I haven't been writing as much for our blog as I like to, because of work, but I thought I would take some time to catch up with some events of significance, which the mass press has covered with the usual distortions.
Perhaps the most important is the Supreme Court's ruling against the class action suit brought by female employees of Wal-Mart, the largest employer in the U.S.
Women constitute around two thirds of Wal-Mart's employees and have less than one sixth of the managerial positions. The court ruled, 5-4 that there was no "pattern" of discrimination and the individual women who led the suit would have to take their cases against individual stores. In an age of national and transnational corporations like Wal-Mart, this is literally a return to the thinking of the 19th century, where Supreme Court legal decisions ignored facts and realities of situations to the point of using anti-trust laws against trade unions and refusing to use them against monopolies like the "Sugar Trust" which controlled 90% of sugar refining in the U.S.
The decision also undermines the fair employment provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent presidential directives for minorities(1965) and women (1967) to implement policies that came to be called affirmative action. Along with other decisions it shows how deeply the federal judiciary has been wounded by rightwing Republican appointments since Nixon was elected President. It also shows how both Carter and Clinton failed to offer an opposition to this trend.
Today President Obama is making better appointments, although the Republicans are doing their darndest to defeat them. But the only serious way to restore some balance to the federal judiciary would be to have an administration that would begin to do from the left what the Republicans have done and will do from the right--appoint militant progressives, labor, civil rights and civil liberties lawyers who would offer both an alternative and a deterrent to the Federalist Society appointees(like Chief Justice Roberts) who have poured into the Federal judiciary.
Actually, we do have an distinguished lawyers group that represents the political flip side of the Federalist Society--the National Lawyers Guild. Red-baited relentlessly from its inception, the Guild still functions. The idea that a progressive U.S. government would give use it as a sort of employment agency for the judiciary might sound revolutionary to some, but frankly, it would take actions like that for the Obama administration and the Democrats as a party to begin to roll back the Republican right.
And then there is the issue of corporate bonuses and "executive pay." Its all very much up as the banks hoard capital--an example of what has been the Obama administration's greatest failure. Reading through the maze I came across Bryan T. Moynihan, CEO of the Bank of America, rising star of finance capital over the last two decades even while finance capital's recklessness has led to disasters that have produced the "bailouts." Moynihan's record has been very mixed at the Bank, which received 45 billion in "bailout" public money, but he will receive a 9.5 million dollar bonus next year on top of a 95 million "base salary."
Capitalists love to denounce socialists for having no real theory of "value" but how is the value of a 95 million base salary calculated?
It would of course be possible for the government to establish "salary caps" and excess bonus" taxes for firms that receive public funds as a serious attempt to revive regulation. More importantly, the federal government could restructure the whole banking system in order to channel the flow of capital into productive enterprise.
Another story that has made the press concerns the "anti-war Republicans." Actually, those Republicans who are today criticizing President Obama's involvement in Afghanistan are not in any way remarkable. They are trying , regardles of their previous positions, to take advantage of what is a weakness of the administration. Richard Nixon did this in the 1968 presidential campaign when he promised to find a way, a "secret plan," out of the Vietnam War. Even George Wallace, running his racist campaign, talked about withdrawing from Vietnam. When a U.S. government associated with progresive policies or intentions involves itself in what are objectively neo-colonial adventures, regardless of who the enemy is, it has always suffered politically.
Finally, I have not been writing for the blog because I have been involved in intense labor struggles here in New Jersey, which have at this moment seen a huge defeat for Public Employees and labor as a whole, although the unions and peoples organizations are fighting back against a far right governor and a handful of Democratic party bosses who collaborated with him, since the great majority of Democrats opposed these anti-labor policies.
Steve Sweeny is the Democratic leader of the Senate who has a long history of baiting public employees. Without his collaboration, labor would not have suffered this defeat. Now Christie is moving against labor generally and progressive Democrats are seeking to move against both Sweeny and Christie. In response to this, Sweeny has been critical of Christie and yesterday , in a Christieesqe statement, saying that he would like to "punch him in the head."
It is a little late for that, but what has happened in New Jersey, which has a strong labor movement and many activie peoples organizations, shows why a mass based progressive party, which the Democrats in some places and at some times are, but never consistently, is necessary.
As for Sweeny, his comment reminded me of the famous Chicago Mayor, Big Bill Thompson, who in the 1920s sought to cover up his own malfeasance and appeal to Irish voters by threatening to punch the King of England in the nose if he came to Chicago. There was little chance of that happening and there is little chance of Sweeny either punching or seriously opposing Christie.
