With prospects looming for a steel strike, in the wake of other major strikes still in progress or only recently settled, the anti-labor propaganda machines are working full blast -- as nothing else seems to be in Mr. Nixon's recession economy.
In the struggle over public opinion, I suspect, the strategists in the executive suites are counting heavily on two factors: that the Administration will be sitting on management's side of the bargaining table; and that liberal sentiment, traditionally pro-labor, will now be indifferent.
The Administration's economic "game plan," judging from its results, consists of a double-barrel attach on wage earners. A recession engineered by the White House jacks unemployment up to 6 percent -- that's five million jobless Americans -- while unchecked inflation erodes the purchasing power of those lucky enough to be employed. But, we are told, workers have only themselves to blame for their economic woes - their own greed and irresponsibility. There excessive wage demands is the major cause of inflation and, should the economy fail to pull out of the recession, their strikes are to blame.
These fallacious economic theories have been exposed by Leon Keyserling and the economists of the AFL-CIO, among others. They nonetheless persist, forming a shield for corporate resistance to wage demands.
None of this should surprise anyone familiar with the conservative economic philosophy of the President or his advisors. It certainly does not surprise that labor movement, which went all-out to oppose Mr. Nixon in 1968 and will do so again in 1972. What is surprising is that there should be so few liberal voices raised -- among intellectuals and in the media -- in support of the striking workers and their unions?
Indeed, it is ironic that much of the liberal press, including The New York Times, is forever criticizing the labor movement for smugness and complacency, and its leadership for being out of touch with the rank-and-file; yet when the pressure of rank-and-file discontent forces the unions to take a tough bargaining stand or to strike, the editorials and columnists cry out in irritation or hostility, denouncing labor leaders for lacking the "statesmanship" and "social vision" to prevent "inflationary" wage demands. Why?
The Challenge to Liberals
The conventional wisdom has it that liberals were gung-ho for the unions in the 30s when labor was a crusading, idealistic force, but were turned off in the 50s because the unions became conservative. But in a perceptive article, "Rediscovering American Labor," in the April Commentary, Penn Kemble contends that "a fairer assessment is that many intellectuals became more conservative and abandoned labor."
During the 30s, Kemble suggests, intellectuals were closer to the working man: many held ordinary jobs, or were on WPA, or worked in the labor movement. "But in the relative affluence of the postwar years many of these same intellectuals moved into secure and well-paying positions in the universities and in publishing ... [ or into] the fringes of the business world, as writers and as consultants to the great foundations."
The liberalism of these intellectuals, removed from the day-to-day problems of working people, "assumed a patrician cast," disdainful of the material aspirations of the common man. From this new vantage point, they criticized unions for focusing on narrow "bread and butter" matters and for an insufficient concern with larger social issues. Many also predicted that technology would reduce the unions to impotence.
Yet, as Kemble points out, the labor movement today is more deeply involved in broad social issues than ever before. Its lobbyists in Congress provided the muscle for the civil rights acts of the 60s, stopped the Haynesworth and Carswell nominations, and now led the fight for National Health Security. Indeed, most of the issues that have occupied labor's legislative energies have no special benefit for union members; they are simply general social welfare issues.
Despite enormous changes in the nature of employment and the composition of the work force, union membership continues to be about 35 percent of the real eligible, with dramatic organizing breakthroughs among farm and hospital workers and white-collar employees. With a non-white membership of nearly 2 million, and with non-whites making up one-third of new recruits, the labor movement is the most integrated mass institution in the country.
Finally, labor today is more extensively engaged in politics, and has more political clout, than its most radical supporters in the 30s dreamed of It almost elected Hubert Humphrey President in 1968, single-handedly, and was decisive in the liberal victories of 1970. Many of labor's "New Politics" critics have not fared nearly so well.
Recognition of these facts has prompted an increasing number of intellectuals to take a new look at the American labor movement, and one hopes that this will be a step toward closing a gap which has been harmful to both -- and to the nation. For a strong liberal-labor coalition has been the cornerstone of whatever social gains we have been able to win in the last forty years, and it is the key to the much greater progress we must make tomorrow.
Right now, the chips are down for hundreds of thousands of workers and their families. It is a time for liberals to stand up and be counted.