SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
stock buybacks
Why Isn't the Harris-Trump Election Like the 1964 Johnson Landslide Over Goldwater?
The transformation of the Democratic Party from a working class party to one of prosperous elites can’t be ignored or wished away. It is one reason why this election is so close and why an extremist may capture the electoral college. But it doesn't have to be this way.
Oct 31, 2024
In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater, the Republican from Arizona, captured his party's presidential nomination and unabashedly conducted an extremist, right-wing campaign. He opposed civil rights legislation and New Deal social welfare programs. He implied a willingness to use nuclear weapons, saying he would give U.S. field commanders and the NATO Supreme Commander the freedom to launch them without presidential approval.
As Goldwater famously said in his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
The Johnson campaign exploited Goldwater’s extremism with what may be the most effective and chilling TV ad of all time.
If you watch the famous campaign ad, you’ll see a very young girl standing in a field, pulling petals off a daisy while counting them out one by one. Then, we hear the voice of a military commander (with a strong southern accent) doing a similar countdown that ends in a nuclear explosion which takes over the screen. The ad finishes with a voice-over, Lyndon Johnson offering a few pious words about love and peace. Johnson is never seen. Goldwater is never mentioned.
Lyndon Johnson crushed Goldwater 61.1 percent to 38.5, winning 486 electoral votes to 52.
This year’s election also features a self-declared extremist. Yet today, the presidential race is a toss-up. Trump’s extremism promotes lies about immigrants eating pets and the poisoning of our blood. Trump calls Democrats the enemy within and he praises those who stormed the capital on January 6th. And in total violation of the history of American electioneering, he continues to argue that the 2020 election was stolen from him. A vast majority of Republicans agree with him. Goldwater and his party of 1964 look like centrists in comparison.
Given Trump’s blatant extremism, how can the election be so close? Why isn’t Harris 20 points ahead? What is so different between now and 1964?
Hillary Clinton, in 2016, provided an explanation, shared by many, that about half of all Trump voters are bigots:
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it.
Voters are willing to elect Trump, the ultra-extremist, because he voices their fears about the rise of women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ communities. More than anything, they and Trump want to make America white again!
If that theory is correct, we’d expect white working-class voters to be very illiberal on those issues and to have become even more so over the last several decades. We tested that theory in my book, Wall Street’s War on Workers, tracking 23 divisive social issues questions found in long-term voter surveys. It turns out that in 13 of the questions, the responses shifted in a more liberal direction over the years, and none of the 23 became more illiberal. Here are two stunning examples:
“Should gay or lesbian couples be legally permitted to adopt children?”
Said Yes in 2000: 38.2%
Said Yes in 2020: 76.0%
“Should legal status be granted to all illegal immigrants who have held jobs and paid taxes for at least 3 years and have not been convicted of any felony crimes?”
Said Yes in 2010: 32.1%
Said Yes in 2020: 61.8%
If the deplorable argument is wanting, as our research suggests, what is a better explanation for the enormous support Trump is receiving?
A disclaimer is in order. It’s impossible to address all the factors in one short article. But this question shouldn’t be ignored, so here goes.
Let’s start with trust in government. In 1964, an amazing 77 percent of Americans agreed that “they trust the government to do what is right just about always/most of the time.” In 2024 it was 22 percent.
That means the incumbent President in 1964, Lyndon Johnson, was viewed as the leader of a government that protected it’s people. Kamala Harris, as the current incumbent Vice-President, is mostly viewed as a leader of a government that is not protecting the average person. Harris is perceived as part of the establishment, the elites who have benefited during the years of runaway inequality, while Trump is perceived as its wrecking ball.
But that displeasure with government today suggests another set of explanations, including the collapse of unionization and the rise of job insecurity facing working people over the past four decades. More than 29 percent of the total U.S. workforce were union members in 1964. Add in their families and at last half of all Americans had close union connections. Today, 94 percent of all private sector workers are not in unions.
As a result, nearly all workers have had little or no protection against the mass layoffs that have regularly afflicted the country since the 1970s, even when the economy is prospering. During the Johnson years, the union ecosystem was so dense that Democratic politicians had no choice but to appeal to the interests of working people. They had to be the party of workers whether they liked it or not.
But starting with Bill Clinton, unions became small enough to ignore. Appealing to and appeasing Wall Street and corporate interests became central to the Democratic Party’s path to power. They wrongly believed that workers had no place else to turn.
And white workers, in particular, fled the Democrats. The research for my book strongly suggests that the main culprit was mass layoffs and the failure of the Democrats to address them.
Take Mingo County, West Virginia, with a population 25,000. It had 3,300 coal mining jobs in 1996. In that year Bill Clinton received 69.7 percent of the vote. By 2020, Mingo County had lost 3,000 of those coal mining jobs, and Joe Biden received only 13.9 percent.
Is this cherry-picking one country to make a point? No. For Wall Street’s War on Workers, we tested all the counties in the Blue Wall states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Our findings showed that as the county mass layoff rate went up, the Democratic vote declined. In short, the Democrats are being blamed for failing to protect working-class people from the destruction of their jobs. While working people may not know all the details about stock buybacks and leveraged buyouts, they know that Wall Street has been walking all over them and the Democrats have done little to stop them.
In discussing with my colleagues why this election is so different than 1964, one noted that the problem may be that Harris didn’t have enough time to mount a full campaign. But another jumped in and said, maybe she had too much time. Say what?
“She’s a corporate Democrat,” my colleague responded, meaning that the more Harris campaigns the more she sends that corporate-friendly signal to working-class voters. When they say she isn’t specific enough about her plans, they’re also saying she isn’t speaking directly enough to them about their issues.
The transformation of the Democratic Party from the party of the working class to the party of prosperous elites can’t be ignored or wished away. It is one reason why this election is so close and why an extremist may capture the electoral college. If Trump wins, he will surely wield his axe against government, and that is certain to negatively impact the most vulnerable among us.
It doesn’t have to be this way. My research and that of the Center for Working Class Politics show that a strong progressive populist message is very attractive to working people, especially in the Blue Wall states. It’s a damn shame that so many Democratic politicians can’t see the writing on the wall.Keep ReadingShow Less
Citing Glut of Stock Buybacks, US Lawmakers Demand Stellantis Uphold Contract With UAW
"We believe that if Stellantis can afford to spend over $8 billion this year on stock buybacks and dividends, it can live up to the contractual commitments it made to the UAW."
Oct 24, 2024
In what the United Auto Workers hailed as "a powerful show of solidarity," scores of U.S. lawmakers on Thursday sent letters to "Big Three" automaker Stellantis and its CEO, Carlos Tavares, urging them to honor their contractual obligation to their employees, protect American jobs, and stop making excuses amid record profits and multibillion-dollar stock buybacks and dividends.
"We are writing to express our growing concerns about the failure of Stellantis, under your leadership, to honor the commitments it made to the United Auto Workers (UAW) in last year's collective bargaining agreement," says one letter led by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and signed by 18 of their Democratic colleagues.
"We urge Stellantis not to renege on the promises it made to American autoworkers and to provide details on the timelines for these investments," the senators wrote.
Meanwhile, 56 members of the Congressional Labor Caucus led by Reps. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), and Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) sent a separate letter, this one to Stellantis' board of directors, calling on Chrysler's parent company to "follow through on promises to workers to invest in its domestic workforce."
"Given the significant governmental financial support for Stellantis over the years, we have become alarmed by a steady stream of reports indicating your plans to lay off auto workers and move production out of the United States, and that you are failing to honor contractual commitments that Stellantis made as part of the 2023 national collective bargaining agreement," the letter states.
Last November, UAW workers at the Big Three—GM, Ford, and Stellantis—ended a six-week "stand-up strike" and signed new contracts with better pay, benefits, and working conditions. Stellantis committed to making nearly $19 billion in new domestic investments, reopening its "indefinitely idled" Belvidere, Illinois plant, continue manufacturing the Dodge Durango SUV in Detroit through 2025, and build the next-generation Durango in the city starting in 2026, among other promises.
However, according to the senators' letter:
Stellantis is now delaying planned investments to reopen and expand the Belvidere assembly plant, leaving behind thousands of American workers who built the company into the auto giant it is today. We are also concerned with reporting that Stellantis is planning to move production of the next-generation Dodge Durango out of the United States, after previously announcing layoffs that threaten the economic security and well-being of thousands of autoworkers.
Moreover, Stellantis has stated publicly that it plans to source 80% of supply from "low-cost countries" like Mexico. By your own admission, Stellantis' growth plan hinges on shifting "industrial production into cost-competitive countries" like Mexico, where workers are making substandard wages. These actions violate the obligations Stellantis made to the UAW.
"Taxpayers are currently funding consumer incentives for several Stellantis vehicles and Stellantis is slated to receive $585 million under the Domestic Manufacturing Conversion Grant Program," the House lawmakers noted in their letter. "Under this program, Stellantis is on track to pocket $335 million to reopen the Belvidere Assembly plant in Belvidere, Illinois. As stewards of taxpayer funding, we have a responsibility to ensure these investments benefit the public interest."
"We hope it is clear to you that the American people will not tolerate taxpayer subsidies for a company that is cutting production and slashing jobs—all the while it increases executive compensation, dividends to shareholders, and stock buybacks," the letter adds.
The senators noted that "this year, Stellantis has spent over $8 billion on stock buybacks and dividends to benefit its wealthy executives and stockholders, and that "last year, while blue-collar auto workers in Belvidere were being laid off indefinitely, you were able to receive a 56% pay raise boosting your total compensation to $39.5 million, which made you the highest paid executive among traditional auto companies."
"During the first six months of this year, Stellantis has generated over $6 billion in profits, making it one of the most profitable auto companies in the world," the letter adds. "We believe that if Stellantis can afford to spend over $8 billion this year on stock buybacks and dividends, it can live up to the contractual commitments it made to the UAW."
Last week, the UAW published a powerful video in which union president Shawn Fain makes some of the same demands that are in the lawmakers' letters.
"For years, this company has picked us off, plant by plant, and our leadership lacked the will and the means to fight back," Fain said in the video. "Those days are over."
Fain continued:
Stellantis management has launched a campaign of intimidation and harassment against our members, our local unions, and the International UAW to try to get us to back down from the fight to save our jobs.
I have bad news for Stellantis: We're not going anywhere.
Their corporate lawyers are claiming that our fight to keep jobs in Belvedere, Detroit, and America is based on what they call "sham grievances."
But here's the real sham: Over the past nine weeks, Stellantis has spent over a billion dollars on stock buybacks, all while saying they can't afford to keep their commitments to their own employees. In fact, Stellantis has spent $3 billion on stock buybacks this year alone.
The real sham is this campaign of intimidation and interference in our union's business. Stellantis managers are calling members, threatening their jobs. They're emailing our local presidents threatening lawsuits. This is what happens when a CEO is cornered and isolated. His dealers in America and Europe are turning against him. His suppliers and shareholders are suing him, and he's pushing our customers away.
And the sham is that he will walk away with a golden parachute of millions and millions of dollars, while American autoworkers are left holding the bag.
"The sham took place this week when he was asked about stepping down or being replaced, Carlos Tavares said, and I quote, 'I signed a contract,'" Fain said. "Well, Carlos, the workers at Stellantis signed a contract too, and it's time for you to honor it."
Calling on UAW members to sign a strike authorization pledge over Stellantis' broken promises, Fain vowed that "we will once again save this company from mismanagement, from corporate greed, and from killing tens of thousands of good jobs."
"But only if we stick together," he stressed. "So, are you in? If you are, sign your strike authorization pledge today. And you can do that by going to shitcancarlos.com."
"Let the company know where you stand," Fain added. "And together, let's tell Stellantis: The days of plant closures are over, and Carlos Tavares needs to go."
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Pro-Worker October Surprise for the Democrats?
How about a Sovereign Wealth Fund for Workers? Harris needs to prove she has the guts to take on the powerful and truly protect working-class jobs and incomes.
Oct 24, 2024
With the election up for grabs and perhaps even slipping towards Trump, Kamala Harris needs an October surprise. What major last-minute events might tip the election her way?
Here are a few that could make news.
Cease-fire in Gaza? That certainly would help among young people and in Michigan, where voters of Arab descent are angry at the Biden administration. But there’s no way Bibi Netanyahu is going to help the Democrats. He wants Trump, who he can more easily manipulate.
Cease-fire in Ukraine? That certainly would help with the substantial number of voters who believe that endless war is a drain on American resources. But there’s no way Putin is going to help the Democrats. He wants Trump, who he can more easily manipulate.
What major last-minute events might tip the election her way?
Another Salacious Trump Revelation?Even if a video emerges with Arnold Palmer in Trump’s shower, it’s doubtful it would make a difference. When it comes to sex scandals or pining for loyal generals like Hitler’s, or even felony charges, there’re more than enough out there already, and they haven’t made much of a difference.
Or how about this...
A Sovereign Wealth Fund for Workers?Imagine that Kamala Harris appeared at a John Deere facility in the Midwest to highlight the company’s plan to move 1,000 jobs to Mexico, while at the same time awarding its shareholders with $12.2 billion in stock buybacks.
Standing In front of the plant gate Harris should say:
To create a meaningful opportunity economy, we must halt the needless layoffs of working people, the goal of which only is to enrich the rich.
On my first day in office, I will institute a new clause in every government contract: No taxpayer money shall be awarded to companies that layoff taxpayers.
If Deere wants to continue to serve as a government contractor, it will refrain from moving jobs out of the country.
Even in a booming economy, more than four million workers will be laid off this year. Many of those layoffs will be used to raise money for stock buybacks, jobs sacrificed to reward the largest shareholders and company executives. (Stock buybacks are a blatant form of stock manipulation – using the company’s money to buy back its own shares and thereby artificially raising the stock’s price. More layoffs, more money for stock buybacks.)
Therefore, also on my first day in office, I will call on Congress to establish a Sovereign Wealth Fund for Workers, which will provide wage insurance for laid off workers. The insurance will pay workers the difference between what they earned on the jobs they were laid off from and the new jobs they find.
The Fund will be financed by requiring that 10 percent of all stock buybacks go into the Sovereign Wealth Fund for Workers. In 2025 this would amount to $100 billion of stock shares.
On my watch, no longer will working people experience downward mobility while the richest of the rich become even richer.
Wall Street, to be sure, will mercilessly attack her. How dare she prevent the wealthy from getting wealthier? How dare she protect the wages of the working class? Don’t the Democrats know who’s buttering their bread?
Wall Street, to be sure, will mercilessly attack her. How dare she prevent the wealthy from getting wealthier? How dare she protect the wages of the working class? Don’t the Democrats know who’s buttering their bread?
In response, Harris needs to prove she has the guts to take on the powerful and truly protect working-class jobs and incomes.
How about going on national television (or FOX News) and quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1936 Madison Square Garden speech:
[Wall Street] had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.
Now there’s an October surprise.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular