Progressives Advocacy in Chicago Labor Action: Was It Really a Success?

by: damitajo1

Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 14:04

Progressives targeted Bank of America, a major creditor of the company, even though the company, not the bank, infringed the workers' rights.  Progressives argued that because Bank of America received funds under the federal "bailout," it should extend additional credit to the company so that the workers could receive wages and benefits to which the law entitles them.

But the story is far more complicated than the simplistic narrative of EVIL BANK versus POOR WORKERS and SUFFERING COMPANY indicates.  Here's why!  

FISA: A Time To Sit In At Obama's Campaign Offices?

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:05

While some were ecstatic that Obama listened at all, others had a higher standard, and found the disingenuous arguments to be insulting to their intelligence, particularly given how fundamental the issues are, and how clearly Senator Obama had previously stated his intention to filibuster if telco immunity was part of the deal.

Although running to the right after the primary--and losing--is a time-honored tradition in the Democratic Party, many of Obama's supporters were expecting something more from him.  And when he spoke of reaching out and bringing people together, they did not envision the unifying cause to be the embracing of Bush/Cheney/Rove lawlessness.

Which brings up the question, what next?  One possibility is to up the pressure by sitting in at campaign offices this coming Monday.  If people are truly serious about there commitment to the rule of law, this is a logical next step.  Unlike other lawbreaking, civil disobedience upholds the law by willingly embracing the consequences of its actions in order to challenge injustice.

Some would argue that such a move would be highly damaging to Obama's campaign, but others might disagree.  It is still quite early in the general election campaign, and putting a stop now to such wrong-headed triangulation, directly violating his own word, could be doing him an enormous favor.  What's more, truly demonstrating his capacity to listen to the people and be persuaded--after 8 years of Bush/Cheney--could be the most powerful demonstration imagineable that the change talks about is actually real.

Furthermore, Obama himself has tacitly endorsed such a move, in the Presidential Debate sponsored by CNN and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute on January 21, 2008, in response to the last question asked:

Wolf Blitzer:If Dr. Martin Luther King were alive today, unfortunately, he's not, but if he were alive today, why do you think he would or why should he endorse you?

....

BLITZER: Senator?

OBAMA: Well, I don't think Dr. King would endorse any of us. I think what he would call upon the American people to do is to hold us accountable, and this goes to the core differences, I think, in this campaign.

I believe change does not happen from the top down. It happens from the bottom up. Dr. King understood that.

(APPLAUSE)

It was those women who were willing to walk instead of ride the bus, union workers who are willing to take on violence and intimidation to get the right to organize. It was women who decided, "I'm as smart as my husband. I'd better get the right to vote."

OBAMA: them arguing, mobilizing, agitating, and ultimately forcing elected officials to be accountable, I think that's the key.

So that has been a hallmark of my career, transparency and accountability, getting the American people involved. That's how we're going to bring about change. That's why I want to be president of the United States, to respect the power of the American people to bring about change.