A Missouri reader asked me to comment on Ann Coulter's column on the AFL-CIO. I do not know much about Coulter, but she raised an interesting point in this column. She claimed that the AFL-CIO is acting foolishly in their dedicated support of the Democrats. As evidence, she brings up three important issues where the AFL-CIO attempted to influence US policy.

1) The AFL-CIO vehemently opposed NAFTA.

2) The AFL-CIO opposed permanent normal trade relations with China.

3) The AFL-CIO supported drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Coulter then sarcastically noted:

The unions lost every vote. Demonstrating his savvy political skills, the head of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, repeatedly throws the federation's support to political candidates who opposed labor on all three issues.

Strictly following his strategy of selling union votes for nothing, the AFL-CIO has endorsed Sen. John Kerry – who voted for NAFTA, voted for trade with China and voted against drilling for oil in Alaska.

There is only one candidate for president who didn't vote for NAFTA, didn't vote for trade with China and supported drilling in ANWR. That candidate is George Bush.

Coulter is correct in both her three statements about the AFL-CIO and her statements about Kerry.

In fairness to the ACL-CIO leadership, I should point out that Coulter only brought out points that supported her argument. There may be points where Kerry is more attractive on the issues to ACL-CIO than Bush. I am only aware of one such point. Kerry would require companies to give three months notice to employees if their jobs were sent overseas. However, since 1) this would do absolutely nothing to change the long-term outsourcing trend and 2) many companies already provide substantial compensation plans in these circumstances, this hardly seems enough to overcome Kerry's votes against union interests.

One of my biggest gripes with President Bush is that he is the most protectionist president we have seen since at least Jimmy Carter. I am still irritated by Bush's imposition of steel tariffs along with his protectionism in the proposed Australian Free Trade Agreement. Yet the very factors that annoy me should make him attractive to unions whose primary consideration is the economic well-being of their members. (While free trade is better for the American economy as a whole, protectionism is definitely better for those working for protected industries). So why does John Sweeney (and thus, the AFL-CIO) endorse Kerry? Your guess is as good as mine. However, it does not appear to be out of reasoned concern for union members.

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):