By Gregg Robinson
In Part One of this series, I argued that the work of Ian Haney Lopez was crucial for solving the Democratic Party’s weakness among working class voters. Much of the Democratic Party is devoted to an approach to identity politics that alienates working class people of all ethnicities. Lopez argues that synthesizing cultural issues like race, gender, and sexual orientation with socio-economic issues like economic inequality avoids alienating working class constituencies without losing concerns for these culture based issues.
In Part Two I looked at the structure of the Democratic Party in San Diego in terms of Lopez’s points. I recognized the importance of much of the work the clubs and Central Committee does, but none of this work offered the kind of synthesis Lopez recommends. While area clubs are loyal to and supportive of the institutional interests of the Democratic Party, affinity clubs are active in supporting identity issues, and the Central Committee champions the pragmatism necessary to win elections, few, though, combine all these things with class-based concerns.
In this last piece, I look at the role Labor plays in San Diego politics and what it can do in the future to address Lopez’s suggestions.
With the weakness of the Democratic Party in the area of socio-economic class, the Labor Movement is well positioned to push a unified vision around Lopez’s approach. Instead, Labor’s presence in the Democratic Party largely operates without that coherent vision, and focuses on supporting one or another of the elected officials or candidates running for a major office. Each union picks a candidate which it thinks favors its immediate concerns and then supports them with endorsements, money, and/or boots on the ground. While this advances that union’s particular interests, it does not create a long-term strategy that advances Labor’s overall interests inside the Democratic Party, much less the kind of general culture/class synthesis that Lopez stresses as so important.
The irony is that the Labor Movement has demonstrated how to take identity issues seriously without descending into the forms of “woke” that alienate so many working-class Americans. Labor has constituency groups representing the interests of women (Coalition of Labor Union Women), African Americans (Coalition of Black Trade Unionist), etc., but there are crucial differences with the Affinity Clubs.
First, these groups are led by working-class members of these constituencies, not upper middle class professionals, meaning that the language used and positions taken are out of the day-to-day struggles of the workplace, not the academy. Second, there is also a sense of larger union solidarity that underlies these concerns. This means these constituency groups are not only concerned with identity issues, but larger working class interests as well. This moderates the ideological fervor around identity issues and contributes to Lopez’s Culture/Class synthesis.
The problem is that while this approach to identity issues could help the Democratic Party mitigate some of its most self-destructive identity politics, there is not the kind of general Labor presence in the Democratic Party able to do so. The closest to a general labor movement strategy comes from the Labor Council (LC), but here the LC depends on individual union contributions for much of its resources.
Each LC union contributes dues based on the size of their membership, making the LC dependent on the priorities of the largest unions. Even with these contributions, however, the resources held by the LC pale in comparison to the resources these large unions hold. Thus, the real strength of Labor in San Diego operates directly through certain powerful unions and through their disproportionate influence inside the LC.
This means that in San Diego, “Labor” as a single unified voice does not exist; participation by Labor in the Democratic Party is episodic or focused on the priorities of powerful member unions. A particular union leader will show-up to support a particular candidate, or a particular group of unions will join together to push a policy, but Labor as a unified coherent regular force inside the Democratic Party is missing, and therefore the synthesis of class and identity issues that its presence could provide is absent.
Only the LC can solve this problem, but it needs more resources. The current leadership is taking seriously this need for a more regular presence in the Democratic Party. The LC organizes slates of Labor supporters to run for membership in the Central Committee.
However, there are two problems with this effort. First, it largely focuses on supporting big name elected officials running for membership like mayors and council members rather than workers themselves. Second, and even more importantly, it lacks the resources to make these slates effective. In fact, one union, the Laborers, outspent the LC by a factor of over 10 times in supporting its chosen candidates. This resource imbalance meant that it was the Laborers and their priorities, not the LC and its commitment to a larger worker agenda that determined the outcomes of these elections.
If there is going to be the kind of labor presence in the Democratic Party that Lopez recommends, four things would need to happen. First, the LC needs to re-commit itself to an even greater participation inside the Democratic Party. Second, it should do so by sponsoring the kind of general working-class and union issues that will synthesize identity with class-based issues. Third, it should shift to electing working-class union members to the Central Committee, not high-profile elected officials. Finally, and most importantly, it needs more independent resources to make it an effective player inside the Democratic Party.
In sum, the Democratic Party here in San Diego needs the vision that only Labor can provide, but Labor is too divided and too focused on short-term individual priorities to provide that vision. Most importantly, the Labor Council needs the resources to make it a more effective presence in the Democratic Party which will allow it to push a politics with a greater focus on class inequality. This is a challenge in any period, but with American democracy at risk in the 2024 election cycle, it is crucial that Labor lead the way.
Gregg Robinson is a long-time activist, retired Grossmont College Sociology professor, and a member of the AFT Guild, Local 1931 Retiree Chapter.