Labor and Democrats: A Vital Link for Clinton : Politics: Despite the anger caused by the NAFTA vote, the President and unions must now work together to pass the rest of his agenda. But can they?

There are no two ways about it: The American labor movement, in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement, is furious at the President they did so much to elect. Their anger began with the substance of a trade agreement labor honestly believes will undermine living standards. It reached a roiling simmer when President Bill Clinton accused them of “muscle-bound” tactics--despite labor’s effort always to criticize the agreement but not Clinton. It boiled over as they saw Clinton use the full powers of the presidency effectively for the first time--for the only piece of his agenda they opposed!

Republicans were ecstaticover the Clinton-labor rift. Columnist Robert Novak praised Clinton for showing the AFL-CIO “who was in charge;” former GOP Rep. Vin Weber compared it favorably to Ronald Reagan’s crushing of the air controllers’ strike.

When Weber and Novak herald your achievements, the message for Democrats is: Be afraid, be very afraid. Yet, some Democrats suggest the break with labor was not just an unfortunate-but-necessary consequence of Clinton’s belief in NAFTA, but actually a strategic bonus. They say nothing puts a shine on his “New Democrat” credentials like a fight with the party’s core constituency.

Anyone who believes this should not be allowed to operate heavy machinery or a motor vehicle, much less give strategic advice to the world’s oldest political party. In the short term, Clinton needs the labor movement’s enthusiastic--not grudging--support to move key elements of his agenda forward. In the medium term, a strong labor commitment will help in minimizing Democrats’ 1994 congressional losses and gaining reelection for Clinton. And over the long term, the Democratic Party needs a revived labor movement to establish a still elusive governing majority.

NAFTA was widely portrayed as evidence of labor’s weakness. “Big Labor Gets ‘Wake-Up Call’ ” read one headline. In fact, though, NAFTA was a kind of Pyrrhic defeat for the labor movement--a short-term loss that hides substantial strength. They got their wake-up call all right--when NAFTA was drafted--and they responded. Consider what labor accomplished: Despite being outspent on media, most polls still showed them winning the battle for public opinion. They mobilized what, by all accounts, was an effective grass-roots lobbying effort. They built valuable alliances with environmentalists and other liberal activists with whom they hadn’t worked in years, if ever. What’s more, they won among Democrats in both chambers. Labor did its job--it just wasn’t enough against the President, the majority and minority leaders of both houses of Congress, a united business community and an overwhelming media consensus. In retrospect, what is astonishing is not that NAFTA passed, but that it was such a tough fight.

Indeed, failing to stand up for the interests of its members and working people in general would have been a far greater defeat for the labor movement. They may be getting no credit from the elites who berate them for being out of touch, but they scored points where it counts: their members.

It is this same energy on the ground that makes labor so essential to Clinton if he hopes to carry out the remainder of his agenda. On health-care reform especially, the Administration is counting on unions to be its single most important ally. And despite their anger, and limited self-interest (union members generally have good coverage already, a major inducement to membership), labor will indeed be back in the trenches--because this is an issue they support for all Americans.

Union and liberal activists are important because they are part of the crucial strata who write and fax congresspeople, call radio and TV talk shows, write letters to the editor and attend community meetings. In the end, Clinton’s hopes of reviving activist government will live or die as a result of these millions of small interactions.

Union members also play an important role in congressional races--these are the folks who put political bumper stickers on their trucks and cars, who show up for phone-bank duty, and whose lawns are dotted with political signs in even-numbered years. Unions make substantial financial contributions to the Democratic Party and its candidates, as well as helping with get-out-the-vote efforts, direct mail and much more.

With 1994 looking like a tough year for Democrats, it won’t help if labor is feeling the party won’t deliver for them. If the Administration thinks it’s tough winning votes in Congress now, they should consider life with Republicans holding 47 or 48 seats in the Senate and 20 or 30 new House seats.

It’s also worth remembering how important labor-union voters are to Democratic presidential candidates. 1992 exit polls show that Clinton ran about even with George Bush among voters from non-union households. Union voters are especially critical in Midwest and border-South states, now the key battleground regions of presidential politics. Without the union vote, Clinton would have lost such electorally important states as Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and perhaps Louisiana, Georgia, Pennsylvania and New Jersey as well.

But wouldn’t these voters support Democrats without unions? No, they wouldn’t. Among white men earning $30,000-$50,000, for example, Clinton won the union vote by a commanding 20 points, but lost in a Bush landslide (19 points) on the non-union side. It’s not that labor unions tell their members how to vote. Unions have continuing political education efforts that have persuaded many members that Democrats better represent their interests. And unions instill a clear sense of economic self-interest--a rough class consciousness--that counteracts the appeals to flag and country that Republicans use to attract other working- and middle-class voters.

Skeptics are largely right, at least for now, to dismiss talk of unions backing third-party candidacies. However, while labor institutionally may have limited options, union members have several. Ross Perot may be weakened, but his support is now highest among blue-collar voters and in the critical Midwest. Cutting Perot down to size is hardly a coup if the piece of the electorate you leave him with comes out of your hide.

And does the phrase “Reagan Democrats” ring a bell? Working-class voters can and will defect if they don’t see Democrats as representing their economic interests.

While the Administration still may underestimate what one union official calls the “serious and lasting” damage done by the NAFTA fight, to their credit they quickly went into fence-mending mode. Clinton called AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland after the vote, and has shown the grace in victory that was so tragically missing during the final days of the debate. His intervention in the American Airlines strike was also both shrewd and honorable, providing a sharp symbolic contrast with Reagan’s smashing of the air controllers’ union.

But Democrats’ problem isn’t primarily with Kirkland or other union presidents. They’ve been burned before, are good party soldiers and know they must work with a Democratic President. The problem is at the grass roots, among rank-and-file activists who believed Clinton in 1992 when he promised to be on their side, and now feel betrayed. Clinton can’t phone them all.

Democrats can start the healing by demonstrating a serious commitment to striker-replacement legislation and, later, labor-law reform. Labor is an unusual constituency, in that it doesn’t have a fixed size. It can expand--or shrink--and government has a great deal to say about which it will be. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say there has never been anything wrong with the Democratic Party that a 25%-30% unionization rate couldn’t solve. That’s what terrifies Republicans, and why they get so excited when Democrats and labor fight.

The best hope for reconciliation lies in the fact that labor’s agenda is the same agenda Clinton ran on in 1992: defending the squeezed middle class and creating a high-wage economy. Clinton must turn his attention to opening up the markets of Europe and Japan, a goal the party is united on. He should use the bully pulpit to urge U.S. corporations to keep investments at home. Clinton needs to focus--like a laser beam, perhaps--on job creation, and stick to his guns on domestic investment.

That involves making some tough choices, because it means courting criticism from the “New Democrats.” He was tough enough to take the heat from labor; now labor wonders if he will be as tough under fire from the pundits and conservative Democrats.

For, starkly put, Clinton cannot achieve his agenda--on health care, education and job training, or much else--if he is not prepared to be labeled an “Old Democrat.” And he must be prepared to stand foursquare with labor--there is simply no other choice. It’s not a question of nostalgia, or tradition, or even principle--it’s a matter of political survival.