The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTed Rall Archive
The Data Is Clear: Progressives Should Boycott Biden
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Once again, the Democratic Party is asking progressives to vote for a presidential nominee who says he disagrees with it about every major issue. This is presented as an offer it cannot refuse. If it casts a protest vote for a third-party candidate like the unionist and environmentalist Howie Hawkins of the Green Party or stays home on that key Tuesday in November, Donald Trump will win a second term — which would be worse than Biden’s first.

Which is better for the progressive movement: fall into the two-party trap and vote for Biden, or refuse to be co-opted and possibly increase Trump’s reelection chances?

My new book, “Political Suicide: The Fight for the Soul of the Democratic Party,” documents the last half-century of struggle between the party’s left-leaning voters and its right-leaning leadership class. History is clear. When progressive voters compromised their values by supporting corporatist candidates, they were ignored after the election. Only when they boycotted a general election did the DNC start to take them seriously.

Throughout the 1980s, party bigwigs manipulated the primaries in favor of establishment corporatist candidates over insurgent progressives: Jimmy Carter over Ted Kennedy in 1980, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis over Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. Democrats were united but unenthused; all three lost.

Carter won once, and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama each won two terms, all three with progressive support. Democratic victories didn’t help progressives.

Most people have forgotten that Carter was the first of a string of conservative Democratic presidents. He brought back draft registration. The “Reagan” defense buildup actually began under Carter, as Ronald Reagan himself acknowledged. Carter provoked the Tehran hostage crisis by admitting the despotic shah to the U.S., boycotted the Moscow Olympics and armed the Afghan mujahideen, who morphed into al-Qaida.

Carter became the first president since Franklin Roosevelt not to propose an anti-poverty program. Instead, he pushed a right-wing idea, “workfare.”

Progressives got nothing in return for their votes for Jimmy Carter.

Like Carter, Clinton and Obama governed as foreign policy hawks while ignoring pressing domestic issues like rising income and wealth inequality. Clinton pushed through the now-disgraced 1994 crime bill that accelerated mass incarceration of people of color; signed the North American Free Trade Agreement that gutted the Rust Belt and sent hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas; and ended “welfare as we know it,” massively increasing homelessness. Obama bailed out Wall Street while ignoring Main Street, smashed the Occupy Wall Street movement and supported al-Qaida affiliates that destroyed Libya and Syria.

There was only one arguably progressive policy achievement over those 16 years: the Affordable Care Act, which originated in the bowels of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

Progressives kept holding their noses and voting for Democrats. Democrats took them for granted. Democrats didn’t push to increase the minimum wage. They watched silently as generation after generation succumbed to student loan debt. As the Earth kept burning, they hardly lifted a finger to help the environment, except for symbolic actions like Obama’s fuel efficiency regulations, which required less than automakers were doing by themselves.

Personnel, they say in D.C., is policy. Carter had one progressive in his Cabinet for his first term, Labor Secretary Robert Reich. Obama had none. Citigroup chose his Cabinet.

After the defeat of Bernie Sanders in 2016, progressives tried something new. Millions of disgruntled Sanders primary voters stayed home, voted for Trump or cast votes for third-party candidates like Jill Stein. Hillary Clinton, who was so sure she could take progressives for granted that she put Sanders at 39th on her list of vice presidential picks, was denied her presumptive shoo-in victory. (Don’t blame Stein. Adding all of her votes to the Hillary Clinton column would not have changed the result.)

Three years later, something remarkable happened. Most presidential hopefuls in the 2020 Democratic primary campaign emerged from the centrist corporatist wing of the Democratic Party yet felt pressured to endorse important progressive policy ideas. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg and even Michael Bloomberg came out in favor of a $15-an-hour minimum wage. Most of the mainstream candidates proposed some sort of student loan forgiveness and “Medicare for All.” Nearly all support a Green New Deal.

What forced the Democratic Party to shift left after decades of moving to the right? Fear that progressives will withhold their votes this coming November. After years of empty threats from progressives, the November 2016 voter boycott proved they wouldn’t sell their votes without getting something in return.

The answer to the question “What should progressives do?” is easy in the long term. Progressives should boycott Democratic candidates who don’t credibly pledge to support progressive policies. Biden says he would veto Medicare For All, a Green New Deal or student loan forgiveness. He is hawkish on Russia and Venezuela. He doesn’t want your vote. Why give it to him for free?

The trouble is, every election is also about the short term. Progressive voters have to game out the next four years.

If Trump wins, he may have the opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court justice. He will certainly appoint more federal judges. He will continue to coddle hate groups and spew lies. Many of the weak and vulnerable will suffer. On the other hand, activism will be sustained. Resistance, and possibly even revolutionary change, may emerge. Trump will be a lame duck likely wallowing in scandal; very few presidents get much of anything done during their second term.


If Biden wins, his Supreme Court picks may not be significantly more to the left than Trump’s. He is likelier than Trump, who shows restraint on interventionism and ended the occupation of Afghanistan, to start a new war. Big problems will get small solutions or none at all. Streets will be quiet. If there are any demonstrations, for instance by Black Lives Matter, his Department of Homeland Security will suppress it, as Obama did to Occupy. As under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the left will go back to sleep. Progressives will watch Biden appoint one corporatist Cabinet member after another as their dreams of making the country a better place fade away.

And in 2024, we will again face a choice between a rabid right-wing Republican and a wimpy, sell-out Democrat. This election, Democrats will say as they always do, is too important for ideological purity. Progressives should wait until some future election when less hangs in the balance. Perhaps in 2028? Maybe 2032? 2036?

Hide 31 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Democrats didn’t push to increase the minimum wage…

    …even Michael Bloomberg came out in favor of a $15-an-hour minimum wage.

    Why so cheap? Progressives assert that raising the minimum wage won’t cost jobs. If that’s true, then why not set it at a much higher level– say, $35, or $50, or even $115?

    There is a simple way to test this out. Raise the minimum wage for immigrants, i.e., non-citizens, to one of these figures. This would be pain-free either way– no American’s job would be under threat.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  2. “The data is clear: Everyone should boycott the Election”.

  3. One of the most horrifying things about the USA and its supposedly progressive Democrats, is continuing the death penalty, revived in the last days of Gerald Ford’s presidency in 1977 after a nearly 10-year moratorium, the lull created by tag-teaming, more humane judges of that era who effectively blocked executions after the last 1967 one under Ronald Reagan

    Ironically, it is US President Richard Nixon, who is the only one under whom there were no judicial executions … war crime killings of course another matter

    The death penalty is barbaric and very obviously racist in its USA application. Over 80% of the world’s nations have abandoned it, it is now mostly Muslim countries, plus the empire-fantasy countries of the USA, China, India and Japan, and a very few others.

    It was absolutely appalling that Saint Barack Obama allowed it to go on

    California’s Governor Newsom has at least put in a block on executions in California whilst he is governor, California having 25% of the USA death-row inmates

    Will this death penalty USA satanism be continued under the next Democratic presidency as well?

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  4. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    A couple weeks ago, Mr. Rall was touting Mr. Biden as a potential unifier of Team Blue. Today, he wants to signal his Progressive virtue, so it’s boycott the election.

    And then there’s this, remarkably naive even from Unz’s featherweight replacement for Mr. Engelhardt:

    There was only one arguably progressive policy achievement over those 16 years: the Affordable Care Act, which originated in the bowels of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

    Has Mr. Rall never heard of a Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania named Max, and the public service rendered by Elizabeth Fowler before she went back directly on the payroll of Big Sickness? Or those guardians of the Constitution, led by Republican-appointed Chief Justice Roberts, who spray painted it with another coat of legality?

    Beltway politics are pure puppet show.

  5. @Reg Cæsar

    An analysis run a few years ago, measuring the minimum wage in the 1960s and then adjusting for inflation said that the current minimum wage equivalent would be about 23 dollar per hour, so you have a good idea there.

    And your 2nd great idea is to enforce a minimum wage for EVERYONE including illegal immigrants. Also, enforce ALL employment law including payroll and other laws.

    This removes any advantage an employer has in hiring an illegal.

    Good deal, buddy! I’d rather read you than Rall any day.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  6. He will continue to coddle hate groups and spew lies.

    This statement is hilarious. Just what “hate groups” has Trump coddled? “Hate” is like Auntie Shem-itism, a shut down tactic to avoid honest debate.
    Spewing lies? That’s what politicians do Mr. Rall. Occasionally the truth slips out, but people miss it because it’s mixed in with all of the bullshit.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  7. @restless94110

    Actually, I don’t believe in a legal minimum wage for citizens– if someone wants to work for pennies, why stop him? All those “internships” and “$1 salaries” are breaking the law.

    Few actually would, or could, work for nothing, so a restricted labor market would set a de facto minimum wage higher than the state’s de jure.

    As with “official” language and segregation and integration, better de facto than de jure. Let free people choose.

    Look up the history of the minimum wage. It was all about keeping others out of the job market. Fellow citizens.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  8. TG says:

    Indeed, well said. “Lesser of two evils” may appear to make short-term sense, and in some ways it is true that the perfect is the enemy of the good. But always voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil, and every election it will get eviler and eviler until now “progressive” democrats are so far to the right they make Richard Nixon look like Lenin. Heck, they make Herbert Hoover look like Trotsky.

    But what is the solution? While I admit it is not a constructive thought, I don’t see one. The elites control everything, and there is no popular movement they cannot either suppress or deplatform or buy out. Optimism is cowardice.

    Still let me float one thought: we true progressives are preaching to the choir. The rich don’t care. We should be trying to persuade the rich that their policies of maximizing short-term profits are going to long-term kill the goose that laid the golden eggs. The New Deal of FDR did not come in a vacuum: it was allowed to happen because a critical mass of the elites were afraid of revolution or anarchy. I propose that true bottom-up popular reform is impossible, only by making the rich feel that there is something in it for them (or at least their heirs) long term, can the working stiff get any breaks. IMHO.

    • Replies: @botazefa
  9. @Reg Cæsar

    Look up the history of worker exploitation in the United States in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Laissez faire capitalism does not work even for the very tiny set of capitalists who exploit even children.

    It’s just a fact. Unions used to mitigate that some but are decimated. All that’s left is minimum wage, which should be at about 23 dollar an hour.

    That is unless you prefer a society ripped apart by violence and poverty, unsafe and unappealing to anyone rich or poor? Apparently you do. Your high-falutin’ talk about de jure and de facto are ridiculous academic concepts not grounded in reality or history.

    Capitalism untrammeled results in a lot of losers and a few winners. It must be fixed every so often as it was partially in the 1930s or you lose your country.

    Look what is happening right before your very eyes, man! Those people don’t have a chance at much of anything because the minimum wage is so low. So who cares if they tear the place up? They have no reason to preserve it.

    This is partly because of these stupid theories about the “market” self-rectifying. It does not. Has not. Well never ever. Capitalism works only if it is re-adjusted periodically. Otherwise, it gets destroyed from within. Look at today. Look at the 1930s. Learn from it.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  10. @restless94110

    Look what is happening right before your very eyes, man! Those people don’t have a chance at much of anything because the minimum wage is so low.

    Are you willing to hire those people at $23/hr? How are they worth even half of that? How will you keep from going under?

    It’s just a fact. Unions used to mitigate that some but are decimated. All that’s left is minimum wage, which should be at about 23 dollar an hour.

    Why not $50? Why not– for you alone– $500? Should some employer offer you $300/hr, my G-men would be there in a heartbeat to shut that place down! They have no right to exploit you.

    Minimum wage defenders claim that it doesn’t cost any jobs. If that’s true, then there is no excuse for setting it so low. Jobs will be plentiful at any price. So $50 $75 $95 it is.

    We can test it out on union members first.

    Look at the 1930s. Learn from it.

    Ten years of depression, followed by a peacetime draft– helluva jobs program!– and “world” war which took half a million of our lives. Worst president ever, which is why my county, not too far from his, rejected him in seven elections.

    Yes, you can learn a lot from the 1930s!

    • Thanks: Mark G.
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  11. Anon[344] • Disclaimer says:

    So Ted are you going to finally come to your senses and vote for the Donald and all other Republicans on the Ballot. That unfortunately is what Citizens that are not Insane have to do. Hold your nose if you half to and do it in your own personal interest. But do it.

  12. Are you willing to hire those people at $23/hr? How are they worth even half of that?

    So you are saying that in 1966, workers getting 3 dollars an hour were all worth 1.50 an hour? Yes, that indeed is what you are saying. Remember now: in 1966 one-earner households were able to live a middle class life. So are you saying that you would have preferred that there not be a middle class? Yes indeed that is what you are saying.

    So are you saying you prefer living in a country where the people that have no future tear up all the businesses including yours? Yes, indeed you are saying that.

    So Reg. Here is why these “people” are worth paying the inflation-adjusted minimum wage. Why they are “worth” it.

    Because you don’t have a business or a country if you don’t pay them a living wage, Reg.

    I’m not real interested in this argument because you are so obviously blind to what’s happening all around you. I didn’t even read past your first ludicrous sentence. If I feel like it later on today Sunday, I might or might not respond to anymore of your reply.

    But is there any need to? You think in intellectual terms about people who are real and have real problems. The solution to this dilemma is simple. Lower asset prices, pay people more, write off or otherwise lower their debt allow them the hope and promise of a normal life, with a lot less drudgery. But such a solution is beyond your kin. Is there any reason to reply further to what you say? it’s so out of touch, I hardly feel arsed to. It wouldn’t open that tightly shut mind of yours a centimeter, would it?

    • Replies: @Bro43rd
    , @Reg Cæsar
  13. Grammar-Nazi Note: The date are.

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  14. @Reg Cæsar

    FDR doesn’t compare in “worstness” to Wilson. That man created the FBI/Deep State; Federal Reserve; Income Tax; saw some really bad amendments passed; lied about trying to avoid war, and then did the bidding of the Morgan crowd, leading the Germans to put Lenin on a train to Bolshevize the Russian Empire; passed the Trading with the Enemy act that allowed FDR to seize gold; and instituted segregation at the Federal level. The only reason to support the removal of the Teddy Roosevelt statue is that TR elected Wilson by splitting the vote against.

    Putnam or Dutchess county?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  15. Bro43rd says:

    Pot meet kettle! Reg discusses without usage of emotion or invictive, you not so much.

    Read Rothbard!

    • Replies: @restless94110
  16. @Curmudgeon

    “Hate” is when the working stiff slaves refuse to obey their billionaire corporate masters.

    The masters never want the slaves talking about masters and slaves.

    • Replies: @Polemos
  17. vot tak says:

    Actually it was clear the democratic party offered no alternative to the oligarchy’s rule in the 1970s with carter. Nothings really changed in the party since then. Neither dems nor reps offer people a democratic choice, these are autocratic institutions designed to keep people powerless. Besides revolution, the only real choice people have to become empowered is to boycott both parties and vote for political candidates who are independent of the oligarchs.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  18. Polemos says:

    I think that’s false that you don’t want the slaves to talk of slaves, because if you can get the slaves to think they have more than their own slaves/inferiors, they will be happy the shit still has more hill to roll down.

    “Thank You I wasn’t born a woman or a dog,” is not an uncommon kind of prayer or expression of gratitude by people who justify slavery or have hierarchical intuitions about the world around them. “House negroes” or middle management are another kind of expression of this form of control. Poor folk or severely depressed people who have captive animals they beat or abuse or neglect are another.

    I’m not entirely disagreeing with your take, I guess. Bullying others is one way to disassociate from an awful life, and that is what ignorance is, a disassociation from other perspectives as much as one’s own.

  19. botazefa says:

    As hard as it may be to vote Trump, it’s the most progressive vote you can make in 2020. Why progressive? Because we won’t see any real progress until control is wrested away from the elite. Will Biden do that?

    Will Trump? I don’t know, but the money the wealthy are throwing at BLM indicates they are scared of Trump. You can’t ignore the truth of that.

    Trump wants an infrastructure program. That’s pretty progressive.

    • Replies: @A123
  20. A123 says:

    Trump is also helping Americans earn more. Temporary visa limits are already increasing the salary of U.S. Citizens (1):

    With H1B visas out of the picture, something has to give. Initially, that something is likely to be pay at banks, which will need to be competitive to win students back from technology firms. However, over time technology firms are likely to hike pay too. It’s good news if you’re the sort of highly technical U.S. student everyone wants to hire now.

    In a 2nd term he might be able to end the visa classes that U.S. employers are abusing to keep down American workers.

    PEACE 😇


    • Thanks: botazefa
  21. @TomSchmidt

    FDR doesn’t compare in “worstness” to Wilson.

    Good points. It’s a tossup whether FDR or his successor was our worst war criminal, and for issues in general it’s the same for FDR and TWW. I love the three in-between, and was sure to visit their statues when in Rapid City last week.

    Putnam or Dutchess county?

    I wish! One of the many more modest ones farther west. I don’t like to be too specific in online fora, but will confess I drink soda, not pop. Even after nearly four decades out on the prairies. And merry, marry, and Mary are still heterophones.

    Now this is my kind of multiculturalism!

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  22. @restless94110

    So you are saying that in 1966, workers getting 3 dollars an hour were all worth 1.50 an hour? Yes, that indeed is what you are saying.

    No, the higher value of their labor– market value– was due to four decades of tighter immigration standards. Harding-Coolidge immigration standards. Those were ditched in 1964-5– by your side– and what little survived haven’t been enforced. Immigrants today can exempt themselves from federal income tax, and most do.

    Because you don’t have a business or a country if you don’t pay them a living wage, Reg.

    No, not a living wage. A family wage. With which a man can support a wife and children. My grandparents had seven children between 1928 and 1949. Grandma rarely worked outside the home.

    I mentioned immigration– which you didn’t– but women are the “other immigrants” in te workforce.

    Until purported workers’ advocates address the family issue, I will continue to take their “living wage” proposals as a fraud.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  23. Biff says:

    There was only one arguably progressive policy achievement over those 16 years: the Affordable Care Act, which originated in the bowels of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

    How is a big win for corporate insurance rip-off monopolies a progressive policy achievement?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  24. @brabantian

    The main problem is that a guilty verdict may be factually wrong. There have been many convictions that were later, sometimes years later, overturned. Spectacularly when DNA testing first came in, but wrong murder convictions can happen anyway. The trial system is not perfect. Never expect that.

    That people can be exonerated after their executions means there must not be a death penalty.

  25. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    The author will ignore your comment, as he will mine (#4) on the same point.

    When the NPR-level, Prog columnist Tom Engelhardt departed, Mr. Unz scrambled to fill the roster with Mr. Rall, maintaining ideological bandwidth on a website that’s often caricatured as “right wing,” etc. Engelhardt was a wornout antiwarrior who had moved into Climaphobia and other Establishment-friendly territory, consistent with his affiliations and funding. He also pimped the work of his “TomDispatch regulars,” often obscuring and even distorting what they had written. (We’re never told, but I suspect that he, like Lang and Napolitano, couldn’t abide critical comments.)

    Mr. Rall seems, unlike his predecessor, sincere and independent. But he is far below TUR standard, a self-described, cutout Leftist who apparently can’t and thus far won’t defend his assertions. The single sentence about the Affordable Care Act is another instance in which he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I doubt that he thought about it any longer than it took him to type the words.

  26. @Bro43rd

    No emotion and invective (not invictive, try spell check) at all here. You are projecting your own emotion and invective you feel when triggered by truth.

    Note to you: Not so much as a saying? That went out in 1996.

    I wouldn’t be caught using your eyes to read Rothhard. He was into too many gay bathhouse orgies for me to take him seriously.

  27. @Reg Cæsar

    No, the higher value of their labor– market value– was due to four decades of tighter immigration standards. Harding-Coolidge immigration standards. Those were ditched in 1964-5– by your side– and what little survived haven’t been enforced. Immigrants today can exempt themselves from federal income tax, and most do.

    No that had little to nothing to do with it. Strong unions and not being able to ship jobs overseas kept wages up. The only other factor in the softening of wages was the beginning of illegal and legal immigration due to the Kennedy bill in 67 (68?).

    Market value is a fake concept that has no meaning. Wages are kept up by the ability of a country to limit and control their employee base.

    By the way, the only “side:” I am on is the side of not being stupid. And it’s stupid to talk asinine Libertarian failed theory.

    And you are wrong again, Immigrants don’t exempt themselves from income tax unless they are being paid your fabulous so called living wage of $1/hour because they are off the books and under the table. Any illegal with a job on the up and up is paying all taxes in the form of payroll withholding. You are curiously out of touch.

    No, not a living wage. A family wage.

    It’s the same thing, Reg. Stop picking nits.

    As for your family history, my family was the same. So were almost all families. So what?

    Just because I didn’t mention women entering the workforce means nothing. They helped to hold wages down just as illegals and legals did and have done. Both are detrimental to society and to the family.

    But why did women enter the workforce? In my family’s case it was because my father was unable to make enough for a middle class life. So, things started changing, and women were encouraged to supplement the falling wages.

    The immigration bill was a disaster. But that doesn’t mean that things can’t return to some semblance of stasis as it did in 1920 for 40 some years. Give a chance to get rid of the illegals, cancel all the H1-Bs so that your kids can get jobs in computer science, cancel all the other special visas so Americans can work in the fields and the chicken plants, give the people that have legally immigrated to assimilate (or their kids to assimilate) into the American culture.

    Time for the science that is already completed showing that children do best in a one-earner household to hit the mainstream and for women to figure out they aren’t as happy as 4th wave feminism promised.

    It could change, Reg, but not with claptrap about market value. Minimum wage arguments are specious anyway. With AI and robotics coming in, clearly there’ll have to be a UI and a better way to not put wage growth requirements on the backs of small businesses would be to issue a UI to all, supplementing the wages of all.

    The nonsense that no one would work if given a UI was debunked in 1980 by Milton Friedman. And he got it right and also pointed out that the entire Administrative layer for all entitlement and welfare programs could be eliminated by a simple monthly UI.

    It could all change, Reg. Many more powerful ideas are already here just waiting to be employed (using the Post Office as a people’s bank and also an open and free social media alternative to the private totalitarian ones; State-owned and run banking; replacing Federal Notes with Treasury Notes in order to defund and retire the Fed; writing off all government-held student debt; sustainable agriculture; restorative justice; decentralized 3D printing shops for manufacturing; small thorium reactors for power; the list goes on).

    Being stuck in the minimum wage scuffle of issues of market value though? That’s really so 80s.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  28. @Reg Cæsar

    The Egg Cream has not made it that far up the Hudson. Sad to see Poutine infesting up near Plattsburgh.

    Putnam voted for Trump, which Westchester, Dutchess, and Columbia did not. There are a number of upstate counties in similar shape.

    Since the Dems insist on making DC a state, time for upstate NY to secede. Rockland and Westchester go to downstate, while upstate starts at Putnam and Orange. They can run upstate (excepting Buffalo) on the Danegeld extracted from NYC for guarding the reservoirs.

  29. @restless94110

    Strong unions

    If unions are so great, why aren’t they standing up for Derek Chauvin? A union member canned by management for specious reasons. Same with Viki Knox, who was ruined for posting religious views on Facebook. Her union, the NJEA, did little, if anything. The left in general is siding with management these days.

    My point was that a minimum wage law would be unnecessary in a tight labor market. In any market it would be pernicious to some– The League of Women Voters refused to endorse one until it covered both sexes. (The earliest applied only to women.) Were they suddenly concerned about men?

    A question for you– if minimum laws do raise wages, how come unions never suggest setting those minimums above what their members are making?

    Another question– would separate minimums for different races, say $23 for everyone else, but $43 for blacks, violate the Fourteenth Amendment? How so? Who loses?

    A minimum wage law for immigrants, however, is much more defensible, and should be set to nosebleed levels.

    State-owned and run banking

    North Dakota has had that for generations. It isn’t spreading any faster than their lack of voter registration is.

    Postal banks are common in Europe, but the USPS doesn’t inspire confidence in Americans.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  30. @Reg Cæsar

    I was speaking of unions in the past and union organizing that helped to keep wages at a middle class level. I was also speaking specifically of private business unions, NOT the public unions, which I am negative toward in most instances. I haven’t followed them much but your examples appear to be the exception to public unions as they seem to be more interested in preventing change and accountability then in what they’ve done in the exceptions you write about.

    As for State banks, It’s spreading, just came to California, it will spread further.

    As for faith in the USPS, that’s hogwash. The USPS offered banking until the mid-60s with no problem whatsoever. Millions of people use and trust the USPS to this day. I depend on it for many things I do in my day-to-day and it has never let me down.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ted Rall Comments via RSS
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings