Ask LJ: Why does the Tea Party support Walker?

[asterroc]

Apparently the Tea Party supports Governor Walker's union busting. I don't get this at all. I thought the Tea Party was a conservative libertarian group. Shouldn't they resent the government interfering with and attempting to regulate how workers interact with employers? Or is their fiscal conservatism trumping their libertarianism?

Comments

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

Reagan, who is apparently the patron saint of the Tea Party, was certainly no lover of unions.

(I don't think the Tea Party has an ideology, leaving them as a bunch of emotions with nothing to guide them.)

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Well if we assume there's no unifying ideology, then no explanation is required and I don't need to ask my question at all. It was my understanding though that the movement self-identifies as conservative libertarian, with a side of fiscal conservatism, so I'm trying to understand things within that self-professed framework.

[oldsilenus.livejournal.com]

The tea partiers tend to self-identify as things that they would, well, like to self-identify as. However, their views are basically the views of the Republican party. (However, they are more likely to believe things like President Obama isn't a native-born American citizen (and they have a very ahistoric idea of what "native-born American citizen" means, for that matter) and that Sarah Palin is a decent candidate for the presidency.)

For that matter--and I've been trying to find the article that makes this point, which I read a few weeks or months ago, but I've unfortunately failed to do so--there's an argument to be made that they're not actually a movement. Because, well, movements stand for something. What do tea partiers stand for? There's no obvious answer, and there's no unifying answer. On the other hand, big American movements of days of yore have both had unifying and stupefyingly obvious answers to this question (e.g., the Civil Rights Movement, the Temperance Movement).

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Hm. So maybe they're just the more vocal branch of the Republicans? Are they a distinct demographic from the rest of the Rs at all, like younger or from a certain part of the US or anything?

[oldsilenus.livejournal.com]

From what I've read, their median income is slightly higher than the national median. I can't remember how the general Republican median income relates to the national one, but I would kind of assume that it's somewhat lower than it, so... I would assume that tea partiers skew a little more rich (or, perhaps more accurately, a little less poor) than Republicans in general. But I'm not totally sure about that last part....

Also, they're almost entirely white. (But, then again, so is the current Republican Party.)

I can't remember if there are any other differences.

But, basically, they're not libertarian. For that matter, most self-identified libertarians in this country aren't what political scientists would call pure libertarians (although there are some who skew closer to that, largely (although this is somewhat anecdotal, and this assertion of mine may be incorrect) in computer programmer circles). Mostly, libertarians in this country are oligarchs who want no government regulation, but are just fine with the powerful non-governmental figures oppressing others. Or, you know, even governmental figures, as long as it's not people like the libertarians themselves who are being oppressed--a majority of self-identified libertarians and tea partiers &c. are for such things as the PATRIOT Act and illegalizing abortion.

[q10.livejournal.com]

if you're claiming a majority of self-identified libertarians are in favor of the PATRIOT act and banning abortion, you're going to need to show some stats. (my understanding was that the PATRIOT act was a major way you tested the difference between libertarian-identified tea-partiers and conservative-identified tea-partiers.)

[q10.livejournal.com]

i think they mainly don't have an ideology because they're not centrally organized. individuals often have ideologies, coalitions are lucky if they have a shared attitude or general policy direction. the tea party is a coalition.

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

I would guess that their libertarianism is winning out here.

After all, an employer ought to be able to make whatever demands the employer wants. If people don't like those demands, they can find work elsewhere. (We'll just ignore that most of the unionized employees are working for the government, and not the libertarians' sacred private corporations.)

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

I thought libertarianism only applied to the government, not to employers or employees. All citizens should be able to make whatever demands they want, whether they are employers or employees, so libertarians shouldn't necessarily side with either.

If anything, libertarians (if the Tea Party is libertarian) should support public sector unions, since they are the strongest force out there to fight the government.

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

But the government allows unions, which forces corporations to have to listen to the demands of people who ought to just be grateful to have a job, therefore unions = bad.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

I see what you're saying, but it is entirely illogical IMO.

[q10.livejournal.com]

i think you're confusing libertarianism with corporate toadyism. there is, admittedly, a disturbing amount of overlap, but they are not in fact one and the same.

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

I'm only repeating what I've heard from self-professed libertarians, and I have no interest in debating whether they are "real" libertarians or not :)

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

FWIW I believe q10 identifies as a libertarian, and I personally would consider him to be a liberal libertarian.

[q10.livejournal.com]

but here's the thing - even if you thinks that pro-union regulations impose undue burdens on corporations, you ought to be kinda annoyed about the hypocrisy of the government forcing that situation on corporations while exempting itself. if you don't like regulations, it seems like forcing the government to have to live with the inconvenience of its own regulations would be a good way to keep it reminded of the dangers of having too many of them.

[q10.livejournal.com]

i basically agree with you that they're being hypocritical, but, to be fair, unions as we know them today aren't just exercises of libertarian free association - they're entities that have a lot of special institutional rights and privileges that are supported by legislation.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

they're entities that have a lot of special institutional rights and privileges that are supported by legislation.

They certainly do have certain rights and privileges, but I am not aware of a large amount of legislation that supports them more than other non-profit organizations, or a non-profit charity such as the United Way. (I don't mean this legislation doesn't exist, I mean that I want to know more about it.) The only one I can think of at the moment is that unions can garnish wages (i.e., payroll deduction) for agency fees. (Which some states want to get rid of.)

[q10.livejournal.com]

the wage-garnishing thing is pretty huge, though. more generally, there are, as i understand it, a lot of regulations constraining both sides of employer-union negotiations - it's not like you're just talking about two (for-profit or non-profit) corporations sitting down for a chat - there are detailed regulations about what each side can and can't threaten.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

the wage-garnishing thing is pretty huge, though.

You're right.

there are detailed regulations about what each side can and can't threaten.

I thought most of those things are not specific to union workplaces though? Public employees are not allowed to strike in some states (technically, striking is not a protected act), but this applies to both unionized and non-unionized public employees (for example, the part-time lab techs in my department are not unionized). Non-retaliation laws apply not only to employers retaliating against employees for union activities, but also to employers retaliating against whistle-blowers (for safety, for discrimination, etc.).

[sildra.livejournal.com]

They have the right to do collective bargaining. In some places and industries they have the right not let non-union members work in that industry--it becomes essentially a guild. (I ran up against this once during an internship. I really wanted to cut some metal and drill a couple holes, and the task didn't warrant asking a professional to do it for me. I'd had safety training on machines at school, so that wasn't an issue. But, I was told, machining is a closed shop profession, and I was not allowed to enter the machine shop.)

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

They have the right to do collective bargaining.

But corporations have the right to work together, and individuals have the right to work together in other contexts than just unions Price fixing may be illegal (I forget if it is), but multiple small organizations can bargain together for a better deal on say a large purchase of printer paper. Multiple home owners can form a home heating oil co-op. How is this different from multiple employees approaching the employer together about their wages and work conditions?