when massive social struggles erupt which unmask the Democrats, in a situation where workers have the confidence to see that they can build their own party. We await that day.

Gregor Gall is professor of industrial relations at the University of Hertfordshire centre for research in employment studies.