Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

We recalled one senator last night, but there was a prior round of recall elections where another senator was recalled.

@Glenn: Interesting analysis, but I'm worried that you're overselling the positive effects of the recall. Yes, one state senate seat switched hands, and there was a large mobilization effort for the Democrats, but that doesn't change the fact that they lost the big event — and there are consequences for this. Now, other Republican politicians might think they can cut down on labor rights, and that even if there is a backlash, it won't be strong enough to make a difference. Also, this elevates Walker from being just a midwestern governor with some more radical policies to a strong leader and — gaaak — possibly even a potential Presidential candidate.

You want to look at politics as a war? Be my guest. But remember, in a war of all-out destruction, the more ruthless side is likely to win. And the Democrats will always be at a disadvantage here — both due to corporate money going to support the Republicans, and (perhaps even more so) the ability of the Republicans to leverage cynicism, division, and short-sighted self-interest into getting people to vote their way.

If organized labor (or other forms of social justice) is going to make a comeback, it's going to have to do so in a different way — by claiming the moral high ground, and being tenacious about defending it. And while there's much to criticize the Democratic establishment for in not doing this second part (I'm looking at you, Obama), attempting to use brute force to fight back will lose the first part. I actually think that public opinion was on the Democrats' side last year during and immediately after the protests — look at the results of the Ohio referendum, as well as 2011 public opinion polls against Walker — but when the recall movement started, people decided that this was just politics as usual and went back to their default positions. For me, the key stat from the election was that 60% of the population thought recalls should only be used in cases of misconduct — and those people voted for Walker 2-to-1. Instead of jumping to get rid of Walker right away, the union movement should have kept up the pressure on Walker, and then possibly reaped its rewards 3 years later.

Claiming the moral high ground sounds nice in theory, until one remembers that there's a few tens of billions of dollars' worth of media outlets bent on preventing that from happening via toxic framing tactics.

Although I can't stand Walker, recall was a bad idea. The point of a republic is that sometimes your representatives make unpopular choices. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong. Plenty of great policies that have gone down in history were unpopular in their time. While Walker, IMO, has been wrong in this instance, he should have been given the time to realize his vision for Wisconsin. That's what Wisconsin voted for.

Now, if the Department of Justice had interrupted his term by arresting him...that would have been wonderful. But I can't really support recall.

Also, while unions in general are great, why is making union dues mandatory a good thing? I'm not seeing the democracy there.

The same reason why the individual mandate is required in order to allow people with pre-existing conditions to get insurance. If people with PE Cs were allowed to get insurance, but the general population was not required, the business model for insurance collapses, as only sick people would get insurance, thus losing money.

By requiring union dues, there is a reduction of people who benefit from the unions without actually being in it.

And wisconsin, at least for the 2010 election, did not as a majority vote for walker, due to a really piddling voter turnout.

And frankly, I don't want to live in a wisconsin where the government thinks giving millions in tax breaks to companies (for the purpose of making jobs) who then shed workers. Nor do I want a place that allows Payday Lenders, which are legalized loan sharks, nor a purely anti-abortion wisconsin, nor a "abstinence is the only effective means of preventing pregnancy" wisconsin, nor a wisconsin in which our teachers get the shit end of the stick.

edited 6th Jun '12 11:18:08 PM by Enkufka

Walker's "vision for Wisconsin" is toxic, and whether or not the voters picked him is irrelevant in the face of the fact that his governorship has and will continue to consist of him stomping all over different groups of Wisconsinites. A recall is no less democratic than a simple election; both are simply expressions of your precious "will of the people."

As to union dues, I'm not strictly familiar with the concept, but I believe it has to do with how unions functions, and how making loopholes to allow one to not join the union renders the whole system inoperable. That is to say, you have a choice between "democracy" with terrible conditions and wages or a closed shop with something resembling basic human decency.

@Derelict: Wisconsin voted for him. A majority of Wisconsin voted for him. And, as this election proved, a majority of Wisconsin didn't want him gone. All the recall did was strengthened Walker's support.

The recall would only be the will of the people if it was a majority thing. It wasn't. In fact, it was largely a union movement. It was a minority deciding they didn't like the majority elected candidate. Which is counterproductive to the functioning of a government, bad though Walker's government may be.

If Walker's government is toxic (and I agree it is), then vote him out in three years. As it is, Wisconsin Democrats (mostly union leadership) made all of us look bad and strengthened Walker and the Republican cause, because they did something a majority of Wisconsin didn't actually want. Now, you can complain about how much money the Republicans spent campaigning, and you'd have a point. But at the end of the day, Wisconsites voted for a man that they at least didn't hate. Again.

About the union dues. That does make sense. However, some unions legitimately are corrupt. The oversight laws need to be much, much stricter. If you're going to make union dues mandatory, force the money to be spent on union infrastructure and nothing else. No campaign donations, no salaries above a certain point. Don't spend the money on anything but getting the workers higher pay. The Democrats, with a plethora of goals besides improving working-class salaries, are a misuse of union money.

edited 6th Jun '12 11:34:40 PM by Ultrayellow

In a year he's already done enough damage. Again, you can go on and on about democracy all day, but in the mean time there are real people being hurt by this government every day. Not only does Walker need to go now, but he really should never have been elected in the first place.

But you know what, a State stupid enough to elect Scott Walker not once but twice probably deserves whatever Hell on Earth his administration plans to create in Wisconsin.

As to unions, that isn't really the topic of the thread, but so long as corporations can donate to campaigns I cannot rightly support such a self-destructive idea as what you've proposed to do to unions.

It was largely a union movement because historically unions have had a very large presence in wisconsin.

And right now, Unions are the biggest donators to Democrats. The biggest donators to republicans are businesses. So unless you can tell me that you'd support keeping businesses from donating to politicians, then all you'd end up doing is hastening the destruction of unions, as they can't campaign for their causes, while the people that want them gone can.

Sometimes the best thing a union can do to strengthen itself is to use its power to influence policy.

Of course I'd like to keep businesses from donating to politics. Especially corporations. It's a massive conflict of interest. What kind of Democrat do you think I am?

I just try to be intellectually consistent, and the idea of condemning corporation donations while supporting donations taken without consent from poor workers seems...inconsistent. It doesn't sit right with me.

We should have a level playing field, not a high-powered corporations vs. unions showdown masquerading as a conflict of other principles. Unions take money from workers, allegedly to help them, and then they don't always do that. And then they wonder why support is dwindling?

Union support is dwindling primarily because the Republicans have been carrying out a very strong and very effective anti-union PR campaign for forty-odd years.

As to inconsistency, if you're referring to me, that's primarily because I take a very ends over means view of it all. Democracy is a means; the well-being of people is the end. Hence, "fairness in politics" is secondary to getting good policy in place, to me.

edited 7th Jun '12 12:04:10 AM by DerelictVessel

@ Derelict Vessel: Well, actually, there were three state senators ousted in total, and as I noted in my post, I wasn't even expecting the steam to last this long in the first place.

Also, re "welfare queen", my point at the end of that paragraph was that we can't let them define us before we do. That was one of the examples of them defining us. If you think that it's not a good example to include, I can just get rid of it; it IS one of the more obnoxious examples.

@ Bokhura Barnes: Well, we haven't even gotten to the basics of waging war yet, let alone anything past that. I spent sub-essay 1 talking about working together and getting each others' back, and I think that's totally basic strategy, yet we haven't been doing it while they have. Simple stuff like that would go a long way.

And maybe I am overselling the effects. As I noted to my parents, this story will be out of the news in at most a week anyway. The polarization of the electorate doesn't seem to have meant greater participation—if anything I think there's even more sitting out by moderates and disaffected individuals.

@ Ultrayellow: I agree with you that the recall against Walker was probably a bad idea, especially given all the hiccups in our efforts. Then again, I wonder if recalling state senators alone would have done the job—alternatively, I wonder if the presence of the Walker recall helped John Lehman to his victory. It's pretty complex speculation but pretty much just speculation at this point.

I tend to take the pessimist's route. Is it impressive that any of this even happened? In a morbid way. It still wasn't enough, though, which is more important than the sentimentality of accomplishing small victories along the path to defeat.

Secondly, towards the welfare queen idea, I see. I don't know that you made your point clearly, then. Perhaps I simply misread.

As for fairness, playing dirty, and the high ground in politics: I'm personally fine with something like tarring Walker as being against safe drinking water just for supporting that mine. Yes, that's kinda dirty (no pun intended), but it IS effectively true, and it's not much different from the tactics the other side is using.

As for union membership: It does make sense that it's gradually declining with the shrinking of manufacturing in the U.S., and it's also changing due to the gradual shift to a service economy.

@GMH: It might have. Too late to know now, unfortunately. But yeah. I don't think people much liked the senators (or even really Walker, but he was more popular), they just opposed recall.

Oh well. Hopefully this'll be a lesson to the rest of Wisconsin, and have little impact on the country as a whole.

@Derelict: Pretty sure you mean ends over means there. Because your means are pretty bad.

Considering the rarity of recalls in general, yes, this was a pretty damn big deal.

And I edited that paragraph a bit. Tell me what you think of it.

Whoops. Typo.

As to whether my means are bad or not, perhaps. But so is letting the electorate hurt people in the name of democracy. Everything is relative, remember.

@Derelict Vessel: Um, no. The whole point of democracy is that whoever is in power might be wrong. By appealing to the people to choose their leaders, there is a way to hold politicians to account. This doesn't mean that the best possible government will come into power after any one given time, but that if the government does a bad job, there will be a way to get rid of it.

I think Walker is a terrible governor who will make Wisconsin a much worse place. But, you know what? I might be wrong. I think it's only fair that he is given the chance to lead, and if he truly is as bad as I think, there will be a good case for getting rid of him in three years. Meanwhile, I expect the other side to extend me the same courtesy when leaders I support come into power. As imperfect a process as this may be, it is much better than ideological warfare (see: the wars of religion, the French and Communist revolutions), which never is a good idea.

The fact that I may be wrong doesn't change the fact that allowing Scott Walker or anybody like him to do as they will in the interests of "democratic fairness" is a spectacularly dumb idea when real people's lives and livelihoods are on the line.

A good portion of the population would hold that opinion about Obama as well. How should we decide between these perspectives? In lieu of armed conflict between factions, letting the majority rule but having it subject to periodic checks on power sounds like a pretty good compromise.

Whose livelihood is Obama threatening? Either way, I simply do not agree. I don't do fairness in politics. I am an ideologue first, a partisan second, and a small-d democrat third. Furthermore, there is almost nothing about the Republican Party platform worth allowing to happen in any way, shape or form. Nearly all of it is abysmally terrible and harmful to most everyone who isn't rich.

A democratic system that is going to produce a terrible government is far worse than a non-democratic system that won't, all things being equal.

edited 7th Jun '12 7:43:30 AM by DerelictVessel

Perhaps it would be more productive to figure out ways to prevent people like Walker from gaining the support to be elected in the first place, rather than arguing about the best recipe for turning lemons into lemonade?

The Democrats have always had a branding problem. Winning the war on publicity would make other, more controversial battles unnecessary to fight in the first place.

I don't have much to add, except that this belief in one's own rightness fueled the leadership of political systems such as the Soviet Union or theocratic Iran. To avoid such outcomes, I guess I see a more positive role for doubt and humility in politics than you do. If this leads to sub-optimal governments temporarily taking control, then so be it.

edited 7th Jun '12 7:56:34 AM by BokhuraBurnes

The American electorate is convinced as a generality that the Republicans represent a valid alternative in terms of policy and politics. How can you wonder why I take a dim view of them?

EDIT: Misread.

And, it's probably easy to say that a terrible government is acceptable if it doesn't really affect you that much, but there are plenty of people out there who barely survive via programs the Republicans would gladly destroy if they could, not to mention all the people who die from Republican misuse of military resources.

edited 7th Jun '12 8:02:57 AM by DerelictVessel

In baseball, they call this "providing locker-room quotes." Keep them coming, and the Pinkertons might just make a comeback in WI (I'm hoping to snag an internship).