We may be focusing on the wrong things about Citizen's United.
Yes, it's bad that corporations have outsize influence to buy elections, smother grassroots candidates in an avalanche of cash, and force the rest of us to shrug our shoulders and accept that "it's all about the money, money, money."
But most of us don't run for office. And while more Americans are seeing that money in politics is a problem... we are, at the very least, in dispute about how much of a problem it really is. And at the most, we fail to feel it has any direct impact on our lives. It's just politics, we rationalize. I'm just going to leave it to the money-grubbers and liars, and go on with my life.
But you know what does have a real, visceral impact on our lives? Our workplace experience.
And that's where Citizen's United has its most insidious influence.
You see... while we have all been paying attention to political campaigns and megadonors, we may have forgotten another trick from Citizen's United: it removed enough restrictions prohibiting employers from politically pressuring their employees, that more and more of them now feel comfortable in doing it now.
It's well-known now about Murray Energy forcing their employees to attend rallies for Mitt Romney and pressuring them to make donations to coal-friendly candidates. But did you know that Murray Energy also kept close track of who contributed and who did not?
In cases of low participation, reminders from his lieutenants have included tables or spreadsheets showing how each of the eleven Murray subsidiaries was performing. And at least one note came with a list of names of employees who had not yet given. “What is so difficult about asking a well-paid, salaried employee to give us three hours of his/her time every two months?” Murray writes in a March 2012 letter. “We have been insulted by every salaried employee who does not support our efforts.” He concludes: “I do not recall ever seeing the attached list of employees…at one of our fund-raisers.”
Of course, Robert Murray and his executives
denied any political coercion of their employees when asked right-out.
Jean Couchenour was a foreman for a Murray mine, and was fired after ignoring too many letters from Mr. Murray requesting donations to Republican candidates:
“Not only did Mr. Murray name candidates and specify the amount to be contributed to each candidate, but he also required that the political contributions be returned directly to him in a self-addressed envelope that he enclosed with each of his letters to her,” the lawsuit states. Cochenour did not give anything, and in May, she was ordered to meet with Murray at company headquarters in St. Clairsville, Ohio. She was fired even though, the lawsuit states, she was “satisfactorily performing her duties as a prep plant shift foreman.”
But, of course, when the Murray company was asked about it, they said she was fired
because of poor performance.
And of course, anyone who works for anybody connected with Koch Industries would gets a full-court press telling them to vote for Mitt, or else. I'm sure there's a database in there somewhere, flagging those Koch employees who have the audacity to vote D for demotion, layoff, or just no promotion. Better make it look as natural as possible, so as not to arouse any more suspicion than they already have. Natural, and hard to prove.
♠♠♠
Naturally, in a workplace climate that is all about "cultural fit", of course failing to go along with the boss' wishes constitutes poor performance. Don't you know your job anymore is not just to do the job task... it's also to shut up and do what you're told?
Outside a unionized workplace or the public sector, what most workers are agreeing to when they sign an employment contract is the alienation of many of their basic rights (speech, privacy, association, and so on) in exchange for pay and benefits. They may think they’re only agreeing to do a specific job, but what they are actually agreeing to do is to obey the commands and orders of their boss. It’s close to a version of Hobbesian contract theory—“The end of obedience is protection”—in which the worker gets money, benefits, and perhaps security in exchange for a radical alienation of her will.
That
CrookedTimber.com article does a nice job of outlining the baselessness of the libertarian position-- while they are all about decrying the oppressiveness of unions and governments, they are curiously mute when it comes to pointing out power grabs by corporations:
It’s also ironic given libertarians’ understanding of their project. Libertarians claim that freedom is their core value and that it’s maximized when the state refrains from interfering in the private choices of individuals. They also believe, however—as every sensible person should—that individual freedom can be curtailed by private action. In fact, the idea that private action can diminish individual freedom is central to their justification for the state. ... One might think libertarians would reject a state of affairs in which large portions of the population endure daily subjection to the commands of others. Especially when those issuing orders give their subjects detailed instructions on how to live their lives, and are in a position to threaten them with severe negative consequences should they disobey. But one would be wrong.
♠♠♠
I am not at all surprised at the cowardice of America. Because we are rightly scared. Nothing, but nothing, will beat the political courage out of you like having your livelihood threatened. We all have to eat, to pay our bills and student loans, to provide for our families. Employment is a fundamentally unequal power relationship, and in recent years it's only gotten more unequal as employers have demanded more and more obedience, "alignment", and fit with the company culture.
And moreover-- in the age of the Internet, everyone shares their stories about us with each other. Not only can we find ourselves fired for disagreeing with the boss, but all that shared information can make us permanently unemployable. No one wants to hire someone who "is not a people person". Or who is "not a team player". Or who has "low emotional intelligence" or a "bad attitude".
And how do we best prove we get along with others? By shutting up and doing what the leaders tell us to do, of course! By not complaining, or standing up for our rights. Oh, and by the way, we have to pretend we're happy with all this, too.
(I wonder how many people are on antidepressants only because of the need to project a positive attitude in the workplace?)
I can even see why the Democrats in Congress are scared. Because they are suffering from livelihood anxiety too. Their jobs demand currying favor with rich donors (who are probably almost all Republican or conservative).
But more and more of us regular folk, too, seem to be having our jobs repurposed into coddling and stroking the wealthy, to get them to open their wallets. Just ask anyone unlucky enough to work in academia... which might well have a growing number of their positions renamed: "Professional Administrator and Donor Tender".
Has Steven Salaita been able to find work lately? Even when you're a university president, woe betide you if you are not enough of a money-grubber.
♠♠♠
I don't know what to do to help America get its courage back. I do have a unique insight into the problem, because of my firsthand experience with the travesty that is "cultural fit", and with the psychological games that attempt to transform solidarity fighters into socially-challenged dweebs.
(Which is actually another factor in Democratic Congressional cowardice. When the aftermath of the Iran-Contra investigation results not only in the perpetrators being exonerated, but the people fighting for what was right looking like fools for even caring about the right thing in the first place... that sends a message. "Courage is stupidity and will ruin your social standing. Better suck up to the powerful if you not to want only keep your job, but your friends.")
But it seems like livelihood anxiety is in a class of its own-- because it's a threat to our very survival, all we seem to be able to do is shrug our shoulders and live with it.
I don't know what to do, but I do know that shrugging our shoulders and living with it is only going to make the problem worse.
I do know what employers are only going to take and take, and demand more and more; until there's nothing left of us.
I do know that fear of the consequences of contravening our employers is the main thing stopping us from getting involved. It's the main thing keeping us from solidarity, from taking the necessary actions to better our world. And that if we can beat that fear-- and escape the consequences-- we will be in a lot better place.
I do know that I have to do what I can to help others lose this fear.
♠♠♠
Because you know who doesn't seem to have this fear? Republicans!
First of all, their values are already aligned with their bosses'. Second, they have less of a problem with authoritarianism than we do. Third, they have an uncanny inability to believe that they could ever be on the receiving end of right-wing policies themselves.
They never stop to think that their leaders could, on a whim, change their mind and turn against them. They sincerely think that they're demonstrated their loyalty to Republicanism enough, that they've curried favor enough, that THEY will be all right.
But maybe the reason for that is, they by and large tend to have more money than us. So they won't suffer the consequences as harshly if their relationship with their boss does go south. (And of course, those culture fit screenings will do a nice job of preventing liberals from becoming wealthy in the first place.)
Whatever the reason for their confidence, people notice. People notice who is paralyzed and who still feels free to take action. People notice who suffers the worst consequences for being themselves.
Even if it's only that the most successful people in a corporation just happen to be Republican and/or conservative... that will have an effect.
Because people want to emulate the successful. And your hidden job description is, "do whatever the boss tells you". And most important, the Internet gives your boss the ability to monitor your personal life, making sure you continue to be a good fit.
Even if that means voting for people who won't do anything but harm you and your friends.
♠♠♠
I want to draw special attention to Wisconsin and North Carolina. Because they seem to contradict our contention that higher voter turnout most often leads to Democratic victories.
High voter turnout in WI's recent elections seemed to come as much from blood-red Waukesha and Washington counties, and even more than, blue Milwaukee. There, voter registration seemed to fire up the righties just as much as the lefties... which kind of makes us want to rethink our paradigm.
And as for North Carolina? Remember their misguided 2012 vote to codify one-man, one-woman marriage; which gave the finger to unmarrieds too. Voter turnout was actually UP among the righties:
On Election Night, I didn't even need to read the results tape I'd just run to know Amendment One had passed. In my 55/45 blue swingy mixed up precinct, I watched 58% vote FOR Amendment One. R after R after R after R. I really need to scream. I'm a professional here. I hold it in. Help the next Republican figure out why his name isn't coming up on the computer. A few search tricks. There he is. You can get your ballot over there, sir. Now go vote to deny others human rights you enjoy. I'll take the next in line. Yow. Another R.
-- from "My Misguided NC Neighbors Need Your Help, Not Your Anger", May 9, 2012
Thinking about these results which seem to challenge our turnout paradigm, I have to think in light of the voter coercion that
Citizen's United has made easier to pull off. What if that increased R turnout represented workers mobilized by a conservative boss? That, to me, would be an even more effective way of mobilization than using a church. Because survival often trumps your immortal soul.
I would like other Kossacks to corroborate with me on this:
- In Wisconsin, does it seem like Democrats and Walker non-supporters have a harder time getting jobs? Do bosses tend to support Walker-- and implicitly threaten to deny your promotion if you don't?
- In North Carolina, is there an unspoken sense that Moral Monday participants have "bad attitudes" or are "disruptive"? That is often all it takes to keep you from getting a job.
- Are workers with conservative attitudes considered more likeable, more qualified, or more socially adept than workers with liberal attitudes? This often is subtle. Pay close attention to who is well-liked at your workplace. Are they all similar?
- If you are in an HR position-- do you feel like it's become acceptable to monitor applicants' out-of-work activities, and in particular to 86 anyone who has been in a protest recently?
- Do former Occupy protesters have a harder time on the job market in general?
- Are the executives at your company disproportionately Republican and/or conservative? Did they become more markedly so after your state was taken over by Republicans?
- What about people who have arrests or criminal records as the result of protesting? How have they fared in their attempts to get back to work?
- How are protesters' social lives now? Do they still have friends sticking by them? Have their families or friends suffered negative consequences?
- Do we all have a game plan for effectively dealing with online harassment, death threats, etc? Remember that law enforcement often cannot help us... and the Supreme Court definitely will not help us. But it is NOT acceptable for the answer to continue to be, "you're on your own." We MUST have an effective counterattack going forward if we are going to find our courage.
♠♠♠
Full stop, we Americans will not be able to find our courage until we stop being afraid for our livelihoods. And that means taking our power back from bosses and corporate creep, as much as anything else.
Citizen's United has made it easier for employers to coerce us into voting the way they want us to. That aspect of the decision is not talked about enough. It is something I very much would like to see Hillary and Bernie bring up.
Because if we respond so much better to visceral appeals than intellectual ones-- I say: what could be more visceral, more personal, than our livelihood?
We are not free when just by being ourselves, and making our own decisions, is going to get us fired or keep us from getting a new job.
We are just as much oppressed when it's an employer doing the oppressing, as when it's a government doing it.
Roosevelt's Freedom From Want is now about freedom from coercion at work. Freedom from having to mold ourselves into the boss' image, or an ideal workers' image, in order to make a decent living. Freedom from having to be the kind of person who puts profits before people, because that's how we must be if we want to advance in our career.
The gun fetishists are totally myopic. The highest freedom is the freedom to be yourself and live your own life, without unacceptable consequences.
UPDATE: Thanks for putting this diary on the rec list. One of the most important things we can learn about why America is the way it is.