The Price of Union

"In 1896 ... a man who stood for 'No Compromise' stampeded a Convention.... 'We beg no more,' said Bryan in his 'cross-of-gold' speech, 'we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them!' So did Goldwater defy them. But this was no way to hold together a continent-wide federation of varied interest, occupations, climates and habits of life. Bryan, who was at least a politician, tried to broaden his agrarian base and to capture the factoriy worker for his cause. He failed, and thus lost every northern state east of the Mississippi.

Goldwater never explained what his base was, aside from nostalgia and a bitterness against the compromises of life. So he could not broaden what he could not define, and was beaten far more cruelly than Bryan. But they were both beaten for the same reason: they both, in their rash enthusiasm, forgot that a successful American political party must be a non-ideological affair, accommodating many points of view .... Such parties should never allow themselves to feel, and preach, that the opposition is not only mistaken but wicked. Bryan did this. So did Goldwater, with his suggestion that the Democrats were sowing a form of moral decay throughout America.

The Democratic party was long handicapped by the bitterness consequent to 1896 .... Once, unhappily, both parties failed at the same time in their assuaging mission, both offering us 'a choice instead of an echo.' The result was the Civil War."

Herbert Agar, "The Price of Union"

Who's in control? The voters, or the unions?

Breaking news. Missing Wisconsin state senators found in Argentina

* * * * *

You all are wrong.

1. denying employees the opportunity to bargain collectively - probably overreaching. You might not agree with what they demand, but to say they can't even negotiate collectively? That's not fair play.

2. taking the ball and leaving the court because you can't have your way (and thus preventing the game from being played at all) - that's an "assault" on our democratic system. That's not fair play.

* * * * *

Once Rachel Maddow declared Wisconsin the "existential fight for the Democratic Party" is when I lumped her in the category of shrill horribles, right there with Glenn Beck.

* * * * *

Nobody seems to get is this concept called Rule of Law, and the legislative process. Did everyone fall asleep in Political Science 101 - American Government? Or did they all skip the foundation course and go straight for Political Science 321 - Political Rhetoric?

Just haphazardly mixing words like "fundamental right," "middle class," "common sense solution," into any argument might make it more persuasive if only for its visceral effect, however illogical it actually is.