Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair
In politics denial eventually leads to a harsh reckoning. For the labor movement Trump’s re-election may have finally shattered decades of illusion that unions had in the Democrats, who lost by running a campaign that ignored working class issues.
The realization is sinking in that labor is politically homeless, but what to do about it is less clear. In such moments there are dangers and opportunities; people are looking for leadership in a time of uncertainty and a scramble of political realignment is taking place.
The oligarchy and its demagogues will do their best to redirect this energy into the traditional dead ends while the labor movement has a real opportunity to create something powerful and new. But this window will stay open only so long before a new equilibrium emerges.
In other countries unions long ago built their own independent political homes with their own resources, but in the United States there are some union leaders — like Teamsters’ President Sean O’Brien — who are hoping to continue renting tiny attic rooms in the homes of their enemies.
O’Brien was astute enough to realize that Trump was likely to win, and he hedged his bets early by speaking at the Republican convention and then steering the Teamsters away from a Harris endorsement.
Then, interestingly, O’Brien released a recent op-ed where he urged Trump to nominate Lori Chavez-DeRemer for Labor Secretary. And the following day Trump announced her nomination.
It was odd enough that O’Brien became suddenly interested in an obscure one-term Oregon congresswoman who just lost her reelection bid. One could speculate that Trump gave O’Brien a heads-up about his pick in order for O’Brien to overstate her pro-labor credentials, allowing the illusion that Trump was listening to labor while allowing O’Brien the illusion that he was a political king maker.
Perhaps the most absurd statement in O’Brien’s op-ed was:
“Rep. Lori. Chavez-DeRemer is the exact type of champion for the American worker that Republicans should get behind if they are serious about becoming the working-class party.”
Believing that the Republicans could transform themselves into “becoming the working-class party” is as foolish as thinking the Democrats could perform such a metamorphosis.
It’s true that O’Brien’s praising of Trump will serve only to provide cover for Trump to implement many anti-worker policies, in the same way that union leaders praise Democrats who gave them 5 dollars on Monday — by walking a picket line — in order to take 50 on Wednesday — by breaking the national railroad strike.
It’s also true that a “pro union” Labor Secretary has been used in the past to shield against anti-worker agendas, most famously when Clinton brought pro-union Robert Reich on board only to break unions with NAFTA.
O’Brien’s political shift reflects the truth that decades of union investment in the Democrats has resulted in a slow death for the labor movement. And the money flowed heavily this year: In March it was announced that SEIU would spend $200 million to re-elect Biden (Harris). Other unions also donated obscene amounts of their members’ money, all flushed down the toilet, once again.
Spending workers’ money on the candidates of the oligarchy while these same union members are experiencing a generational cost of living crisis does not endure members to their union leadership. Trump’s reelection has shattered this strategy.
Both Democrats and Republicans are dominated by billionaire oligarchs, who utter the occasional pro-labor rhetoric to keep union money flowing and the opposition silent. The two-party shift away from unions is a decades-long project that has mirrored giant increases in inequality: union cash is simply not needed when a handful of billionaires can outspend the entire labor movement. This process was outlined well in the book ‘Where Have All the Democrats Gone?’ [spoiler: they went into the pockets of the rich].
A Time of Populist Demagogues
It’s true that the Democrats and Republicans are shifting wildly in response to the changing political-economic landscape, but both are going in directions opposite to the working class, relying more and more on billionaire donors like Elon Musk that brag openly about being anti-union.
In order to hide their connections to the ruling class Democrats and Republicans alike increasingly resort to anti-establishment rhetoric that Trump is currently best at.
But a similar demagoguery occurs on the left, where people like Bernie Sanders do their best to give a populist sheen to his party of the oligarchy.
Bernie played an important role in the re-election of Trump by giving Biden a very early endorsement, which crucially allowed the Democrats to skirt their own primary process that might have saved them from the disaster of Biden stepping down late into the campaign.
After Bernie endorsed Biden and then Kamala — with apparently zero guarantees about what they would campaign on — Bernie seems to have gained some insight into the party he has long supported, saying recently about the election results:
“It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them…Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful Oligarchy which has so much economic and political power? Probably not…In the coming weeks and months those of us concerned about grassroots democracy and economic justice need to have some very serious political discussions.”
Bernie’s election reflection asks us if a party controlled by the oligarchy can “take on the increasingly powerful oligarchy.” A better question might be: will Bernie ever leave the Democrat Party orbit? Probably not. He’s had similar epiphanies before, but when asked recently if his comments hinted at him starting a 3rd party he said “not at this time.”
Bernie won’t form a 3rd party but there are many other demagogues realizing that the two party system is unfixable, and after Trump flops for a 2nd time the terrain will be wide open to alternatives. Most of these efforts will intend to steer energy back into the two parties, while others will be led by libertarians or other ideologies that cannot prioritize the needs of the working class.
A real opportunity exists for labor to finally organize independently by putting forth a political program that highlights the vast difference between what is being offered currently and what is desperately needed. A serious and well-resourced party could immediately gain the allegiance of tens of millions of working people.
Labor to the Rescue?
This is a critical moment. New organizing opportunities are opening up and various groups will seek to exploit it. Resources will be dedicated to “alternative” political projects that compete for the resources and time of those fed up with the status-quo. Labor can and must compete in this political footrace. But if the seeds aren’t planted soon, the oligarchy will re-establish dominance over the terrain, redirecting labor resources back into ruling class pockets.
One union, the UE (United Electrical Workers), announced on November 6th a call for the labor movement to form a Labor Party. The statement made several important points, emphasizing the need for a militant response to what promises to be an anti-worker Trump administration, while arguing the urgent need to build political independence:
“This election has demonstrated, once again, that the current two-party system is incapable of uniting working people around a vision for progress. We reiterate the position taken by UE’s General Executive Board in September: ‘Working people need an independent political organization to fight for our interests against the corrupt two-party system, and we call upon our locals and members, the rest of the labor movement, and our allies in other social movements to get serious about building a true political alternative, a labor party that can unite and speak for the working class.’”
This is what real labor leadership looks like, and it will take union activists within Labor Notes and the DSA and labor locals across the country to amplify this message and lay the organizational foundations to make it a reality. A labor movement-wide discussion must begin now.
The last serious attempt to build a labor party occurred in the 1990’s, which had some successes in gathering mass support from unions across the country. The effort failed, however, due to some unions being too attached to the Democrats, i.e. being unwilling to support labor candidates if they faced Democrats. This obstacle remains but it’s been reduced to a speed bump, since the New Deal-era Democrats have been replaced by the oligarchs of Wall Street, Big Tech, Big Pharma and Big War.
Trump’s election showed that the public wants an anti-establishment figure. Once Trump implements his pro-establishment policies a real alternative will be sought, and labor must be ready to seize this moment by preparing for it now.
And while it’s difficult to build any political party — especially one in a two-party system — history has many examples of this exact thing happening when society comes to a crossroad. There is no better example than the election of Abraham Lincoln, who won the Presidency running as a Republican — a party that was born five years earlier to take advantage of the political crisis that had undermined the existing two-party system. Just as the Republicans destroyed the Whig Party a determined labor party could easily deliver a knockout blow to either Republicans or Democrats.
A Non-Political Labor Movement is Not an Option
Some labor activists have adopted a “pox on both houses” approach to politics as they advocate a form of non-political militant unionism. While a step in the right direction, the reality is that unionism is inherently political, and labor will be driven back to either pox-ridden house when politics can no longer be ignored.
It is historically significant that unions have adopted a more militant stance in recent years, but this fledgling movement is still vulnerable, and while there have been some big victories they have been outpaced by defeats. Even the “historic” contracts that many unions have bargained in recent years have not kept up with the cost of living, i.e. members continue to get pay cuts (the true depth of the cost of living crisis has been minimized by politicians and union leaders alike).
Union leaders cannot keep the trust of their members while supporting either political party of the oligarchy, especially because events have forced the average union member to be politicized — they are paying attention to current events and resent being lied to about establishment politicians being called a “champion of the working class” by their union. These members also resent their tax dollars flowing to foreign wars and genocide while they struggle paying their rent or buying groceries.
This diseased dynamic can ultimately be cured by the political independence of the labor movement. Taking initial steps in this direction is becoming an urgent task for unions, and building a labor party has become a political necessity as part of a plan to defend the working class. There is simply no other plan to move the labor movement out of its political crisis and no better time like the present. Union activists across the country can help now by having their locals, caucuses and allied community groups endorse the UE’s call to action.
