The current mainstream media narrative, and the assumption on many websites of the left and center, is that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is coming off worse in his ongoing battle in Wisconsin to remove collective bargaining from the public employees union. But is that the case?
The Daily Beast and CNN independent commentator John Avlon gives the political quote of the day as he makes the case that the left is doing a bigger jumping of the shark and that there are real, substantive issues involved that Walker must resolve:
The Wisconsin protests are proving that the era of unhinged politics is not over. If anything, the hyperpartisan hysteria seems to be catching, with Democratic lawmakers in Indiana running for the hills while a new round of union protests swamps the statehouse in Ohio.
It’s an unwelcome recurrence of politics being treated as apocalypse. Neither side is innocent, but on matters of both style and substance, the left is coming out of this debate looking worse.
Why?
We’ve certainly seen a full range of left-wing-nuttery at the protests, from the obligatory Nazi/Hitler comparisons on signs to Democratic elected officials getting into the overheated action. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) declared his solidarity with the mob, saying “every once in a while you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” while the esteemed Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) said, “There is an unbelievable parallel and a real connection that I can readily identify with the people in the streets of Cairo and Madison, Wisconsin.” Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) just cut to the chase and called Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker a “dictator.”
To top off the ugliness, there has been a mini-Twitter rampage of kindly folks calling for Walker’s death. They’ve forgotten about Gabby Giffords pretty fast, and the outrage should be more widespread than it’s been to date. But too often, situational ethics is the operative mode in politics, causing partisans to excuse the inexcusable as long as it comes from their side. The attitude seems to be “they may be crazy, but they’re our crazies.”
Cut through all the special-interest spin and you’ve got a real debate about the role that public-sector unions have in the budget deficits that are bankrupting cities and states.
Public-sector unions reflexively call any proposed reduction in money or power “anti-union.” They could also be fairly described as “pro-taxpayer.”Like many governors across the country, Scott Walker came into office facing a multibillion-dollar budget gap—$3.4 billion over two years…
He details the problems and how Walker planned to fix it and points to some other places in the country. Then he writes:
So despite reactions from the left that make it seem as if Walker is trying to kill Christmas, it is entirely reasonable to debate public-sector union collective bargaining—especially when we’re looking at looming budget deficits. In fact, liberal icons like FDR and Fiorello La Guardia were deeply opposed to collective bargaining for public-sector unions. “The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” Roosevelt wrote.
Collective bargaining for public-sector unions began in the late 1950s and exists for all government workers in only 26 states. It is not sacrosanct or even particularly longstanding. Indiana’s Gov. Mitch Daniels suspended collective bargaining on his first day on the job, six years ago, by executive order. The state of Indiana has not imploded.
In short, Avlon argues, there is a real issue lurking behind the horse-race and political drama coverage of events in Wisconsin as offered by the mainstream media, news media, cable, radio and weblogs:
All-or-nothing negotiation techniques rarely bring out the best in a democracy, and reasonable people can conclude that Gov. Walker is overreaching. But to behave as though public-sector union costs, which are directly related to collective bargaining, do not have a deep impact on state and local budgets is not to deal with reality. Public-sector unions are politically powerful, but the benefits they have secured for their members simply cannot be sustained. Civic debates are derailed when special interests resort to fear-mongering. Math does not have a partisan bias. We are going broke, and doing nothing is not an option. Start from that premise, and then let’s reason together.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.