Joe Biden, Pro-Union President

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Joe Biden, Pro-Union President
NDPP

Don't be fooled: Joe Biden is no friend of unions

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/02/joe-biden-is-no-fr...

"What's remarkable is that Biden's proletarian minstrel act has worked for this long..."

NorthReport

Biden betting on public support to push his big-spending agenda and the polls show he has that support

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bidens-betting-on-public-support-to...

NorthReport
JKR

NDPP wrote:

Don't be fooled: Joe Biden is no friend of unions

"What's remarkable is that Biden's proletarian minstrel act has worked for this long..."

NDPP, your article from The Guardian is from May 2, 2019, exactly 2 years before NorthReports current article from The Guardian. Being current, NorthReport's articles are much more meaningful that articles written far before Biden became president.

NDPP, you lose more credibility when you post outdated articles.

NDPP

So for most of his career up to 2019 Joe Biden was NOT pro-union, but in his first 100 days now he IS allegedly pro-union so the previous opinion is 'outdated.' Got it JKR. What a brain...

NorthReport

Community college saved my life. Thank you, Joe Biden, for trying to make it free.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/02/community-college-sav...

JKR

NDPP wrote:

So for most of his career up to 2019 Joe Biden was NOT pro-union, but in his first 100 days now he IS allegedly pro-union so the previous opinion is 'outdated.' Got it JKR. What a brain...

... and back in the real world unions are supporting Joe Biden and the Democrats and opposing the Republicans.

NDPP

It Didn't Take Long For Joe Biden to Betray the Labor Movement

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/02/joe-biden-amazon-workers-unionizing-l...

"Biden's union-friendly image is built on remarkably little beyond affable backslapping and some well-placed cultural signifiers. For a large part of his career Biden championed policies vehemently opposed by unions..."

josh

NDPP wrote:

So for most of his career up to 2019 Joe Biden was NOT pro-union, but in his first 100 days now he IS allegedly pro-union so the previous opinion is 'outdated.' Got it JKR. What a brain...

 

That's like saying because Lyndon Johnson had a mediocre record on civil rights, the fact that he pushed throught the Civil Rights and Votings Rights shouldn't count.  

voice of the damned

josh wrote:

NDPP wrote:

So for most of his career up to 2019 Joe Biden was NOT pro-union, but in his first 100 days now he IS allegedly pro-union so the previous opinion is 'outdated.' Got it JKR. What a brain...

 

That's like saying because Lyndon Johnson had a mediocre record on civil rights, the fact that he pushed throught the Civil Rights and Votings Rights shouldn't count.  

Or to reverse it, like saying that since George HW Bush was a supporter of contraception and abortion rights when he was a congressman, we don't need to worry about this Clarence Thomas guy he's sending to the Supreme Court now.

Anyone who follows politics knows that you can only analyse a politician's actions in the here and now. If you start bringing in their positions from even a few years ago, of course you're gonna find contradictions. Mulroney in 1983 said he'd never pursue a free-trade deal.

None of which means I neccessarily agree that Biden is now pro-labour. But if one of his apologists says "Biden is doing X, Y, and Z to help labour", you can rebut that by showing he is not, in fact, doing X, Y, and Z right now. Not by talking about the positions he took in a previous political incarnation.

NorthReport
NorthReport

Joe Biden's choice for Labour Secretary made it clear

NorthReport

 

Biden could be the one to finally begin poaching the GOP’s core voters

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/02/stranded-trump-island...

NorthReport
NorthReport

No, We Don’t Need These Forever Wars

 

Is the Cold War analogy that we hear so often applied to US-China relations today correct or appropriate? Is China really in the equivalent position that the USSR was during the actual Cold War?

JB

The short answer is no. China is not a global power, it’s a regional power. The Soviet Union had nuclear capabilities well outside its territory, nuclear-armed submarines and so on. At some point, military spending between the United States and USSR was comparable, though the United States was well ahead. China’s military spending is less than half of the United States’ spending, and it doesn’t have the international network of bases the United States has.

I don’t think the Cold War analogy is useful for two countries that are so economically interdependent, and given the conflict and proxy wars that took place between the US and USSR for decades.

The United States remains an empire — an empire in decline, but still an empire — and China is not. I don’t think the Cold War analogy is useful for two countries that are so economically interdependent, and given the conflict and proxy wars that took place between the US and USSR for decades.

BM

To what extent do you think the lessons of the past few decades of foreign policy been learned or internalized by the national security establishment in the United States?

JB

The costs of the Democrats’ ignoring public opinion on bread-and-butter issues have risen. We have decades of public opinion data going back to the 1970s, showing strong majorities of average Americans prioritize material conditions at home, and not pursuing regime change wars and ground invasions of other countries. The same polls show policymakers in Washington and opinion makers around them in think tanks and so on favor free market approaches and political change overseas through military intervention.

What we’ve seen so far with Biden suggests that for the moment, this disconnect between the priorities of the public and that of the policy-making elite is being bridged. But I’d say right now there’s no evidence leading figures in “the Blob” have substantially changed their worldview.

I think two things explain why we’re on a course of foreign policy restraint, relatively speaking. One is that COVID-19 has concentrated minds and eliminated room for discretionary campaigns and interventions and humanitarian crusaderism, if you can call it that. Of course, that might change if a crisis comes up and if the pandemic subsides.

The second factor is the 2020 elections. They obviously put Biden and Harris into the White House, but they were not good for the Democrats. It suggests that if they don’t take seriously the domestic policy priorities of the electorate, they could get really wiped out in 2022 and 2024. I think there is an electoral calculus at work here in which the interventionist policies the Blob likes and the public opposes are not considered electorally feasible.

If the Democrats don’t compete effectively on domestic policy, they will lose out to Republicans for a long period of time, the way their counterparts in Hungary and India lost out to [Viktor] Orbán and [Narendra] Modi. Biden and his close confidants seem to understand that in a pure, realpolitik kind of way, they need to do what Clinton and Obama didn’t do, and align the Democratic Party with domestic priorities that are commonsensical and will have broad support.

BM

What is the state of US primacy in the world? Is the United States still established as the world’s superpower, or are things more tenuous right now?

JB

When international relations scholars look at primacy in terms of a unipolar and multipolar world, they tend to look to wealth as the basic metric of power. While China within the decade will surpass the United States in GDP, if you add to US GDP the GDP of NATO, the EU, and a few other allies, you would quickly get to over 50 percent of world GDP in the hands of the United States and various allies.

If you add to US GDP the GDP of NATO, the EU, and a few other allies, you would quickly get to over 50 percent of world GDP in the hands of the United States and various allies.

I think as long as that remains the case, US primacy — even if it’s shared primacy with European partners, Australia, Canada, Japan, and South Korea — would remain dominant. Also, so long as the US dollar remains the global reserve currency, then I see the United States continuing to enjoy an important kind of economic primacy.

BM

What is the prospect of a break from business-as-usual on foreign policy in the foreseeable future?

JB

The first step to ending US wars overseas is to elevate domestic needs and domestic priorities on the public agenda. COVID-19 made that happen in a big way.

We can see a shift away from some of the worst types of intervention that happened under Bush and Obama, but it’s not going to be a shift that is heralded or celebrated, because it’s the absence of interventionism. It’s the glory of not doing.

I’d also say, it’s not going to be coherent. Capital and US business and finance interests at the top of the US hierarchy can be served in a number of ways. They can profit from wars, but also from peace and diplomacy. The 1979 peace deal between Egypt and Israel saw billions of dollars of business opportunities for defense firms, even though it was a peace deal. Dick Cheney, in the private sector in the 1990s, supported lifting sanctions on Iran because his business interests at the time aligned with better relations with the country. We won’t find consistency, even among people who are really ideological.

We’ll see a mix of military and diplomatic options, but I think overall we’ve seen a return to pre-9/11 strategy where the main approach to intervention is to work through local proxies and use airpower, and now drone strikes, minimizing US casualties and the cost that the American public experiences at home. At the same time, it’ll be highly destabilizing for the countries on the receiving end.

 

 

https://jacobinmag.com/2021/05/biden-administration-foreign-policy-china...