Back in the heady days of Deanism, one of the things I was harping on was how one of the problems we have in governance these days was the ratio of representation. Congress is currently 666,000:1, up from 50,000:1 back in 1800.

Makes for an interesting graph, if I do say so myself.

At some point there will be a realignment of these ratios if representation is to continue to be effective.

Here's my morning news ramble. Turned into a long one, so see if you can stick with me. I especially liked the end, but I'll beat that drum some more on that so don't worry if you tune out right now.

Spying; Everyday People
It's looking more and more like COINTELPRO again:

The officers hoist protest signs. They hold flowers with mourners. They ride in bicycle events. At the vigil for the cyclist, an officer in biking gear wore a button that said, "I am a shameless agitator." She also carried a camera and videotaped the roughly 15 people present.

This hits close to home because this is a community to which I've a number of connections Say it with me now: Critical Mass is not a threat to national security. There's no need to secretly videotape their activities.

If we don't turn back from this, it's going to get worse. This sort of relationship between the State and its dissidents, like any fight, has a way of escalating. It starts with the State treating dissenters as threats, and usually ends with violence. I'd rather not go there.

This is why having a just, working and equitable system of law and democracy is important. Not just because it's the morally right thing to do, but because the only way to go from there is down.

The problem is that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that we're somewhere short of a "just, working and equitable system of law and democracy." The $64,000 question is whether there's enough vitality and virtue left within our systems to make reform possible, or whether that's just a big waste of time.

To some radicals and activists, the behavior of "everyday people" ranges from incomprehensible to repugnant. Among people who are non-activist but on their way up in society (e.g. a lot of my friends who made it through college), the idea that "everyday people" are too stupid to realize what's in their best interest is remarkably pervasive.

This bears directly on questions about "the health of the system." If one does not believe that "everyday people" are capable of self-governance, there's not much point in democracy.

Individuals are remarkably fallible, but when engaged in large numbers I think people tend to get it right. In almost all cases, mass participation produces better results than "expert" direction. This is what underlies the argument that market economies are better than command economies, and it's the right idea.

The American Left must find a unifying philosophy which incorporates a populist message. Many are wary of this because they see the example of the GOP and assume that populism means manipulating people through fear. They think that populism means propaganda, demagoguery, stirring up anger and resentment.

While it's true that all these negatives have been part of populism in the past, it's not as though the only way to engage mass amounts of people is by turning them into a mob. The New Deal stands as a great example of this.

Substance
As Max Swacky points out in a post about the need for research and wonkery, even when Democrats are out of power:

We need propaganda and agitation, but to give the public something substantive that it can take to heart is the basis for progressive transformation of society. That's what winning is all about. Otherwise we're looking [at] a rotating bands of miscreants, alternatively taking office, raiding the till, and getting thrown out by the next cohort of miscreants-to-be.

If you don't think the Democratic Party doesn't have the same potential for lyin, cheatin, and stealin, you are gravely misinformed. The only constraint on the abuse of power -- besides an opposition lurking in the wings -- is an engaged, informed public. Being angry and stupid isn't good enough.

This is essentially right, although I still don't think people are just "angry and stupid" at the moment.

What Max doesn't seem to acknowledge -- though I'm sure he realizes this -- is that there's a lot more to "giving the public something substantive that it can take to heart" than doing research and publishing papers, even if the papers do get read by congressional staffers. In fact, I would say this is a critical lesson to take away from the Clinton Years, which were a golden age for wonkery, true, but one in which fucking nothing substantially progressive happened and one in which the country's overall politics shifted notably to the Right.

There currently exists no channel by which the substantive fruits of research can be widely and effectively communicated to the public. You can say that the public would rather watch The Apprentice, and you'd be right in terms of pure popularity for how to spent one hour. You could also say that the press is manifestly failing in bringing the truth to the fore, and you'd also be right; just look at the "debate" over Intelligent Design if you need an example.

However, the fact remains that at the moment there's no channel for the public to engage with substantive research, even if they want to. There's no-one distilling and humanizing the voluminous data about reality. That's reality -- information about our world and what we might be able to do about it -- as opposed to politics, where the blogosphere seems to be getting traction. Since 2002, there are many many more people who are informed and astute about politics in America, that's largely due to the blogs slowly raising the discourse out of the gutter of talk-radio and providing a relatively nutritious alternative to the high-fructose corn syrup spectacle of cable-news infotainment.

However, most of reality remains a mystery to many, something that needs to change if we're to have better governance in addition to better politics. Of course, a large part of this is our education system, which manifestly fails to inform, inspire and stimulate millions of children every year. It's a long term problem, but we can't just lay it all on the kids. After all, it's not as though grown-ups are close-minded robots. Brain plasticity decreases over time, but it's not as though people can't learn, can't grow, can't evolve and change throughout their lives.

Communication Strategy
What I want to know is why no one learned anything from Ross Perot. That crazy (and arguably fascist) motherfucker went on TV and explained shit to people, and it worked like gangbusters. Had he not gone loopy in the midst of things -- dropping out of the race because he was convinced that government agents were going to somehow ruin his daughters wedding, if I recall -- he may in fact have won.

It's worth noting that Perot and his Reform Party began by tapping into a latent base of isolationist conservatism -- the Lou Dobbs/Pat Buchannan faction -- that wasn't being addressed by either Bush Sr. However, at points in 1992, Perot led the field, indicating his support had broadened significantly. I've seen analysis that he took as many votes from Clinton in the end and I believe it. My mother was a Perot fan, along with 12-year-old me. I think this was a result of his strategy of communicating large amounts of information in a relatively complex manner to as many people as possible, and trusting that people would understand and agree with him.

In 1992, only a self-financed billionaire or major campaign could possibly afford the massive amounts of TV time required to implement such a strategy. By now things have changed significantly.

If someone gave me little seed capital I would get several good videographers, pull together some of the better research, create a series of 20-minute infomercials, put them online, and run a high-quality ad campaign to drive people to that site. We would gather donations from visitors to run the infomercials nationally or in certain markets. We could even provide instructions and materials for individuals or groups with resources to run the ads in their own markets.

This would work. Here's how you do it:

1. Create a message, grounded in solid research
2. Translate that message into a persuasive media package
3. Initiate a strong broadcast campaign for the media package
4. Direct receivers of that broadcast message back to a community with both online and offline presence
5. Allow the community to improve the research, message and media packaging
6. Allow the community to disseminate the above both on a grassroots level and through fundraising for more broadcasts
7. Lather, rinse, repeat

There's your 21st Century message strategy for a 2008 presidential campaign. You can send me my six-figures via paypal.

Now, you'll still need rapid response, an attack strategy and all that jazz. You'll also need to make sure that original message is good (which will cost you another six-figures), but this is how you can effectively get your word out, maybe at a net profit for your campaign if it's good enough. This is essentially a focused and media-savvy version of what the Dean campaign did that allowed it to grow so rapidly and drive such high rates of online donations. It wasn't online magic. It was online magic plus outstanding message plus participation-oriented organization.

This would probably work on the national level for the 2006 midterms. The combination of real information, participatory discussion, and the promise of power to put the fruits of those to into practice is the secret sauce, so in '06 this would require some entity with national authority (or the perception of national authority) to back the play. A 2006 equivalent to the congress-in-waiting that Gingrich et al put together in 1994; an entity with power.

I don't know if such an entity will emerge; frankly, I think the odds are against it. It would almost have to be a joint Pelosi/Reid effort, and although both are doing very well all things considered, I don't see them as being this ambitious.

It looks to me like 2006 is going to be a DIY year for the revolution. Nothing new there. Who's down?

New York Transit Union to Vote on Ending Strike - New York Times

Glad to hear that the state mediators have taken a big step forward for bringing the MTA and TWU into consensus. With any luck, tomorrow will be a semi-normal subway day.

I found this graph to be interesting:

[The settlement] would allow Gov. George E. Pataki to save face because the final negotiations would not take place until the strikers return to work, the people said, and it would apparently allow the union's president, Roger Toussaint, to save face because, they believe, the authority's pension demands - which are at the crux of the deadlock - have been significantly scaled back.

It's disengenuous for the Times to paint this as being all about pride. For Toussaint, isn't about saving face, it's about securing the wages and benefits of his union's members.

Pataki (and Bloomberg), on the other hand, really are just saving face. With this deal they'll be able to say they didn't "back down" in the face of the strike.

Also, while I don't think the Taylor law is a good law (any law that takes away the right of a worker to withold their work is too restrictive) I also thought this was interesting:

Mr. Toussaint, at his news conference, reiterated the union's argument that the authority had forced the union to strike by illegally insisting on pension changes. Under the state's Taylor Law, one side cannot make pensions a condition of a settlement. But in 1994 and in 1999, both sides agreed on pension changes.

That's the first time I've heard that bit of information. It's been clear that the TWU is politically outclassed in terms of waging the media war over this strike. They were late out of the gate in terms of their message -- letting the MTA, Pataki and Bloomberg frame the stike nearly completely -- and they have a pretty uneven job of informing the public over the past few days.

Bloomberg and Pataki are info-war veterans, and they have had both the city tabloids solidly at their backs in this. They've both used their bully pulpits to wage the public relations battle. In light of all that, I'm sorta surprised that in spite of this, public support remained very high for the TWU:

In a WWRL poll, 71% of respondents blamed the MTA and only 14% blamed the transit workers.

More on public opinion here.

Though, really, once I think about it, it shouldn't be surprising. Most NYers use the mass transit system every day, which is why when it's taken away they suffer. But it also means they have a lot of contact with the people who make that system operate. I don't think that most people really want to run over striking workers with their carpool cars (as a couple lawyers were quoted as considering yesterday in an AP story). I think most people understand that transit workers work very hard in rather unpleasant conditions to make this city hum, and they want the workers to be paid well. They want them to be dedicated professionals. They want them to be able to support their families and communities with steady middle-class jobs. Most folks like the shiny new cars, but find the robotic station announcements to be kind of a downer. Most folks like that the transit system is human.

Now, there are a lot of people in NY who are a little more upper-crust who don't necessarily feel that way. You know these people; they're the ones who get upset when anything isn't just exactly right; the ones who really are used to dealing with certain people as "the help"; the ones who will literally throw their credit card at you across the counter when you couldn't find all three books they wanted to buy.

But those people are a minority. An influential and powerful one, to be sure, but a rather clear minority of the overall population. The city is not the upper east side. Thank god.

So ya wanna live vicariously through some ideals? Ok, here you go:

I think those that say running things on a "free market" system is the most fair, most productive and generally best for society, are (consciously or not) espousing a kind of propaganda. Now, I like markets. Markets are very good at connecting supply and demand, and this is cool, but they must be closely regulated (e.g. non-free) to remain equitable, otherwise markets quickly become exploitative. Furthermore, supply and demand is an extremely limited way to look at human products such as labor, or human needs such as health care. The ideology that "free markets" are the best way to answer all our problems is false.

This ideology of "free markets uber alles" exists largely to justify behavior by corporations and their management which would otherwise be viewed as morally wrong, behavior like firing 150 US workers and employing children in China to work 12-hour shifts making the same products for pennies a day. What makes that right? Nothing but a leap of faith.

In a comment on the post below Sam says that he thinks the "free market" gives us the best chance we have. I think he's being ideological, and if he actually thought about it he would re-phrase his position. Current reality is current reality, and it's the only chance you have, and therefore the best. However, the system we use now to organize our economy is not as good as it gets. I personally think our current system is setting us up (via massive over-consumption, enormous personal and national debt, and a negligent attitude towards basic social and economic infrastructure) for a pretty big fall. I think we can do a hell of a lot better that the current ideology of the "free market."

All that being said, labor unions are far from perfect. I've been a huge trash-talker for political reasons, but they're also not a good fit for all workers. If you're uncomfortable working as part of a large group and abiding by that group's way of doing things, they're probably not for you. You might be told to slow down because the group has a certain pace of working to meet its contractual obligations with management. You might be told to use safety equipment that you think is unnecessary. You might be told that your work doesn't mean certain standards which the group has agreed upon. All that's the joy and pain of being part of a group, whether its your union or your family.

Also, much like corporations, governments, and other organizations, unions are prone to corruption, cronyism, nepotism, bureaucratic waste, and all the other usual ills of institutions which wield power. Still, for all this, group association of some sort by regular/working people remains the only way that average conditions will ever improve in America. It is the only way the middle class will ever grow.

If you're a highly skilled individual you might think you're better off going it alone. You might be right. Far be it from me to restrict anyone's entrepreneurial spirit. I think a fair market would be one which supports small/local/family business just as richly as massive corporations. But as long as you're working' for the man, its in your interest to try to equalize the power dynamic between you and the people who pay you.

Want an example? I'm a lucky ducky in the employment market, all things considered. I have portable, marketable skills that are in high demand. If anyone should love the "free market" for labor it should be me. Why, if I really applied myself, I could maximize my value quite well in the next few fiscal years. But you know what? I'm seriously thinking about trying to start a trade association or union.

Why? I already have colleagues who are shipping the exact same kind of work that I do to India and Poland. If I persist in the "free market" way of doing things -- looking out for only my own best interest, trying to get the best deal I can for myself -- and stay in my current line of work, in ten years I'll either be out of a job or managing a bunch of foreigners who are working for a fraction of what I earn.

I'd rather not be in that position, but there's nothing that I can do as an individual to prevent that reality from coming to pass. However, if there were a union of software engineers, that entity might be able to do something to help a more positive future emerge. I'll quickly note that this is a complex situation. I already work with a number of foreigners in a non-outsourced way, and so it's not a simple matter of protectionism for US jobs. But that's another story we'll have to get into later.

Getting back to the specifics of the NYC transit strike, here's some new information from today's Times:

Negotiations did not have to end when they did. There was no impasse. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the state entity that runs the system, had compromised on several major points at the negotiating table. When Roger Toussaint, the union chief, walked away, his members were being offered a chance to continue to retire with full pensions at age 55. New hires would have to pay into that pension, but workers would continue to pay nothing toward their health benefits. That's a deal that many riders, including those who struggle to pay the $2 fare, would gladly take.

The Times has a point. The TU could have gone on working without a contract, which is what the teachers and cops and firefighters usually do when there's a lack of consensus. It's clear that this strike is a show of force, especially coming at a time (xmas shopping) when it's poised to do maximum economic damage to the luxury businesses in Manhattan. The reason for that show of force is the insistence on tiered benefits, which is the current tactic of choice for management in the war against unions.

Here's how it works. Basically management creates the public perception that union workers -- because they've had the grit to stick together and demand good wages -- are somehow overpaid (e.g. "That's a deal that many riders, including those who struggle to pay the $2 fare, would gladly take"), they then structure their finances such that the long-term costs of pensions and health care appear to cut deeply into profits. They play on the perception that no-one should get this kind of deal in the 21st century. Workers just need to be content to work for less. But we'll be reasonable, they say. Existing workers keep the same (or similar) benefits, but new hires are brought in under a different set of expectations.

Once a tier is in place, management does everything possible to drive the old-school out (harassment, changing their hours, reassignment, lotsa drug testing, etc) so that they can refresh their workforce with new workers under the new terms. Lather, rinse, repeat and in a generation you have an end to the union as an effective advocate for workers' interests. This has been going on quite well in a number of industries around the country, and it's one of the main reasons that union membership has declined so steadily over the past 40 years.

The most clear-cut example of this tactic is the so-called "right to work" laws that have been enacted in a number of states, which allows management to bring in new hires who agree not to join the union (essentially, they discriminate based on whether or not you want to exercise your rights), but tiering benefits is the same sort of tactic aimed at the same strategic goal. Essentially the TU is trying to reverse this trend by showing that the tiered-benefit tactic can be beaten.

Unions have been doing a terrible job at public relations since as long as I've been alive. They tend to be insular, fracticious, secretarian. Many don't understand the need to reach out to non-members. As a result they're now largely politically impotent, which only serves to increase the downward spiral. In other words, they've got a long way to go in order to be be effective organizations again.

But the bottom line is that if they can't survive, they can't improve. I'm not ready to write off unions yet, just like I'm not ready to write off the Democratic party. They're both full of problems, but their intended purpose is sound, and reforming existing institutions seems much more plausible to me than starting over from scratch.

And that's why I support the Transit Union strike. Frankly, given the state of public opinion I don't think it will work out for them, but I still support their right to demand a unified contract for all workers.