The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom

50 years ago today Martin Luther King Jr. gave his monumental I have a dream speech. We rightfully commemorate this day as a high water mark in the civil-rights movement of the late 50’s and the 60’s. The best way to honor the march, the man and the speech is to seek a better understanding of them as they actually were.

I make the distinction between the way it is popularly contrived and the way it actually was, because much of the civil rights movement, with its greatest moments and leader being no exception, have been sealed in a tomb of idolatry crafted by aliens to the movement.

We celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. day every January 20^th, we teach our children about the civil rights movement in school, and we think upon the good works each in their neat little boxes kept carefully away from anything else.

The truth is that MLK had far more to say to us than just the promotion of equal rights for all, as did the march at which he made his famous speech. What we colloquially call “the march” was actually known as “the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom” and if you had not guessed from the name, the focus was not actually so much equality under the law but justice in the economy.

It was the brainchild of A. Phillip Randolph, a labor organizer who with the help of the Negro American Labor Council sought to hold many marches on Washington.

Protest stretched back to the March on Washington Movement, which Randolph initiated to protest employment discrimination during the Second World War, and it was renewed in the 1960s by the Negro American Labor Council, a nearly forgotten organization that Randolph and other black trade unionists formed to protest segregation and discrimination in organized labor. When Randolph and other trade unionists proposed a “March on Washington for Jobs,” however, they faced resistance from other black activists who feared that such mobilization would detract attention and resources away from the campaign that Martin Luther King and others were planning to protest segregation and legal discrimination in the South. Anna Arnold Hedgeman, a black feminist who had directed Randolph’s campaign against employment discrimination in the 1940s, convinced him to meet with King and plan a demonstration that could address “both the economic problems and civil rights.

Indeed it was these black union members who pulled it together, selling bus tickets and informing the community of the event. While the focus was on equal rights, without the efforts of the leftist labor movement, the march may very well have been just another forgotten protest.

This is one of the march's biggest lesson's I would argue. That without a preexisting social structure ready to do the work of organizing, major victories may be fewer and further between. 

The legacy of King himself is very similarly whitewashed. A radical pacifist in nature, King's core beliefs shown through within the "Dream" speech. He called upon the US to end its campaign in Vietnam.

The man who said that his dream of equality was "deeply rooted in the American Dream" also believed the American government, with what he saw as its weapons testing in Vietnam, was on par with "the Germans [who] tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe." In the same speech, King said that, if U.S. actions were to continue, "there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam."

King was derided in mainstream media for the negative attention he brought to the war effort and connecting it with civil rights. King knew though that the two were not so seperate. The same values that allowed for the mistreatment of American minorities allowed for the use of dehumanizing effects of war in Vietnam. 

When King died in Memphis, he was actually there to support striking sanitation workers. His leftist tendencies and willingness to speak out against the war was what led the FBI to track him day and night. 

We do not of course know why King was killed and I don't care to speculate, but it is true that dead men tell no tales. On this day of remembrance then the best we can do is seek a deeper understanding of what MLK Jr. and the march were really about. 

Dem's Moratorium Vote Pushes The Conversation/Policy Left

At the PA Democratic Party's summer state committee meeting, a resolution passed calling for a moratorium on fracking until health risks are known. This week Robert Vickers writes in his Patriot-News column about the divisions that move has caused in the party. 

If fracking supporters do that [make the case that fracking is safe scientifically and openly]- possibly as soon as Sept. 27 when the state committee next meets - he says moratorium forces would be willing to change their position. 

And that would make the 2014 election cycle much smoother for Democratic candidates wary of a natural gas industry knockout campaign contribution to their opponents.

The post, draws the conclusion that the division may lead to negative outcomes for Dems in 14'. I think understates the value that the divisions have.

Yes, Vickers is right that the move might make the energy industry uneasy about supporting candidates with a D next to their name after the resolution, but for the most part those party leaders are few and far between.

State Senator Jim Ferlo (D-Allegheny) has pushed for such a moratorium but it has minimal support in the legislature. None of the major Gubernatorial candidates support stopping of natural gas drilling. So what is the value of, as Vickers says a "toothless statements of intent"?

It serves to show that regular rank and file members of the party are not comfortable with the practice of fracking regardless of what their party leaders say and making that clear can have policy repercussions. 

Governor Corbett has largely let frackers run wild and minimized state authority over them, de juris and de facto. A new Democratic governor with abundant industry funding available to them may have to think twice now before acting.

The moratorium resolution has merit if nothing else, by telling party leaders that they better be listening to their base. A moratorium coming to pass is a highly unlikely outcome but by demanding it at the party level, the conversation inside the ascendant power shifts further to the left.

This should not be understated. Even though the Schwartz campaign others have taken pains to make their positions on fracking clear, "frack safetly and responsibly," there will continue to be room to the left of that. Fracking that is more safe (greater state and federal oversight) and more responsible (a substantial severance tax to help cover the practice's true cost). 

Some might argue that a push left may harm statewide prospects come election day, but given the actions of the candidates and the party's targets I am fairly skeptical. As I said before the Gubernatorial candidates have made their stance on fracking fairly clear and are already accepting donations. The Dem's wont take the house so then the focus is on the Senate. Arlen Platt in a comment to the the PA Independent told us what they see as in play.

“The game is in the southeast,” said Aren Platt, executive director for the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee. 

Even with a Republican-drawn redistricting plan working against Democrats, Platt said the demographic trends in the southeast — Montgomery County becoming steadily more Democratic, for example — were good signs for his candidates.

I'm betting that in the Southeast fracking is not a live or die issue.

It is important to remember that even Democratic politicians would not necessarily come to inhabit that space of the conversation on their own. Only a leftward push like this can take them there. 

Voting's High Information Cost

In the last post, The Problem with Independent Candidates, it was my goal to convey some of the issues with un-affiliated persons running for office.

This is the same reason why voters when choosing between two candidates in a general election should really just base their decision on the letter next to the name of the candidate; Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green or otherwise.

The reason for this can be summed up in the statement that a competition between party aligned candidates simply make values based voting decisions easier than if one of the competing candidates is un-affiliated.

It is important to note the statement's premise. That ease of choice when voting is valuable. That choosing a candidate is hard. 

It is difficult because voting is an activity with a high information cost. A voter who is interested in making an educated decision needs to take the time to read bios, news, and ads in a constantly changing landscape that is often marred by diversions and red herrings.

Even the most astute voter can spend hours pouring over the candidates and come away feeling like they are no better informed. It follows then, that the voter who has less time and energy to devote to establishing who he or she wants to commit to for that election would be even more lost.

Think about it this way; after a long shift at work John/Jane Q. comes home on a fall evening ahead of a coming election. He/she makes dinner, or tidy's up the place, or plays with the kids, or flips on the tube. Not particularly high on the list of things to do will likely be read up on candidate X's policy. That is understandable. 

Policy is complex, and to even begin to decide whether you like X's approach to things you have to know about that issue, where to get info on it and so on down the rabbit hole.

I am not advocating a "leave it to the experts approach". I am just acknowledging the reality that many people simply aren't aware of X's policies finer points for any number of reasons. 

One may say it is your civic duty to know, but we cannot be dismissive of the legitimate reasons why many citizens are unaware.

This is where the party system is helpful. For those many voters who are not in a position to know those finer points, or ever the basic ones in choosing one party or the other, a voter can be relatively certain in the choice that they are making of what the candidate they cast their ballot for supports. 

Democrats for instance would like to say that they have a proud history of responsibility to America's citizens in providing a safety net for those in need. Republicans would probably agree that they feel as though they are striving to protect citizens from what they might feel is government overreach.

In either case, a voter can be a little more certain of what they are getting when making their choice because of the letter next to the candidates name.

The social science supports this. 

Americans often like to believe that individuals are all on their own, but in fact when it comes to politics we usually act . . . as part of groups. Those groups tend to be affiliated with one or the other of our major political parties. And those parties, and the politicians that they elect, know it – and so elected officials tend to be especially responsive to the groups within their electoral coalition. So, for example, knowing that Barack Obama was a Democrat and that as organized groups gays and lesbians are aligned with the Democrats turned out to be a far better predictor of Obama’s position on marriage than, for example, what he actually said on the campaign trail in 2008. (Salon)

This is why I argue that when a candidate removes him or herself from the party system a voters choice can become more obscured. Emphasis added given that turnout is especially low in municipal races. Lower turnout, I would argue, leads to a further dearth of information for voters, even if they are tuned in. 

Philadelphia's Mayor Micheal Nutter once said that there is no Republican or Democratic way to fill a pothole. This is often people's opinion in municipal elections and it is easy to say and think as long as the GOP isn't competitive in cities. Nevertheless, it could be said that if there is an independent way to fill a pot hole, I don't know if many voters would know what that way would be.

The Problem with Independent Candidates

By this point I am sure everyone is aware that the petition challenge to Nevin Mindlin and Nathaniel Curtis was upheld and both were stricken from the ballot.

If you haven't, you can check it out here.

This strange twist of events really may not be as bad as it seems. While I don't want it to appear as though Democrats are dancing on the graves of challengers to the Democratic Candidate Eric Papenfuse, now is as good a time as any to point out that there are substantial issues with independent candidates.

Mindlin and Curtis both were very vocal about one thing in particular, that they have value because they do not hold a specific party affiliation.

Quote from the Mindlin Campaign: "Nevin will be a clear, post-partisan voice with a clear vision for everyone, free of any political party agendas or “special interest” platforms".

For starters, every "interest" is special. Transit riders, land developers, even suburbanites who undoubtedly have a stake in the matter too. They all have issues that are of value to them and to say you don't derive any of your ideas from them is just silly.

Maybe what is meant by this rhetorical device is that he wont cater to the special interests which conflict with his, and his supporters vision. Here is where I find independent's messages truly lacking. Because they choose not to affiliate with a party we are not better served in our understanding of what the candidate intends to do, but actually less.

To a Democrat, using the term special interest in a derogatory fashion implies corporate powerhouses. To a Republican it usually means labor groups. What does it mean to an independent? We can't easily know because they do not have the organizational history and track record that we could use establish that information that would have if they were part of a traditional party.

This point is only further clarified when we look at both candidates histories. 

Quote from PennLive on the Curtis Campaign: "Curtis's ballot party will be Curtis for Mayor. He also confirmed he switched from a registered Republican to an unaffiliated voter this year."

Mindlin as well ran as a Republican in 2009. Both "independents" likely had good reasons to be members of the Republican party previous to this municipal election cycle, but both dumped the affiliation knowing how anemic urban centers are to the GOP. 

Independents in short like to say they are not part of a party. They are part of a party, simply one with one member and a poorly defined and understood set of principles.

This is the same reason why voters when choosing between two candidates in a general election should really just base their decision on the letter next to the name of the candidate; Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green or otherwise.

Regardless of what people like to say about how they decide who they will be voting for, the best predictor is their previous party voting record. This is good for the candidates who receive insider information (such as how to fill out a petition of candidacy) and good for the voters who receive a clear choice, in this case liberal vs. conservative.

What Gets Lost in the Nuzzie Story

Last week a big story in the political news cycle was that of Olivia Nuzzi, the Anthony Wiener intern who decided that the job wasn't paying off, so she dished to the press about the campaign.

Nuzzie's actions were certainly motivated by self aggrandizement and may merit some scorn, but on several levels the response has been problematic. 

The immediate, literally visible, issue, is the sexist response her actions garnered. Nuzzie, indiscretion (or not) aside, has a credible history of aspiring professional campaign work and reporting. Her image from the front of thee Daily News clearly sexualizes her though. The response this all invoked on that front can be best summed up by Grist writer David Roberts's tweet on the matter;

This characterization of Nuzzi was exactly what the Wiener campaign was going for as. Barbra Morgan, the campaign's communications director said so. 

"Fucking slutbag. Nice fucking glamour shot on the cover of the Daily News. Man, see if you ever get a job in this town again.”

Morgan has since apologized and stated that she believed she was off the record when she made the statement, but never-the-less the comment reveals a quick jump sexist derision.  

The other response this has culled is a sort of lumping of this story with other stories about intern labor. It all goes in a pile labeled "intern revolt". The difficulty here is that  in lumping the two together the Nuzzi story can eclipse that of the stories about real issues with intern labor. The Nuzzi story subverts an important and progressing dialogue about labor justice for interns. 

The New York Observer ran an op-ed by former PA political operative James Genovese which emphasized everything wrong about with the Nuzzi focus and our attitudes toward intern labor.

"I get it. You love The West Wing and House of Cards. You even like the BBC House of Cards. You were the president of your school’s college Democrats or Republicans. You tweet like crazy and read Politico. You deserve to be taken seriously. Oh wait, you don’t. You don’t know shit. I love and admire volunteers but I ain’t trying to give them the keys to the castle. You don’t blow in the door and act like you know everything. You’re not the manager, you certainly aren’t the consultant and there are 1000 reasons why that’s the case."

While he is right that interns certainly don't know everything, the tone here puts their sole value in their unquestioning work. It devalues the actual possible contributions they could be making, ignores that internships are de juris expected to be educational experiences, and it emphasizes a culture of crushing the lowest man on the ladder. 

"Maybe I’m a throwback kind of guy, but when it was time to recruit volunteers, make phone calls and knock on doors I did what I was told, when I was told."

No one disagrees that interns should be provided with labor and work hard at it but the idea that it was really hard when I did it so suck it up, it should be really hard for you, does not help anyone. 

This kind of attitude deriding interns a bottom-feeders who can/should be pushed around is indicative of what we find acceptable further along in the work force. If we treat the lowest man this way, there is likely pressure on the guy in the middle to do so, and as I state earlier a culture allowing it to continue helps no one. Raising standards here would benefit all.  

But that is where the conversation is lost. Instead of focusing our attention on the wronged worker, in this case the intern, Genovese and others would have us focus on Nuzzi taking her side of a campaign train wreck to the press, something that is not a  problem even close to the magnitude abuse of intern labor is.