Bipartisan Hate
There's nothing quite like returning to Rhode Island from the Deep South to provide me with concrete examples of why neither side of the major-party divide is particularly scrupulous these days.
First a little background for out-of-staters and other usually uninterested parties: Steve Laffey is the Republican Mayor of Cranston, RI's third (I think) largest city. Since taking office (after a great campaign in 2002) he's been in the spotlight for his tireless advocacy for Cranston taxpayers. This being RI, that can usually be construed to mean "has fought public service unions tooth and nail." He's fired over-compensated crossing guards, hired private investigators to spy on sleeping union workers (I swear to God) and grappled with city teachers, all the while using the media masterfully to stay in the spotlight (a little too much, his critics would say). Personally, I think he kicks ass, but I'd prefer he stay in Cranston and not be sent to, say, the US Senate.
So anyway, as you can imagine, he's pretty popular, and he's running for re-election. As you might also imagine, unionized workers in Cranston don't think he's so great. Without the means to swing the general election, what's a well-organized minority group to do? Why, disaffiliate from the Democratic Party and vote for Laffey's challenger in the September primary election. In Rhode Island, voters can register to vote without affiliating with a party (essentially "Independent"). This allows those voters to vote in either Democratic or Republican (or Green, or Crazy Monkey, whatever) primaries. The idea is that those without a strong affiliation with either party can vote where they think their vote will matter most, and overall it's a good policy. Of course, there are ways in which it can be exploited.
So the Public Service Employees Local Union 1033 recommended that its members disaffiliate, making them eligible to vote in the Republican primary, with its greatly reduced voter turnout. It's perfectly legal, but morally wrong (it seems like that's an all-too-common description these days, doesn't it?). I like the ideas which benefit the majority of citizens but depend on a modicum of unlegislatable integrity, such as "don't vote in the other party's primary if you're committed ideologically to the opposition."
Laffey, with his typical bombast, is decrying the attempts "to rig, manipulate and corrupt the election." That's not entirely right, but something dirty is going on. He'll probably be on TV tonight playing the persecuted champion of the tax-payer. (Laffey also said "I don't know if you could find this anywhere, ever having happened. Tell them, in case they've forgotten, we actually live in America," though he should probably look into what Georgia Republicans have been up to lately.)
I'm really a big supporter of unions, as I think anyone who knows their history should be, but it's clear to me that there needs to be some good-will reforms within them (that goes for the RI Democrats too, and probably for the RI GOP too if its current Laffey-ization continues). Is it possible in our increasingly nasty political environment? I don't know. Vote Bil in 2004.
June 17th, 2004 at 8:22 pm
As an unenrolled voter in 2000 (that’s what they call it in Mass. makes it sound like you aren’t registered), I voted in the Republican Primary for John McCain, who I was happy to see take Massachusetts that year. Lotta good it did me. I’d have voted Republican again this year, had there been any options, instead I think I was one of 3 Rhode Islanders not to vote for Kerry in the Democratic Primary.
June 18th, 2004 at 12:23 am
Yeah, I didn’t vote for Kerry either in the RI Primary, and like you said, lotta good it did me…
I agree with you Bil, to be ideologically opposed to the Republican agenda it’s quite unsavory for me to try to manipulate the Republican primary by casting a ballot.
It’s sort of a touchy situation, because liberals are generally completely apathetic when it comes to getting their butt to the voting booth in November, whereas Republicans are generally more organized, better funded, and less lazy (I guess).
June 18th, 2004 at 1:23 am
Cotuit, I hope you know that you are now officially a Democrat for voting in the primary, unless you disaffiliated again after voting.
Brian, I know you’re not talking about RI Republicans as being organized or well funded! I honestly feel bad for them sometimes, the rallying cry of the RIGOP is, I swear, “let’s get enough people in the state lege so we can uphold a Carcieri veto!” How’s that for inspiring? On the national stage, though…
June 18th, 2004 at 6:24 pm
Bil,
I don’t see a problem with this. If I were a Republican living in Providence, for example, I wouldn’t say, “oh well, since there aren’t that many Republicans in this town I guess I don’t have the right to vote.” (which if you are in an extreme minority like that is pretty much the reality, even if the theory says you have that right) I would say, “ok, since whoever wins the Democratic nomination is going to be mayor of this town, I might as well hold my nose and vote for the Democrat I find least-objectionable.”
What does creep me out is when people talk about doing things like registering for the other party to vote for the “craziest candidate” in the primaries to try to sabotage their chances… which not only is really underhanded but has a pretty good chance of backfiring on you.
But Laffey and Carcieri just have to go. The idea that *less* people in the state having decent wages and benefits rather than *more* is a sign of a good economy is just ridiculous. This whole slavemaster mentality that we get all the benefits of having public employees doing work for us - BUT we shouldn’t actually have to pay them well… that’s gotta go.
June 18th, 2004 at 9:35 pm
David, I think you’re right in your example, since it’s in good faith and not voting for the crazies. This case isn’t really an example of the crossing guard unions acting in good faith, especially if Laffey’s “Republican” challenger is that guy married to a crossing guard.
As for your last point, right on. I should post about this, though like I said I think the RI unions need to make a public gesture to the non-union taxpayers, especially with the Gov, “Look at me!” Laffey, and the ProJo Ed board against them.
This ignores, of course, the too-rapid rising of health care costs, which is the real crux of this dispute…
June 19th, 2004 at 9:55 pm
Great discussion, folks…
Immoral but not illegal seems to be the motto of our time.
Regarding the “big picture” view of health care costs and unions, I’ll just add this viewpoint with the following qualifications:
1) I’m generally pro-union…
2) I’m a physician…
That said, one of the zillion reasons health care costs are high is *because* of unions… Groups of nurses, tech, etc, etc, etc unions have so narrowly defined what they do and when they do them that there is no choice but to hire more people (at far more expense). I’ve had nurses walk out on me in the middle of my trying to resuscitate patients in cardiac arrest saying, “Sorry, my union says I don’t work after 7.” This is the pendulum swinging way too far in unions favor. This has to be about the patients, and when unions get too powerful, the job becomes more about the employee and less about who you’re caring for. This is why while being pro-union in general, I’m against the unionization of physicians (although if they keep getting abused by insurers, the government, and lawyers, they may have no choice but to unionize). Just my 2 cents…
Garris
June 20th, 2004 at 5:11 pm
Actually I did dissafiliate after voting in the primary. I bumped into the mayor at RI Pride this weekend as I was signing up to be a member of Stonewall Democrats (a gay and lesbian Democratic group), and metioned that while I was signing up to join Stonewall Dems, I was not actually registered as a Dem. Which was fine, because the Mayor, though a keynote speaker at next months Stonewall Convention in Providence, wasn’t actually signed up to be a Stonewall Dem yet.
On crossing lines to vote… Had McCain actually received the nomination in 2000, I just may have voted for him. I’ve always been a dissafilliated voter (except in NY where you have to be registered in a party to vote in the primary), and I have almost always voted Dem, with the notable exception being for Mayor Bloomberg in NYC.
I think voting for the looney in the other party, in the hopes of making it impossible for that party to win is very dangerous, look what happened in 2000.
June 22nd, 2004 at 2:45 pm
Garris- I appreciate your perspective on that. Your example of the 7 o’clock nurse shows how ridiculous this stuff can get, but conversely it shows how important nursing unions are. The “think of the patient” response can end up forcing some healthcare workers into being exploited, too. Of course, “think of the patients!” is equally explouited by the nurses in their contract negotiations. Substitute “children” for “patients” and you’ve got yourself a teachers union/admin dispute.
Like everything, it’s a balance, and yet discussion is dominated by two sides jumping up and down at the far ends.
August 13th, 2004 at 1:35 pm
In reply to: “So the Public Service Employees Local Union 1033 recommended that its members disaffiliate, making them eligible to vote in the Republican primary, with its greatly reduced voter turnout. It’s perfectly legal, but morally wrong.”
I’m sorry but I don’t get why this is “morally wrong.” I am an independent and vote for both democrats and republicans. I am philosophically committed to positions in both parties. If I belonged to a public sector union (which I don’t) I would remain an independent. If I was the head of any union in this state, I would recommend that all employees of unions remain independent so they can vote in either primary. This just seems to be a practical thing to do. Everyone votes to protect the interests of their profession. Garry Reilly is a Realtor, therefore he will probably have the support of many other realtors. Does that mean he is being unfairly supported by a special interest group of Realtors? Yes! That’s just the way it is. Laffey has his own special interests who are benefiting from his show and who will get out and vote for him in the primary: the lawyers, the accountants, the signmakers (good lord, these oppressive gigundo billboards proclaiming his name)and all the TV stations who try to show his beaming Paul McCartney likeness as often as possible.
August 13th, 2004 at 3:46 pm
Thanks for commenting, anonymous.
I have no illusions about political realities. But these people are, ostensibly, Democrats, and have consistantly voted for or worked for Democrats. I guess my problem is disenchantment. It just seems like Republicans should pick their candidate, Democrats should pick their candidate, and let them duke it out in the general. Independents, such as yourself (and me), rightly can choose which primary to vote in.
Ideally, I think, you should always vote for who you want to win. Given the choice between Garry Reilly and a Democrat, I think the Union members would like the Democrat to win, thus I think it’s sketchy to vote for Reilly against Laffey.
Politically, it’s a good move. No doubt. And realistically, it’s smart. I’m just indulging my wish for ideals in the electoral process.
(for more on this issue, here’s something David Grenier wrote recently)