Organize the South

I'm a regular listener to My History Can Beat Up Your Politics, a history podcast put out by Bruce Carlson. Carlson is not a historian, he's a serious observer with good insight. He has a recent podcast on the election called Historic. The first half talks about what happened after the Civil War. If this country had stayed on the path to democracy instead of betraying Reconstruction, who knows where we would be today. Below is the description of Carlson's podcast. I recommend it highly.

Historic

This election is clearly historic. In this podcast we talk of course about the most obvious way: the first African American President. And how that achievement might have happened a long time ago but not for a turning point in history. But we also talk about the myriad ways this election is historic: the major event of a serious female contender for President, the 2nd female VP candidate and first Republican, an election during a war, an election during a recession, an election with no incumbent or veep, a high turnout election, a non 'anti-Washington' election, an election with incumbent party candidates who (once again in history) tried without success to run against the President, an election where money was king but not fatcat money as much as little money, an election where the polls were right, an election where a losing VP candidate (edwards) and a NYC mayor didn't win..but a man unknown to most four years ago, became President - elect, something it appears Americans may like to do. So many ways 2008 is historic, and a great data point for future elections to be judged by. For historical political observers, it's like a nice piece of steak to dive into.

Below is an AP story on Athens Congressman Rep. Paul Broun warning the people of the US to fear (wait for it...) an Obama dictatorship. Seriously. Check out the first paragraph where the AP talks about a "Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship." Yeah, fascism goes socialist. That's some deep thinking about the topic there, huh?

But what about Broun? Glad you asked. According to his website, Broun has sponsored such awesome legislation as constitutional amendments calling for castration for rapists, defining manrriage as between a man and woman, and that life begins with fertilization. I'm sure there's some sort of right-wing intellectual acrobatics that can convince people that a party dedicated to small government should have the right to define life, marriage, and cut your balls off. Instead, my favorite is HR 6783 which witholds federal funds from schools that permit or require the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or national anthem is anything other than English. Nothing says you hate fascism and/or marxism more than telling people you have to declare loyalty to a country in the language of the fatherland.

You know what else states a hatred of fascism? Coming out against torture. Does Rep. Broun support torture? I don't know. Steve and Angela Helwig asked him back in April 2008. He did vote against HR 952, the Torture Outsourcing Prevent Act.

Rep. Broun, if you really want to prevent an authoritarian dictatorship in the US then change your votes and stop worrying about Obama.

Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRxZox4GFoIweckPDP1oRhKBlHOwD94CDDM80

By BEN EVANS – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado in which he called for expanding the nation's foreign service.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

The Obama transition team declined to comment on Broun's remarks. But spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was referring in the speech to a proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure — an idea endorsed by the Bush administration.

Broun said he believes Obama would move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national security force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."

Dear Mr. Nader:

For the last 8 years you’ve pretty much shown you don’t care at all about social movements or justice. When you ran in 2000 I thought there might have been some possibility of you helping galvanize something at the grassroots. Your behavior then and after showed I was wrong.

I don’t mean you being a “spoiler” because that’s a straw man. You didn’t spoil the 200 election. Republicans stole and Gore gave it away. What I do mean is that you had a chance to build something and you passed. Have you yet shared your lists with the Green Party? Did you provide any help or substance in following up with the millions who did vote?

By itself these questions aren’t enough to lead to a letter like this. It is enough for me to not consider voting for you, or the Greens, again. It’s also enough for me to avoid watching you on TV, when I do get the chance to watch. By purposefully avoiding your image on the tube, and also by not turning it on much, I missed the interview you had on Fox “news” on election day. Remember that? You were asked about a comment you made to Fox “News” Radio. In that comment you said

“To put it very simply, he is our first African American president; or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he’s going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.”

You had every chance to backtrack on that quote. You were specifically asked by Shepard Smith- who came across to me like an arrogant, self-righteous ass- asked, “If that’s what you want your legacy to be?” You wiggled around a bit, but you never admitted that phrase was offensive. Or that it could even be possibly considered. Smith actually gave you an out. Remember this:

SHEPARD SMITH: I just wondered if, in hindsight, you wished you used a phrase other than ‘Uncle Tom’?

RALPH NADER: Not at all

Frankly, when you said that you came across as an arrogant, self-righteous ass. Also, you’re a white supremist dickhead. I think you know exactly what you said, you meant exactly what you said, and you said exactly what you wanted to say. Now I’m going to take a turn. Can you just be quiet?

It does feel pretty good.

Seriously, though, shut up.

This article is from Monthly Review, an excellent site you should check out ASAP. Early's piece is well written, comprehensive, and pulls no punches. Great work.

Puerto Rico's Teachers Show the Way: SEIU Learns the Meaning of "No"
by Steve Early
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/early241008.html

When last seen on the picket-line, Puerto Rican teachers were fighting their way through police barricades to appeal to fellow workers from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), at its lavishly funded convention in San Juan in June. (See "San Juan Showdown," CounterPunch, June 3, 2008.)

The message of the Federación de Maestros de Puerto Rico (FMPR) was simple: please stop SEIU President Andy Stern from colluding with the indicted governor of the island to replace FMPR with a "company union."

At SEIU's convention, only a handful of delegates dared to challenge Stern on this issue. When eight rank-and-file members from California tried to distribute a leaflet asking why the "top leadership has sided against the teachers of Puerto Rico in a gross case of 'colonial' unionism,'" SEIU staffers threatened several of them with reprisals. "They told us that this is a betrayal and that we could be suspended from the union if we continued handing out the fliers," delegate Brian Cruz, from Local 1021 in San Francisco, explained to the San Juan Star.

Most of the 3,000 delegates and guests simply cheered when Stern and SEIU vice-president Dennis Rivera, a native of Puerto Rico, introduced their good friend, Anibal Acevedo Vila, the Popular Democratic Party governor. Acevedo Vila is still awaiting trial on federal corruption charges and it was his administration that precipitated a ten-day, island-wide public school strike led by the FMPR last winter. As the Star reported June 3, SEIU used its convention and the governor's appearance to promote a rival organization, "which is hoping to become the new union representative for an estimated 42,000 public school teachers."

In the view of SEIU and Acevedo Vila, teachers needed a new SEIU-affiliated union because FMPR no longer had legal recognition after its walk-out over wages, classroom size, and the threat of privatization. This month, however, the teachers themselves disagreed that it was time for a change. By a margin of 18,123 to 14, 675, they voted on Thursday (10/23) against joining the SEIU-backed SPM (Sindicato Puertorriqueño de Maestros), which is closely aligned with another SEIU affiliate, the Asociación de Maestros de Puerto Rico, an organization of school principals and administrators.

The "Vote No" campaign was orchestrated by the FMPR which, as further punishment for its "illegal" strike, was denied a spot on the ballot. (FMPR was even barred from having observers at teacher polling places.) Prior to the start of the election, FMPR presented evidence to the labor relations commission showing that it still had voluntary financial support from 12,000 members (who have continued to pay union dues even though automatic deductions from all teachers' paychecks were discontinued when FMPR was "decertified"). Although SEIU favors "employee free choice" on the mainland and assured critics here there would be a multiple-choice ballot, Stern and his local allies limited Puerto Rican teachers to just one union option, which they then rejected.

The defeated SPM has almost no dues payers so SEIU had to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into this losing effort, much of it spent on advertising. As one FMPR supporter reported, SEIU had "paid staff at each school giving out free t-shirts and coolers and the media and the government were clearly in its favor but still they couldn't impose their union on us." FMPR activist Edgardo Alvelo, who teaches at a vocational school in Rio Piedras, estimates that his union spent only "$50,000 on the whole campaign." According to Alvelo, "that money was very hard to obtain, but it was enough to win. It was our people in the schools that did the job. Today, we are celebrating and tomorrow our struggle will continue in all our schools."

The representation vote turnout was extremely high. Of the 36,000 teachers eligible to participate due to their permanent status, 33,818 actually voted, with a thousand of those ballots being challenged or voided. FMPR now faces the task of continuing to function as what's called a "bona fide organization," under P.R. labor law. While still deprived of the full collective bargaining rights it had before the strike, FMPR retains a strong shop steward structure, the ability to represent members, and mobilize around educational policy issues and day-to-day job concerns.

FMPR supporters in New York, California, and elsewhere aided the successful "Vote No" campaign by raising money to help keep this militant independent union afloat. (For more information, see <mysite.verizon.net/vze2kxcd/fmprsupportcommitteenewyork/> or the FMPR's own website <fmprlucha.org>.) On October 14, some protested outside the Manhattan headquarters of United Healthcare Workers-East (the former SEIU/District 1199 long headed by Rivera), where they denounced Stern's raid on FMPR as an insult to New York hospital workers "proud history of fighting for justice and dignity."

During an August visit to the mountain community of Utuado, one FMPR Support Committee member, Judy Sheridan-Gonzalez, brought money that was collected for FMPR members disciplined for their union activity. A registered nurse in NYC, Sheridan-Gonzalez reports that:

The union, in collaboration with students and parents, had developed a progressive, inclusive curriculum that was extraordinarily successful. This collaborative structure was unilaterally dismantled by the government/school authority in 2007 and 17 teachers were suspended when they fought back. They stood firm even without an income and the class of 2008 in Utuado even dedicated their graduation speeches to these teachers. Their energy and commitment was inspiring and reminiscent of the spirit of U.S. unions in the 1930s and Puerto Rican labor in years past.

That same feisty spirit was on display in this month's island-wide union vote, which gave SEIU an expensive lesson in the meaning of "No."

---

Steve Early is a Boston-based labor journalist and the author of a forthcoming book for Monthly Review Press called Embedded With Organized Labor: Journalistic Reflections on the Class War at Home. He can be reached at <Lsupport@aol.com>.