Do Democrats Still Care About Unions?

        Unsurprisingly, unions played a role in the victory of President of Joe Biden.  In addition to receiving many union endorsements, union households voted over 60% in the swing states of Wisconsin and Michigan.  Likewise, it was revealed by a Time article that union collaboration with big business played a part in making sure their members supported Biden’s election.  In spite of this, some of Biden's first actions as president eliminated union jobs.

        In the first week of his Presidency, Joe Biden killed the Keystone XL Pipeline which destroyed 11,000 jobs, 8,000 of which would have gone to union workers.  This unsurprisingly got condemnation from unions such as LUINA, the Pipe Fitters, and the AFL-CIO.  Of course, Biden and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg assured green jobs (that do not yet and may not exist) will replace those jobs, but since large portions of green tech are made in China, this could likely increase jobs instead for non-unionized foreign labor than American unions.

        This is hardly the only evidence though that the Biden administration might be turning on unions.  Plenty of his current policy positions have come out against union interests.  Further evidence suggests the Democratic Party may no longer be interested in union support.

        Other Biden policies include increased support for trade deals that will send jobs overseas such as the TPP and the promise to destroy the oil and gas industry (while telling those displaced to learn to code).  Meanwhile, though he has promised to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour, that remains stalled in the senate.  It seems unlikely he will carry much for unions with his future policies.

        This is likely a sign that union power in the Democratic party is waning.  After all, union membership has decreased 10% in the last 40 years so that may be heralding a reduction in interest for them from workers.  If unions do not carry as much power over labor, the Democratic party may be looking for other forms of support.

        Still, it’s no surprise as most of his financial support came from Wall Street which may suggest Biden’s more interested in them.  After all, he received $74 million in Wall Street donations.  Also, Biden has been hiring people from tech companies who usually oppose unionization.  With increased Democratic support coming from cities, it’s likely that their policy may reflect coastal elites more than working class Main Street.

        This then brings up the question: would unions be winnable for Republicans?  After all, the Dems are becoming increasingly hostile towards traditionally unionized fields like the energy industry and manufacturing as they increasingly become the party of the wealthy.  This may mean labor may be leaving the party of the donkey.

        However, there are many issues stopping the Republican Party from benefiting from labor support.  First of all, union leadership continues to benefit from Dem leadership.  While laborers may lose jobs, national leadership may not be concerned if the Dems keeping benefiting them specifically.

        This may actually mean a coming reckoning between labor and union leadership.  After all, some unions were reporting majority Trump support despite leadership opposition.  It should come as no surprise then that a majority of union members support voluntary dues laws like right-to-work as they don’t want funds to go to leadership that does not support them.  So this may be a bad sign for union bosses.

        All the same, a second issue may be Republican opposition in the past.  After all, many have taken stances unions have disliked in the past, such as Nikki Haley intervening in the Boeing labor dispute when she was governor or South Carolina.  So some may be untrusting of the party.

        Still, with dwindling numbers, changes in party structure, and a transitioning economy, union members may feel a need to start adapting to the times.  Those members still have families to feed, work to do, and long term threats to those things.  A change in political direction could be in the wind.

Addendum:  Of note, the Biden administration is making overtures towards teachers’ unions, especially by supporting not opening schools despite approval from the CDC.  Public sector and private sector unions tend to function with different sets of interests and rules so they have different interests.  So while private sector unions may be open to change, public sector unions will likely stick behind the President.

Yesterday Was My Birthday

         I celebrated my Birthday yesterday.  It was a nice affair but pretty low-key.  I went to work where I made a lot of sales and won $7 on a free lotto ticket so it went as well as could be expected.  After that, my sister Meg, her boyfriend Nick, and I celebrated by watching Disney cartoons, getting food from Buffa Louie's, and opening my gifts.  Overall, it went as well as could be expected.

        I usually like to use my birthday as a time to reflect and think about how the last year has gone.  A lot has happened and I like to think about how I'm in a better place now than I was back then as I usually am.  So I thought I'd take some time to reflect.

        My mom chronicled this pretty well on her blogpost, but it's worth repeating.  Last year I lost my job rather suddenly right before the pandemic started.  After that, I was unable to find work as the lockdowns started, but I lucked out in making a second part time job I was doing full time to cover some of my costs.  Beyond that, everything I wanted to do (churches, restaurants, time with family, seeing my girlfriend) was largely shut down so I was mostly alone, unhappy, and trying to find work while finding ways to keep my spirits up.

        I have to admit I was extremely lucky thanks to the support and encouragement of my friends.  Some of my closest friends, Sean, Andrew, and their wives, lived in town and when we were able to travel again, I'd visit them as often as they'd allow and we stayed in constant contact.  Other people, including friends and family  I could only speak to electronically were always around if I needed someone to talk to and there were a few others I was able to meet with in spite of everything.  So I was able to keep from going completely insane.

        However, job searching was still a nightmare.  Mostly it was sending applications that went nowhere, setting up interviews that went nowhere, and all the while balancing this around a full time job that was the focus of my creative activities (though fortunately I got along with a lot of my coworkers so there were also people there to talk to during all this).  It really did though drain after awhile because constantly applying to places that keep telling you you wasted your time with constant rejections can tear you down emotionally.

        Eventually though, I did find a full time job that not only paid my bills but also let me save up for the future.  It was a fun job too where I very much enjoyed the work I did, the people I was with, and the opportunities it afforded me.  It was also a better fit for my skill set and previous interests so it made me realize what I was good at and what my career interests are.  It has taught me to stop trying to make things work because doing the work should be as fun as the end result.

        Since then, I've gone even further on other personal goals.  I have an amazing girlfriend, I finished a novel (that still isn't published), and did this all with the support of my friends and family.  This has only improved since that year and I realize that right now there isn't really a better place to be then.

        Which only further makes me realize as I reflect that my life now is better than it has been in a while.  Sure, I've had great experiences (congressional internships, campaigns, living in New England, my time at St. Paul's, etc.) but this is the soundest I've been in a while.  I have free time since unlike school, my work ends once I punch out and I don't bring it home with me, I'm actually making money now, I have some idea where my future is going, and I have a consistent support group that I know will always be there for me.

        So as I look back on this trip around the sun, I realize I've gotten through COVID about the best I could.  I don't think I would have believed I'd be here if I had told myself that at the beginning of grad school (or even senior year in undergrad).  I don't seek to brag, merely just hope I can tell people that life does get better and that next year can improve.  So as I leave, I realize my life is well reflected in a Zac Brown Band song:

I got some good friends that live down the street

Got a good looking woman with her arms 'round me

Here in a small town, where it feels like home

I've got everything I need and nothing that I don't

Someone Wants Xi Gone

  Recently, the think tank the Atlantic Council published “The Longer Telegram,” a report by an anonymous “former senior government official.”  In it, the author recommended that the United States pressure China to remove Chairman Xi Jinping in favor of a more “moderate” leader sympathetic to US interests while keeping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in charge.  Unsurprisingly, the article was a near sighted policy suggestion that would be at best hard to implement and at worst greatly make the United States’s problems with China worse.  However, a worthwhile question to ask might be “Who gains from doing this?”

        Now, there are ample reasons why people would want to remove Xi from office.  He’s actively engaging in genocide against a minority population, mishandled a viral outbreak that became an international pandemic and covered it up, has overseen a mass crackdown on dissent, manipulated the countries currency, used accumulation of other countries’ debts to manipulate their policies (to preclude naval expansion), etc, etc, etc.  There may be a shorter list of things Chairman Xi hasn’t done.

        However, this is hardly new for China.  Never forget, censorship existed well before Xi became Chairman, massacring political rivals has happened before, and questionable economic practices are usually the norm.  So why would anyone think someone else from the party that continuously produces despots would be any better?

        Well, we could find out the bias of the paper by looking at the background of the author.  However, since it is an “anonymous” source, it is impossible to independently verify who used the info.  Also, as proven during the Trump administration, it is impossible to even prove independent sources are credible.  Therefore, we cannot use the author or their alleged background as evidence of anything.

        Instead, those funding the Atlantic Council may give us an insight into who is supporting the idea.  After all, those who give money to it likely do so because they support the institution.  However, if we do take a look at their donor list, we begin to see a lot of businesses that have financial ties to China.  This may imply that these companies may be supporting this for self-interested purposes.

        Some of the financial firms that have donated to the Atlantic Council include Goldman Sachs & Co., the JP Morgan Chase Foundation, the Mubadala Investment Co., and BP, among others (like Burisma).  Goldman Sachs is trying to buyout its Chinese partner, JP Morgan “is seeking to establish another Chinese joint venture in wealth management,” Reuters reported Mubadala investing $2 billion in China back in 2019 with plans for more, and BP has been expanding its gas Chinese importations.  It seems that companies doing business in China may have a vested interest in the nation’s leadership since it impacts their deals.

        There are also entertainment companies that have been doing work in China.  21st Century Fox (now owned by Disney) and NBCUniversal Telemundo Enterprises (owned by Comcast) are both on the donor list.  Both companies have investments in China so they are another potential interested party.  This is starting to suggest a pattern.

        Some of the more prominent companies though on the donor list are Google and Facebook, two of the largest tech companies in the world.  Both are actually banned in China but have been working with the Chinese government and are trying to get into the nation.  They may see regime change as a way to get themselves legalized internally, especially if they conform to Chinese censorship standards.

        Now this is a long list of companies that have financial ties to China, but the reader may be wondering just what exactly this means and how this connects directly to Xi Jinping.  Well, it is possible that the “Longer Telegram” report is a sign of growing dissatisfaction with Chairman Xi’s leadership and a belief that his removal could actually help these companies.  After all, Western firms are increasingly purchasing Chinese bonds so there is corporate desire to control political action in China.

        Under Xi’s leadership, the Chinese state has been greatly increasing state influence and authority over the countries’ businesses.  In addition, he is purging political rivals which creates a hostile environment within the government.  All of these would make business ventures hard for foreign companies hoping to use government ties to make a profit.  This may lead them to support a political rival for a better business climate.

        It is important to remember though that there is no hero in this conflict.  Yes, Xi Jinping is a genocidal authoritarian responsible for the worst pandemic in decades, but many companies have actively supported his rise to that position.  Nike, Apple, Coca-Cola and others fought to protect slave labor in the Xinjiang province while Disney thanked the agency overseeing that for letting them shoot a film nearby.  So their interests are not humanitarian and whoever replaces Xi will probably be just as bad even if he supports foreign investment.

        Nevertheless, the real question may be if there are any actual plans to implement policies on behalf of the “Longer Telegram” report.  Well, the Atlantic Council also takes money from governments including countries at odds with China like Japan and Korea, countries investing in China like the United Arab Emirates, and factions in the United States government like the United States Department of State, Department of Energy, and the Marine Corps.

        President Joe Biden has actively been focusing on addressing China by hiring multiple Asia experts.  However, Wall Street spent $74 million supporting Joe Biden (more than it did for Trump) and Joe has been hiring folks with ties to Wall Street, including tech companies, so he will have their voices in mind.  So there is a good chance that his policies may reflect the will of Wall Street, especially in favoring American financial interests abroad.

        All this is conjecture though at this time.  There have been no major pushes from the Biden Administration into Asia and there may be other ideas in the works besides removing Xi Jinping.  All the same, it would not be surprising if removing Xi while preserving communism suddenly became an interest of the US.  After all, President Joe Biden was the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the US voted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan so he may know something or two about regime change.

The Real Threat from China

        I can’t start this blogpost without actually addressing a previous one I had done. Previously, I had written that in the long term China was not a threat to the United States economically and I stand by that. Ignoring my initial statements, other issues exist with China nationalizing industries, angering their neighbors, internal conflict and struggle, blowback from responsibility in the COVID pandemic, and a disorganized military. Overall, there are many weaknesses China has that will continue to hold it back in its attempt to expand globally. However, the main threat to America isn’t Chinese infiltration (though that is a problem), but instead Wall Street’s support for the People’s Republic.
        Various American companies have actively been increasing their support for China through investments. Bond purchasing from American companies have actually INCREASED in spite of their responsibility for COVID. This means that they are actively pursuing investments that help a country that is in direct competition and a threat to the US.
        More than mere financial investments, the connection American businesses have means they will act in a way that benefits China at the expense of American citizens. Since China is a communist country, their businesses are usually tied to the Chinese government, especially since “the banks in China are under the ruling Communist Party’s control, the biggest firms outside of banking are also under the party’s control, and investments by foreign business are heavily regulated to keep foreign competition out of the equation”, so these businesses are agents of the Chinese government as opposed to merely private. So unsurprisingly, this leads to favoritism by American companies towards that nation.
        More importantly in the media, American media companies have been making huge investments in the Chinese box office. Disney has actually been increasing their focus on revenue from the country from making films primarily focused on China like the “Mulan” remake, putting two theme parks in the country, and actively editing content to better appeal to them. However, the greatest sign of their relationship with them is probably the fact that former Disney CEO Bob Iger is interested in becoming the US’s Ambassador to China.
        Disney’s relationship to China though has been of huge concern to the USA as its actions have actively invited spying and promoted genocide (seriously). According to former Attorney General William Barr, Disney actually gave Chinese officials positions in management and recently Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy promised collaboration with the government as well. This means they have indirect access to the Department of Defense (DOD) since the company has to work with the DOD for military hardware. In addition, they actively thanked the organization carrying out Uighyr genocide in Xinjiang in the credits for Mulan. Considering the color of the Chinese flag, it’s appropriate that Disney has this many red flags.

        They’re hardly the only company that has been doing this though. Paramount, Dreamworks, Lionsgate, the NBA, and Warner Brothers have all been working with Chinese affiliates for a while. Unsurprisingly, this has resulted in censorship for China as well with these studios, such as the NBA banning slogans on jerseys that promoted the Hong Kong protests. Since 20 percent of U.S. box-office ticket sales was accounted for by China, it should come as no surprise that Hollywood has a huge stake in the nation.
        This causes problems though as many news stations are owned by those companies. ABC is owned by Disney, CBS is owned by Paramount, and CNN is owned by Warner Brothers. Ask yourself: how likely are these news networks likely to critique anything China does if their owners are in bed with Beijing?
        Of course, it is hardly Hollywood that is alone in its relationship with the Asian nation. Manufacturing is quite large there as a lot of US products are shipped in from there. So it should be only slightly surprising that Nike, Apple, and other companies actively worked to kill a bill that punished China for slave labor in the Xinjiang province. Despite all the virtue signalling in favor of social justice, these companies seem to have no problem with full on genocide.
        Finally, big tech has a lot of investments there as well. Apple has already been discussed, but Google has been working with Chinese Universities on technological projects while also promising to continue to invest more in the nation. Facebook has also been hiring Chinese nationals to work on its censorship program known as “Hate Speech Engineering.” Even worse, TikTok is owned by a Chinese company.
        With Google, Facebook, and plenty of other companies finetooning their search engines, it makes one wonder if they would also be willing to rig their search engines or content to please the nation. There is also worry of privacy and giving info to the Chinese government as well which must be considered. So one must continue to ask if there is interest from the People’s Republic since these companies seem interested in pleasing them.
        There are still many more companies that have ties to or done favors for China (such as AMC or Activision), but the point stands. With the continued push from Wall Street to please foreign investment, one must act if they will begin helping out the government in cleaning China’s image. While there are still problems facing the nation, the interest in American business may hurt American citizens more than economic competition with a country that American businesses were considering leaving. Vladimir Lenin once said “When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract.” It should come as no surprise then that the country may hang itself as it sells out to China.