Talkin’bout a General Strike in Wisconsin

What makes anyone think that Obama or Holder would side with workers (and Democrats at that) against both an established law and a nasty Republican. If he needs cover the Republican majority on the Supreme Court can be counted on to rule quickly and enthusisatically against the Wisconsin workers.

Both Obama and Holder have made it abundantly clear that they will consistently side with the stuffy, the Establishment and the Republican. This would be more of the same for the most conservative democrat in over a century (the comparison would be to either Grover Cleveland or to James Buchanan. Cleveland, of course, did send in troops to put down strikers.

I haven’t heard much active discussion of a general strike here in Madison, but the local Socialists (who have been at the Capitol day-in, day out, it’s worth noting) are putting up flyers and holding meetings promoting the idea.

I’d bet good money on one if Walker somehow pushes this anti-union provision through. The mood before the State Senate Dems took the legs off his plan last week was tense. People here are not going to take this lying down.

Honestly, I never thought I’d see that in America.

Meanwhile the actual rally is a well-oiled machine. Food and water are brought in regularly to those at the Capitol, which is continuously occupied. The infrastructure is coming together to keep this going as long as it takes, which is very heartening.

It’s also worth noting that a lot of the state apparatus is on the protesters’ side. The firefighters are really actively backing the protest, the city cops are sympathetic and have put out a general message of support for the protest, and the state patrol, who Walker is counting on as his Praetorian Guard, are at the Capitol now and very friendly to the protesters.

As you say, Ian, the feeling here is that the National Guard won’t follow an order to bust our collective heads. They’d be going after their friends and family; nobody’s afraid of that happening, quite frankly. That confidence could be a mistake, but I doubt it.

If Walker wants to break this up, I think he will need outside military help, (i.e., Obama’s help) to do it.

I doubt it. It’s far too radical a move for a man who by every indication is is a cautious incrementalist. That doesn’t mean he’ll support the Wisconsin unions politically; I don’t think he will, and he may successfully subvert them.

It’s illegal under posse comitatus to call out the military against US civilians. This law was intended to protect the South from suppression of the emergent system of segregation; it was ignored during the Pullman strike, so the Federal government may not feel bound by it.

We corvids are waiting.

I live a mile from the capitol in Madison. I have tried to follow both sides as close as I can, while being an outside observer/supporter. I believe both sides are too polarized for this to be simple. Walker has already threatened to start layoffs if the issue isn’t resolved by Friday (ie his way or the highway). The dems think they have compromised enough. The repug politician I listened to last night truly believes that stripping the collective bargaining is solely a fiscal measure. He dismissed the loss of right to work and a few other gems, such as selling the power companies without legislative approval, etc. So they are drinking the Walker kool-aid, poisonous as it may be, no doubt seasoned by the Koch family.
TL:DR; I don’t see any other result, workers will push to general strike, Walker will use all his cards, he already threatened National Guard before this even started.

Gene Sharp’s Non-Violent Methods of Protest and Persuasion:

#117: General Strike

#196: Civil disobedience of “neutral” laws

If this post is anyway near true, the last thing you want in your country is an army that produces this:

http://my.firedoglake.com/jimwhite/2011/02/22/petraeus-spox-smith-lie-again-when-confronted-with-afghan-civilian-deaths-injuries/

This army and its leadership have become unhinged berserk. They are a peril to democracy, knowing no civil or moral constraint. This army and its leadership as with mad dogs must be destroyed for the public welfare.

Notorious P.A.T. writes:

Yeah, why do they need a union? It’s not like their boss is going to demand they cut pay and benefits to pay for cutting the rich’s taxes or anything.

It’s not like they replace government workers with contract workers, either. As in “people who work for a company whose boss has an in with the government”. There are plenty of reasons for government workers to have unions, including benefits administration.

The Raven writes:

[posse comitatus] was ignored during the Pullman strike, so the Federal government may not feel bound by it.

I don’t know if it could be said they ignored it, but in 1967 President Johnson sent federal troops (the 82nd Airborne) into Detroit to control the riots. According to Wikipedia, the justification was that this was an insurrection. That seems like a rather transparent excuse to me, but no one ever went to jail over that one.

I think we can say that if enough of the right people are willing to ignore the issue, posse comitatus is not a problem.

What solution do you propose?

Why would I give that away for free? You want to pay me what the Big Boys at Goldman Sachs earned, I’ll give you a solution…..and I promise it will be ten times better than the deal you got from Goldman Sachs.

Seriously though, your obvious implication is that Unions are the best and only option, and if that’s your stance, good luck with that. I’m betting Unions go the way of the Dodo Bird, and you’ll be dragged down in the mud with it rather than confronting the real systemic issues when you had the chance. Instead, you taunt those who indicate that you may well be missing the road signs and are heading down a path to pure hell.

Plus, it’s an overdone, overwrought debating tactic to say “what solution do you propose.” Try to be original, at least, rather than parroting blog forum lingo.

I think it’s backwards to ask why public servants were “allowed” to unionize.

You quoted the word “allowed” as though the counter to your argument, a Strawman if you wish, used the word. I know I didn’t use it, or imply the use of it.

However, I’ll play the Strawman and contend that it is insanity to collectively bargain against yourself.

As a poster said up thread, or in the thread preceding this one, make remuneration and benefits equal for all, and there is no longer any insane notion of collectively bargaining against yourself for a quality of life that just gets worse as time goes on.

I think it would take a great deal more than that to minimize the consequences of the inevitable crash of this Ozzy Osbourne Identity Crazy Train, but it still has merit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MLp7YNTznE&feature=related

Would be interesting to find out, wouldn’t it? Would… clarify matters.

yes, it would. it sure would.

Oh, and unjust laws are meant to be broken.

right on!

.

“[posse comitatus] was ignored during the Pullman strike, so the Federal government may not feel bound by it….
I don’t know if it could be said they ignored it, but in 1967 President Johnson sent federal troops (the 82nd Airborne) into Detroit to control the riots. According to Wikipedia, the justification was that this was an insurrection.”

As a legal matter, think of it as rock, paper, scissors. If use the military as federal policemen is rock, then it loses to Posse Comitatus’s paper which in turn loses to the Insurrection Act’s scissors. Insurrection is defined so broadly that it covers (or rather cuts) a LOT. Leaving aside natural disaster, epidemic, terrorist attack and the like…
“(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to–
…
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that–
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

In the Alabama desegregation case I mentioned above, it was Governor Wallace’s obstruction of a federal court order that authorized President Kennedy’s use of the federalized Alabama National Guard. As a political matter, I think President Obama is too risk-adverse to jump in with both feet on either side but if he chose to, he could easily come up with a laundry list of reasons to justify Insurrection Act authority to send the Army in on either side.

“…it’s an overdone, overwrought debating tactic to say “what solution do you propose.” Try to be original, at least, rather than parroting blog forum lingo.”

It’s an either arrogant or idiotic to dismiss an earnest question about what you real solutions might be. I have plenty of ideas about potential solutions to our current mess, some of which would probably get me locked away. Are you critiquing “trade-union mentality”? Maybe you are advocating for direct democracy (That would really be cutting out the middle man). Perhaps you believe we just need to vote the right people into office (good luck with that). You have offered nothing as an alternative. Unions, even public-sector unions, serve an important function in our system, and if we get rid of them, then the transfer of wealth to the top accelerates even more rapidly. I would be perfectly happy to dispense with unions if we are replacing them with a totally different socio-political-economic system. Perhaps that is what you mean?

Thank you for an honest retort. As someone who has somewhat “unorthodox” political views myself, I understand the frustration when dealing with small-minded people or those who can’t see beyond the established paradigm. Sometimes it is hard to take the question “Well, what would you do?” seriously. Usually those questions are rhetorical, but even when they are, the people asking them are so ill-informed or unimaginative that answering them honestly can open up dialogue or shed light. Even “liberals” seem to have a very difficult time with radical answers to hard questions. Left-wing blogs seem to be way too sanitized sometimes. I think it is part of the gradual erosion of free speech. Even self-censorship serves the interest of the powerful.