Subscribe via RSS Feed

Author Page for Erik Loomis

rss feed

Visit Erik Loomis's Website

The Risk to Romney

[ 40 ] May 9, 2012 | Erik Loomis

Certainly Obama took a political risk today, but Noam Scheiber succinctly sums up the bind this puts Romney in.

Now, a politician with more credibility among conservatives might be willing to take the hit to preserve his general-election prospects. Perhaps more importantly, such a person would get less heat from the right in the first place. But conservative cred is something that Romney distinctly lacks. It’s the reason he had to take a hard-line stance on immigration during the primaries, and to throw his arms around Paul Ryan. I’d guess it’s the reason he didn’t dissociate himself from a supporter intent on indicting the president for treason this week.

If George W. Bush were the GOP nominee, the response would be a no brainer: Continue to toe the party line when necessary but otherwise pretend the issue doesn’t exist. But Romney has no such luxury. Trying to minimize it will send barely-repressed conservative suspicions spewing forth like a geyser, while using gay marriage to shore up his bona fides will play pretty badly this fall. It’s a helluva dilemma. Kind of makes the president’s position look like a bit of a yawner.

I tend to agree with this. This is a minefield for Romney. Obama has taken a big stand and Americans tend to respond positively to strong statements of leadership. Romney can’t follow Obama but he really can’t unleash the hate either or he’ll lose the moderates. I think it’s a hell of a political calculation for Obama. And kudos to Biden for shoving him on it.

But a man like Willard Romney with such strong unmovable principles, I’m sure he’ll figure it out!

Also, Coates.

This Day in Labor History: May 9, 1934

[ 36 ] May 9, 2012 | Erik Loomis

On this date in 1934, longshoremen on the West Coast walked off their jobs, beginning of the largest strikes in the history of the region and helping feed the move toward industrial unionism that transformed American labor in the 1930s.

Labor relations on the docks of San Francisco were horrible. Employers established hiring halls in many cities but in San Francisco men had to come to the docks each morning and raise their hands in hope of getting chosen to work. The “shape-up” shamed workers, bringing out everyone who needed any kind of a job everyday, creating a huge labor surplus and lowering wages to nearly nothing. As labor historian Irving Bernstein said, “Aside from slavery itself, it is difficult to conceive of a more inhuman labor market mechanism than the shape-up.” The shape-up meant that the employer picked the workers every day, thus opening the door to kickbacks, favortism, and corruption. The workers despised the shape-up with every bone in their bodies.

It is also hard to overstate how difficult the labor of longshoremen was. Essentially, as a longshoremen, you carried and moved heavy items all day at incredible speed, which only increased with the advent of new technologies and “competitions” between crews that employers created, perhaps for their own sick amusement and certainly to increase profits. It was not uncommon for workers to drop dead on the job from exhaustion.

The leader of the strike was Harry Bridges. An Australian immigrant from a political family, Bridges took to the ships as a teenager. Arriving in the United States in 1920, he quickly became involved in labor work. In 1921, Bridges was in New Orleans during a maritime strike, where he joined the picket line, became a member of the Industrial Workers of the World, and was arrested. He left the ships in 1922 and settled in San Francisco to work on the docks. He married in 1924 and became a relatively consistent worker for the next 12 several years, although he was briefly blacklisted for his labor work. Bridges became a well-known radical among the longshoremen, publishing a newspaper he and his fellow radicals handed out to workers on the docks. In 1933, the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) began an effort to organize the San Francisco dockworkers and Bridges became a leader in that struggle. People debated for years whether Bridges was a paid communist agent, but he was certainly a radical who openly rejected capital and truly detested corporations. His willingness to work closely with communists would later cause him great problems but this bothered few longshoremen in the 1930s.

Harry Bridges

Bridges and other radicals began preparing for a major West Coast strike in 1934. Although the international leadership of the ILA was quite conservative, Bridges and his allies effectively outmaneuvered them to gain control of the workers by organizing on the ground; when the ILA negotiated an extremely weak agreement with employers, membership widely rejected it and Bridges vaulted to union-wide prominence. The union now had three essential demands: a union hiring hall, a closed shop, and a coastwide contract, as well as smaller demands like a pay hike. When the employers rejected the demands, longshoremen up and down the coast walked off their jobs on March 9, 1934. President Roosevelt tried to mediate the strike, but workers rejected two attempts, demanding full victory.

The center of the strike was the Bay Area and especially San Francisco. On May 15, 2 workers were killed by company thugs at San Pedro and violence occurred in Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, and Portland. Angered by the strikes, the companies decided to reopen the San Francisco port and committed to using violence to see it happen. On July 3, fights broke out between workers and policemen when businessmen driving trucks rammed through the picket lines to the docks. Although Independence Day was quiet, July 5 saw a shocking display of violence. Police attacked the strikers, firing tear gas into the picket lines and then leading a mounted charge of horsemen. Workers fought back with stones, forcing the cops to retreat. Three times the two sides battled, with no clear victors.

That afternoon, a cop fired a shotgun into the crowd at the strike kitchen, hitting 3 strikers, 2 of which died. One of the deaths was a striking longshoremen, the other an unemployed community member volunteering at the kitchen. The workers quickly reorganized around Bloody Thursday, using the martyrs as inspiration. That evening however, California governor Frank Merriam called in the National Guard to open the docks. In response, Harry Bridges called for a general strike. On July 14, the general strike began, notably including the Teamsters, whose notoriously pro-business corrupt president Dave Beck had been hated by the left for twenty years by this point. Beck opposed the general strike, but Bay Area locals walked out anyway.

The general strike lasted 4 days without violence. Support was broad in San Francisco. The strikers allowed food deliveries and many small businesses voluntarily shut down in support. The major downside of the general strike was that it took control over the longshoremen’s struggle away from the longshoremen themselves. Because the general strike was controlled by the local labor council and not Bridges, it meant that although the action was radical, the leadership became far more conservative. The General Strike Committee called the strike off on July 17 and recommended that workers accept arbitration. Bridges opposed this and that evening, the California National Guard and pro-business vigilante groups launched a frontal assault upon the ILA and its supporters. They blocked off major streets, arrested everyone they could find, destroyed the ILA faciltiies. One ACLU lawyer was severely beaten. In Hayward, a scaffold was constructed in front of City Hall that read “Reds Beware.”

The conservative General Strike committee and the vigilante crackdown forced the longshoremen back to work, but the aftermath and the arbitration proceedings turned out pretty well for them. Smaller strikes popped up all the time over workplace conditions and the employers began to grant many concessions. The arbitrator gave the ILA effective control over hiring, ending the shape-up, along with a 95 cent an hour pay increase, which was pretty huge for 1934. Harry Bridges became the most powerful labor leader on the West Coast and enemy #1 for capitalists. Because of his immigration status and communist ties, much of the rest of his life would be spent in legal battles. I’ll have a fuller post on Bridges later in this series, but he was expelled from the CIO in 1950 during the purges of the communists that destroyed the CIO’s effectiveness during the McCarthy Era. Also, in 1958, Bridges remarried, this time to a Japanese woman. They got married in Nevada specifically because it had an anti-miscegenation statute that they wanted to challenge.

This is the 25th post in this series which I guess is some kind of mild milestone. Other events I’ve covered include the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994 and the Haymarket Riot of 1886.

Hackthat

[ 45 ] May 9, 2012 | Erik Loomis

It’s hardly news that Douthat is an irredeemable hack, but this piece about Obama and gay marriage drove me crazy.

Indeed, if you accept the framing of the debate that many liberals (and many journalists) embrace, then you have to acknowledge that President Obama has spent the last four years lying to the American people about his convictions on one of the defining civil rights issues of our time, and giving aid and comfort to pure bigotry in the service of his other political priorities.

Well, if there’s anyone who knows about giving aid and comfort to bigots, it’s Ross Douthat!

The Real Lesson of North Carolina

[ 76 ] May 9, 2012 | Erik Loomis

Everyone is outraged that North Carolina denied marriage equality last night. And you should be. However, what I thought was most important last night was that 39% of North Carolina voters support marriage between gay people. And not just hot lesbians either, but men with their icky anal sex or whatever. I say that last sentence because so much of the animus toward gay people comes from men (usually) with their over the top revulsion toward two men having sex. Homophobia has been such a dominant part of American culture for centuries (although there have been times and places that have accepted LGBT people more than the standard narrative of oppression allows) that I am absolutely amazed, flabbergasted in fact, that 39% of the people in a conservative southern state would vote to support gay people getting married.

Moreover, it is getting better every day. The widespread acceptance of LGBT people among those under 40 means that the day of equality is coming. We can be angry about the majority of people from North Carolina but we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. And when you decide that elections will determine civil rights, it’s going to bring out the worst elements in the racist and homophobic. But it also brings the debate to the table. We are going to start winning these elections and overturning these laws, and soon.

Also, I don’t think the anti-Southern stuff coming out last night and this morning helps. Just as people say they wish the South wasn’t part of the country, well, what about the 39% who voted for equality? Should we not want them? Because of the winner-take-all nature of our political system, we totalize our views of states, but even in Idaho and Utah and Mississippi, there are lots of good people. We should take note of that and not laugh at the dumb states from our liberal palaces on the coasts and in the cities.

The LBJ Fallacy

[ 51 ] May 9, 2012 | Erik Loomis

Those who claim that we need a man like Lyndon Johnson today; that a new LBJ could handle the Senate through his own personality and politicking forget that the Republican Party is increasingly made up of radicals like the likely next senator from Indiana, Richard Mourdock, who believes that bipartisanship is an evil that must be shunned and punished at all times.

No LBJ could convince Richard Mourdock or so many other Republicans to do anything because they’d see him as the antichrist.

Silents

[ 31 ] May 8, 2012 | Erik Loomis

Geoffrey O’Brien has a great essay on silent films in the New York Review of Books. A very small selection:

The seduction of silent cinema is the seduction of a form as unique as opera or kabuki, a peculiar way of organizing one’s attention. It is a perpetual learning how to see, and a way of coming to the truth of one of Emerson’s observations: “The eye is final.” But there is the further peculiarity that what you see takes place in a world no longer there. Here are cities since reduced to rubble and rebuilt, stretches of countryside by now turned into interstates and strip malls, glaciated wilderness that has probably succumbed to climate change—and of course the faces of those now long dead, something too easily taken for granted but that haunts movies from the start. The inventors of the medium were already thinking about recording the living as a future consolation for their survivors.

There are really so many reasons to watch silent films: to see how people told stories without sound, to revel in the so very different styles of acting and filmmaking, to understand how Americans of all ethnicities could come together over entertainment that you didn’t need English capability to understand, because silent films often told amazing stories.

And of course because the past is weird. One thing I love about silents, particularly those before 1920, is that no one knew what they were doing. By this I mean that the standards of cinema and the creation of expectations on how to tell a story were still developing. So when turning on an early silent, you never really quite know what you are going to get.

Last night, I watched the remarkably bizarre and incredibly awesome The Mystery of Leaping Fish, starring Douglas Fairbanks. This 1916 film has Douglas as the Sherlock Holmes-esque detective Coke Ennyday trying to find out why a man with no discernible employment has so much cash (quite literally, he sleeps covered by money instead of blankets). Why does our hero have this odd name? Because he really loves cocaine. And other drugs. He constantly is shooting something into himself for uppers (he carries around a belt of syringes). He has a giant tub on his desk labeled “COCAINE” that he dips into rather liberally (by the handful). And when he discoverers a jar of opium, Coke Ennyday starts scooping it into his mouth with his fingers.

This is jaw-droppingly weird. Technically, cocaine had just become illegal under the Harrison Narcotic Act in 1915, but its use was well-known enough for audiences of the time. The best way to watch it is on Fandor, though there are incomplete versions available on YouTube. I guarantee it is worth your time.

Generations of Environmentalism

[ 10 ] May 8, 2012 | Erik Loomis

Lisa Curtis has a provocative essay proclaiming that while she holds environmental values, she is very much not an environmentalist. Why? Because the environmental movement is dying and misguided and irrelevant for the concerns of young people with a social conscience.

The environmentalism of my grandparents’ generation was focused on preserving pristine wilderness, free from human interference. For my parents, environmentalism was all about the legislative victories.

In the 21st century, with 7 billion people to clothe, feed, and shelter, there’s little environment left that we haven’t altered. We’re changing the natural world and we will continue to do so. When the trade-off is between survival and preserving the pristine, survival will always prevail.

….

At the same time, there are plenty of ways to survive in a more ecological manner. As I found out when I lived in Niger, one of the poorest countries in the world, environmental solutions catch on quick when they fit the needs of the local population. The women in my village loved getting more efficient cookstoves, not because they saved trees but because they saved hours spent collecting wood.

This isn’t to say that we can’t and shouldn’t take care of wild spaces and creatures. But we need to recognize that often the best way to protect wild places is to take care of people in a way that leaves room for the wild as well. There’s a reason that many environmental groups have found that the best way to stop poaching is to employ poachers as eco-tourism guides. When we make the economics align so that survival equals protecting the environment, good things happen for people and planet.

Obviously Curtis is an environmentalist anyway you slice it and I’m sure she actually thinks of herself as such in private. But she makes good points. The environmental movement’s focus on wilderness had value but wasn’t a very sustainable social movement because it didn’t mobilize people where they lived on the issues that affect them everyday. This brand of environmentalism that became prominent in the 80s and 90s opened the door for corporations to carve people away from the popular people-based environmentalism of the 1960s and early 70s because it could say that environmentalists didn’t care about jobs. Even if these industries were using environmentalists as a cover for their own destruction of resources and desire to move their capital investments to exploit cheaper labor forces, the environmental movement helped dig its own grave through some poorly thought-out tactics. In a world of shaky employment, growing population, and declining resources, many young people see the need to feed and house people as more important than protecting caribou herds at ANWR. Since their vision of the environmental movement is the protecting wilderness, charismatic species-focused movement of the last 20 years, it makes sense that someone like Curtis would say she isn’t an environmentalist.

Curtis is wrong however about her grandparents generation. That environmentalism seek to protect wilderness, including seeing the 1964 Wilderness Act into law. But that generation of environmentalism was very invested into the issues Curtis cares about. The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the Occupational Safety and Health Act and other legislation championed by environmentalists in the 60s and 70s was all about protecting working-class people from environmental dangers and ensuring their safety on the job and at home. The genius of, say, the Clean Water Act was that it protected both people and non-people at the same time. It was popular because people didn’t want to be poisoned by their water supplies, but if people aren’t poisoned, neither are trout and beaver and osprey–and those species benefited directly from the act too.

That’s the environmentalism we need today.

On a side note, I hate the discomfort young people with the social movements of the past. Saying that she’s not an environmentalist because of the problems of the environmental movement reminds me too much of young women who refuse to call themselves feminists because they associate that with unshaven armpits and bra-burning. You are too an environmentalist. Rather than give up the label, Curtis should fight to make environmentalism what it should be–a movement made up of people trying to protect themselves from the dangers that threaten to poison their bodies and ensuring a better life for our children and grandchildren.

Let the Martyrdom Begin

[ 39 ] May 8, 2012 | Erik Loomis

Jonathan Tobin begins the deification of martyr Naomi Schaefer Riley.

In saying this, Riley was blunt but transgressed no rules of journalism other than the need not to offend powerful constituencies. But for those devoted to the promotion of this sector of academia, for Riley to have pointed out that the emperor has no clothes is an unforgivable offense that must be punished by branding her as a racist who must be banished from the pages of the magazine. The only “standard” that Riley did not live up to in this post was the obligation to say what many on the left want to hear. Contrary to McMillen, the betrayal here was not on the part of the Chronicle for having published Riley, but in firing her in order to appease an unreasoning pack of academic jackals howling for the blood of anyone with the temerity to point out their shortcomings.

The Academic Jackals wouldn’t be a bad name for a band.

Heartland Institute Crash and Burn

[ 24 ] May 7, 2012 | Erik Loomis

I’m really impressed with the Heartland Institute’s aggressive crash and burn policy. Six months ago, virtually no one had heard of this libertarian business front group. Then Peter Gleick got ahold of their internal documents and released them (a hero’s work), demonstrating the cynical way the group sought to discredit climate change. Instead of fading back into the background after this embarrassment, Heartland went public in a huge way, releasing the incredibly stupid and offensive billboards comparing people who believe in climate change to the Unabomber. The harsh reaction to this has caused many of Heartland’s funders to flee, particularly the insurance industry which was working with both Heartland and environmental groups to limit government subsidies to rebuild in floodplains and other high-risk areas (which actually makes some sense).

As we have seen with ALEC, increased progressive organizing against business front groups with extremist agendas is making a difference. I’m a bit skeptical about this as a long-term strategy, as these front groups with their shady funders will just keep reappearing under different names. But it’s hard to see anyone taking anything the Heartland Institute says seriously again.

Urban Planning

[ 49 ] May 7, 2012 | Erik Loomis

Most of us would probably agree that we really screwed up our cities in the 1950s and 1960s. Between uncontrolled suburbanization, urban renewal, the destruction of public transportation, white flight, etc., the city became almost nightmarish by the 1980s. Maybe longtime residents and writers like D.J. Waldie can find beautiful things in horrible suburbs like Lakewood, California, but a lot of people can’t.

Obviously, many cities have come a long ways since then. But we constructed a lot of cities during those years that had a real short shelf-life. As people’s urban values changed, they were quite literally constructed in ways that would make continued relevance difficult.

This didn’t only happen in the United States. And in Kiryat Gat, Israel, MIT and Tel Aviv University are cooperating on a project to rejuvenate this little-loved city. That’s fine, I’m sure they are doing some cool things. But I do worry about phrases like this:

Next up for the MIT and Tel Aviv students: working on final presentations, and then hopefully publishing their findings. “Some of the studies we’re generating are these typological interventions,” says Wheeler. “They could be implemented in other places in just about any context.”

The totalizing mentality here hasn’t served urban spaces very well in the past. Urban renewal “could be implemented in other places in just about any context” too. I distrust anyone who claims to have a one-size fits all idea about creating cities. I may be overblowing this, but it definitely caught my attention.

Green Walk for Jobs and Justice

[ 2 ] May 7, 2012 | Erik Loomis

We don’t discuss specific activist campaigns much here and I need to do a better job of it. I’m particularly interested in smaller movements that are doing amazing work to create change. We can talk about Occupy (and I have from time to time) but the different groups that make up the faces of protest and activism in this country that come together during times like Occupy can often be forgotten about.

One such group is the Earth Quaker Action Team, which is a leader in the anti-mountaintop removal movement in Pennsylvania. I’ve discussed the horrors of mountaintop removal coal mining before, including the destruction of entire mountains, massive levels of pollution, and the serious degradation of Appalachian communities. EQAT is in the middle of a march from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh to draw attention to mountaintop removal and the stranglehold that the fossil fuel industries have over Pennsylvania’s economy. EQAT’s reason to end in Pittsburgh is to hold a rally at the PNC Bank building, hoping to convince PNC to pull out of investing in mountaintop removal. Several banks in the U.S. and Europe have already done this, including Bank of America, but PNC has not, perhaps not surprisingly given its location in coal country. Yet PNC has tried to greenwash its actions for years, winning awards for its green building construction while at the same time being one of the two largest funders of one of the two greatest on-going environmental disasters in the United States (along with the disappearance of southern Louisiana).

Today, EQAT is holding the second of their three big rallies during the walk, at the statehouse in Harrisburg. If you are in Harrisburg, stop on by. As most of you aren’t, you should follow the walk on Twitter at the very least @eqat or on Facebook. These are the people who are on the ground trying to save Appalachia from discussion and wean us off our addiction to coal. They deserve our attention and support. Moreover, any of you with a PNC account could close it and tell them you are doing so because they fund mountaintop removal.

White House Correspondents Dinner Needs to Go Away

[ 30 ] May 6, 2012 | Erik Loomis

It’s not like I think Tom Brokaw is all that great (starting with his pushing of the extremely annoying and completely ahistorical “greatest generation” construction), but he’s sure right about the stupidity of the White House Correspondents Dinner:

“Look I think George Clooney is a great guy, I’d like to meet Charlize Theron, but I don’t think the big press event in Washington should be that kind of glittering event, where the whole talk is about Cristal champagne, taking over the Italian embassy, who had the best party, who got to meet the most people. That’s another separation between what we’re supposed to be doing and what the people expect us to be doing, and I think that the Washington press corps has to look at that, and by the way I’m a charter member of the White House Correspondents Association, I was there early on and often enjoyed it, but it’s gone beyond what it needs to be.”

What I found particularly distressing this year was the coverage the dinner got in my Twitter feed. The whole night it was #nerdprom this and that. What that suggested to me was a lot of journalists and bloggers who wish they were there. But isn’t the Correspondents Dinner part of the problem? Doesn’t it just reinforce both the overblown ego of the White House press corps and so much of mainstream media while also destroying what’s left of the boundary between journalists and politicians?

Page 5 of 64« First...34567102030...Last »
  • blogroll

  • Brad Delong
  • Crooked Timber
  • Daily Kos
  • Danger Room
  • Eschaton
  • Ezra Klein
  • Feministe
  • Talking Points Memo
  • Feministing
  • Glenn Greenwald
  • Juan Cole
  • Monkey Cage
  • Switch to our mobile site