MacGillis notes that “labor’s foes like to note that states in the South and the West with ‘right to work’ laws restricting unions have successfully lured companies from the North or from abroad.” But, arguably, the low-wage “sunbelt” economic strategy has created a few islands of prosperity, while leaving much of the rural South stagnant in terms of development…

Greenwald writes that differences among liberals and progressives over whether to support the legislation come down to attitudes toward “corporatism.” “I’ve honestly never understood how anyone could think that Obama was going to bring about some sort of ‘new’ political approach or governing method when … what he practices — politically and substantively — is the Third Way, DLC, triangulating corporatism of the Clinton era, just re-packaged with some sleeker and more updated marketing.  At its core, it seeks to use government power not to regulate, but to benefit and even merge with, large corporate interests, both for political power (those corporate interests, in return, then fund the Party and its campaigns) and for policy ends.  It’s devoted to empowering large corporations, letting them always get what they want from government, and extracting, at best, some very modest concessions in return.”

The point, of course, is that the “mandate” embodied in the legislation amounts to a giveaway to the insurance companies. An appropriate response might be to raise the question of what else can be expected, given the makeup and character of the Democratic Party as presently constituted. Can a serious opposition to “corporatism” be expected when labor plays so minimal a role as but one of an agglomeration of narrow interests in a party dominated by white-collar, public-sector professionals?

I don’t know whether progressives are capable of the self-examination necessary to address this situation. Having lived through 40 years of backlash, have we no reason to question whether the Obama victory really is the harbinger of a political realignment driven by Hispanics and younger voters?  Don’t we see a pattern running back to the Carter and Clinton presidencies, in which the public does indeed seek an alteration in power on occasion — but in which liberal  or progressive presidents find that conservatives have them by the throat, almost as soon as they are elected? Under business as usual, can there ever be a serious grass-roots opposition to “corporatism”? Won’t the right, with its mega-churches, “tea parties” and talk radio, always be far more of a grassroots phenomenon the progressive left as presently constituted? Can a serious response be formulated without addressing the secular-versus-religious component and the emphasis on issues such as abortion and gay marriage?

Some people appear to insist upon trying to build a “progressive” movement without organized labor. Maybe the possibility of a labor-based movement built around the economic question has indeed expired. The economic character of the country has changed, the economy is ever more oriented toward services, and the workforce is increasingly college-educated. As a consequence, the political system evolves in a direction in which both parties come to be dominated by affluent professionals — not exactly the kind of people who work at Wal-Mart. Under the circumstances, isn’t something like the emerging legislation the best we can expect on health care?

I see that over the weekend, Mickey Kaus has written on his blog: “The Wagner Act was written for an oligpolistic post-WWII economy, where layers of rigid work rules were seen as a positive triumph of benevolent bureaucratic precision.” I guess he fancies himself to be some sort of liberal or progressive — albeit with attitudes toward organized labor similar to those of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, more likely to support repeal of the Wagner Act than any form of “card-check” legislation. For comparison, just try googling “Jenkins” and “Wagner Act” at the domain online.wsj.com….

I follow Kaus regularly because he provides a helpful check-and-balance to liberal “conventional wisdom.”  At the same time, his pro-welfare-reform “liberalism” can be overbearing.  For instance, supposedly he wants immigration restricted so that wages will not be bid down. But if that’s what he wants, why support crack-the-whip welfare reform?

I’m sure there are dueling social-scientific studies to be cited, on either side of questions such as whether immigration bids down wages, or whether welfare reform has “worked.”  It may have “worked” in the sense of having made menial laborers more compliant.  But, what of whole panoply of policies advocated by Kaus — welfare “reform,” anti-card-check, anti-DREAM-Act, anti-”comprehensive”-immigration-reform. I suppose some of it will, at some level, contribute to a more smoothly functioning labor market?  But beyond that, will much more be achieved, other than rubbing poor people’s noses in the dirt? Just asking….

Stern’s answer: “Because American workers haven’t gotten a raise in a very long time. We’ve decoupled productivity from wages. And unions happen to be, despite what you think about them ideologically, a way to distribute wealth that doesn’t cost the government a dime. So if you’re looking for a disaggregated, nongovernmental way, conservatives should be for it.”

I suppose it’s a huge concession for him even to mention that this is “sad for workers.” Fundamentally, he’s a market-ideologue who views every departure from market-ideology as a scam. It’s true that there is overcapacity in global automobile manufacturing, so from a strictly economic perspective it would make the most sense to have all automobiles manufactured in the Japan-Korea-China region and simply shut down the entire industry in North America. I guess that’s what Jenkins wants, along with the repeal of the Wagner Act and the busting of the UAW.

You can’t get a hearing for the notion that a prosperous blue-collar workforce would be a good thing; it’s all their fault for having priced themselves out of the world market. Supposedly they should’ve taken the news that their “market value” had been cut in half, overnight as they were, with impunity.

Here’s what Robert Samuelson had to say about it just under a year ago, with a General Motors bankruptcy looming: “No one knows what further havoc a GM bankruptcy might inflict…. Why run these risks when the 6.5 percent unemployment rate seems headed toward 8 percent and almost a quarter of the 10 million jobless have been out of work for six months or longer? Just to satisfy a purist ‘free market’ ideal? It doesn’t make sense….”

You won’t get anything else but elaboration of the “purist ‘free market’ ideal” from Jenkins and his editorial page, of course. “We speak for free markets and free people … against confiscatory taxation and the ukases of kings and other collectivists.” Congratulations, unemployed NUMMI line workers; you’ve been lumped in with “kings and other collectivists.”…