It’s always refreshing to read about a man who reconsiders and challenges some of his own political views as he matures, in search of a greater truth. The world is not a simple place; politics tries to over-simplify the world in order to gain a certain end. Too often, political ends are served by means of twisting the truth. George McGovern, perhaps the most liberal presidential candidate of the past 80 years or so (lost to Nixon in a landslide in 1972), is trying to revive some of the greater truths. He has recently published three articles in the Wall Street Journal (of all places), which challenge doctrinaire liberal views (just when those views have come back into vogue thanks to Barack Obama).
Obviously the WSJ published these articles because they support its pro-business agenda. Has McGovern become a reactionary fascist in his old age? No, not really. He still supports President Obama and opposes US military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. But since he left politics in 1981, he has had some life experiences that allowed him to question whether big government is always the right answer to a social need. In his own words:
After leaving the Senate in 1981, I spent some time running a hotel. It was an eye-opening introduction to something most business operators are all-too familiar with — the difficulty of controlling costs and setting prices in a weak economy. Despite my trust in government, I would have been alarmed by an outsider taking control of basic management decisions that determine success or failure in a business where I had invested my life savings.
I believe that McGovern and I are fellow intellectual travelers. We both still see the need for governmental collectivism, as the best way to implement the human values that the free market discounts. But we also appreciate the dangers of too much government, the potential for it to stifle initiative and innovation, the question of whether government employees could ever gain enough information to find and implement the best solutions over large populations of individuals with greatly ranging needs. We’re both searching for middle ground; so we’re going both ways, taking conservative thinkers more seriously but still giving due respect to our liberal roots (while denying the call for “liberal solidarity” in the name of “the cause”).
So, here are some links:
Recent article about the evils of unionization via “card check”
Another thumbs-down view on card check
Article warning about too much government response to economic problems like sub-prime mortgage lending.
Also, here are some reactions by conservative bloggers to McGovern’s new view:
Outside the Beltway
American Thinker (which I read sometimes)
Enjoy it all, in an open-minded, non-political fashion!
Jim,
Having been raised in a house where John L. Lewis the leader of the United Mine Workers and of the CIO (way before “it” became the AFofL/CIO) was considered a saint of the first order by my father, I am sure he will likely be considering that once again his daughter has completely lost her mind.
However, somewhere in the 1980s (I think it was) I became disillusioned with labor unions and no longer considered them ipso facto the best thing since sliced bread for the working “man.”
One of my disillusions came with the Teamsters and what they did to their members–was it in the early 1980s? This was when Jimmy Hoffa still reigned supreme. They in effect denied to their own members the pensions they had earned–a massive injustice to the very people the union was established to protect.
As I proceeded thru the years, more and more of these types of cases/situations came up–i.e., where a union acted in its own instituional interests rather than in and/or for the interests of the people it was supposed to protect. Gradually, unions started losing members–is it any wonder? And gradually, I found myself thinking that much like many other institutions of our society (e.g., one that comes to mind is the RC Church, but it is not the only one), many of these institutions set up specifically for the good of individuals, over time, become immersed in the self-interest of the institution as an entity in its own right and not as an entity established for the good of others.
So, frankly, I find McGovern’s approach to the “card check” unionization approach, to say the least, refreshing. Once again here is a case where the unions are concerned not with the good of the individuals for whom their very existence came into being; but unions are immersed in what is good for the union as an institution.
I say I hope more people take heed of McGovern and his stance on this topic and that this “card check” initiative goes down the tubes.
MCS
Comment by MCS — May 9, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Jim,
Having been raised in a house where John L. Lewis the leader of the United Mine Workers and of the CIO (way before “it” became the AFofL/CIO) was considered a saint of the first order by my father, I am sure he will likely be considering that once again his daughter has completely lost her mind.
However, somewhere in the 1980s (I think it was) I became disillusioned with labor unions and no longer considered them ipso facto the best thing since sliced bread for the working “man.”
One of my disillusions came with the Teamsters and what they did to their members–was it in the early 1980s? This was when Jimmy Hoffa still reigned supreme. They in effect denied to their own members the pensions they had earned–a massive injustice to the very people the union was established to protect.
As I proceeded thru the years, more and more of these types of cases/situations came up–i.e., where a union acted in its own instituional interests rather than in and/or for the interests of the people it was supposed to protect. Gradually, unions started losing members–is it any wonder? And gradually, I found myself thinking that much like many other institutions of our society (e.g., one that comes to mind is the RC Church, but it is not the only one), many of these institutions set up specifically for the good of individuals, over time, become immersed in the self-interest of the institution as an entity in its own right and not as an entity established for the good of others.
So, frankly, I find McGovern’s approach to the “card check” unionization approach, to say the least, refreshing. Once again here is a case where the unions are concerned not with the good of the individuals for whom their very existence came into being; but unions are immersed in what is good for the union as an institution.
I say I hope more people take heed of McGovern and his stance on this topic and that this “card check” initiative goes down the tubes.
MCS
Comment by MCS — May 9, 2009 @ 2:54 pm