Divide and Conquer in Wisconsin and Beyond

The post mortems on the disastrous recall defeat in Wisconsin have begun and many of them rightly focus on factors such as the role of money, the failure of Democrats and labor unions to get their message out, and the flawed strategy of channeling activist energy solely into electoral politics.  But I want to focus on a more fundamental problem, one that preceded Governor Scott Walker’s first election and the historic protests, and that extends beyond Wisconsin.  That problem is exemplified by this story from a Charles Pierce article in Esquire magazine.  Pierce was reporting on Monday night campaign rallies prior to Tuesday’s election.

Out in the parking lot, I fell into conversation with Phil Waseleski, who was wearing a T-shirt celebrating the U.S. Postal Service that was festooned with Scott Walker buttons. Phil was a letter carrier in the neighborhoods around the Serb Hall for nearly 40 years, but he retired last year when his days were cut back to three a week as part of the fiscal crisis forced upon the USPS by Republican legislators who would like to see it go away entirely.

“A friend once told me, ‘Well, we only need mail three or four days a week,'” Phil told me. “I politely told him, ‘Dave, we’re gonna have to agree to disagree.’ I could have told him, ‘Dave, you know, maybe at that engineering place where you work, they only need you three days a week, and then you could come help us.’

“The politicians, I think, it’s a tough call, because if you don’t keep the postal service in business — you and I will both agree that there’s nothing more personal than taking pen in hand to write to your mother, sister, or brother. Until June of last year, I gave my heart and soul to my job. I worked right through lunch most days.”

Eventually, I asked him why he was here, at the Serb Hall, supporting Scott Walker, whose politics were far more in tune with the people who are trying to strangle the postal service than they are with the people who still work there. Phil told me that it was about his sister-in-law. “The problem is that, when you start handing out free health care out to teachers, that annoys me to no end,” he said. “I never got free health care. My brother’s wife is a teacher and I once asked her, when I was getting my teeth worked on, what it cost her and she said, ‘Nothing.’ It should never get to that point where somebody’s getting free health care. Something’s way out of whack there.”

This story resonated with me because I can tell so many similar ones.  They’re stories of envy and resentment successfully exploited by a strategy of divide and conquer – a strategy that Walker explicitly told his wealthy funders during his first gubernatorial campaign he planned to use.  It’s a story of otherwise intelligent people ignoring some facts and choosing to take out their frustrations not on the distant elites that created the economic problems they’re experiencing, but rather on those near to them, neighbors, relatives, and friends.

In this story, Phil, whose work schedule was cut due to a fiscal “crisis” at the USPS concocted by those who would destroy it, doesn’t empathize with state workers who, before Walker’s first election, were also forced to take furlough days for two years running to help remedy state fiscal problems brought on in large part by our national economic crisis.  Instead, he focuses on his sister-in-law teacher who supposedly receives “free” health care.  Phil surely knows that her health care is not “free.”  But undoubtedly she has good health insurance benefits.

Years ago, when I was a state worker, I had major surgery and never saw a hospital bill.  I was aware – and deeply grateful – that, unlike many Americans, I had great deal on my health insurance.  Our monthly premiums were $240 a month for my husband and myself.  But it certainly wasn’t “free.”

Here’s another story:  A friend of mine who is a Wisconsin state worker told me back during the protests in 2011 that her neighbor, with whom she’d previously had good relations, had informed her that he sided with the governor.  State workers were draining the taxpayers and the cuts to their pension and health care benefits were justified.  The protests were just spoiled Madisonians throwing a tantrum.

My friend was bewildered.  “I never begrudged him all the money he made during the housing bubble,” she said. “I thought, ‘Good for you!’”  Her neighbor is a plumber who made money hand over fist during the go-go days of the latest housing boom.  After the crash, however, work has been scarce.  Does he blame the banking industry and Wall Street – the folks who engineered the whole thing, got rich at our expense, and tanked the economy?  No, he thinks his neighbor deserves a pay cut.  “I’ll never make the kind of money he [the plumber] made,” my friend told me.  “But I was okay with that.  I needed a steady job and good health care benefits for my family.”

The problem is deeply entrenched, extends beyond Wisconsin, and includes people who are not stereotypical right-wingers.  For example, when the protests were going on, I had long conversations with an out-of-state relative, a college-educated woman who generally votes Democratic.  She sided with Walker and even invoked his rhetoric, calling state workers the “haves” and taxpayers the “have nots” – as if state workers are not also taxpayers.  (This framing had also been adopted in her state and a number of other states.  Clearly it was a national strategy of the Republicans.)

I explained about the furlough days; I pointed out that the state fiscal bureau had projected we would finish the year in the black – before Walker took office and gave over $100 million in tax breaks to corporate and other interests. I explained that the “crisis” was, in part, manufactured by Walker to justify his agenda and that it wasn’t that big of a “crisis” anyway.  We’d faced bigger deficits and come out of them without this kind of drastic action. I argued that this was about larger issues, about union-busting, making ordinary workers pay for the economic problems created by elites, and a privatization agenda.  I invoked Pulitzer Prize-winning financial writer David Cay Johnston to explain that state workers weren’t getting “free” health insurance and pension benefits.  These were instead part of a total compensation package, where negotiated wages were divided among current and deferred income and benefits.  Walker had framed the issue as making state workers pay a little something toward the “free” benefits they were receiving.

None of this seemed to penetrate her skull.  Her 401k had taken a beating due to the economy; why shouldn’t state workers also take a hit in their pensions?  She was paying through the nose for health insurance; why should state workers get a better deal?  We can’t afford these generous benefits now, she said.  Beginning teachers where she lived received better compensation than she did when she was starting out as an accountant.  Ergo, teachers are overpaid.

Divide and conquer is a successful tactic because it taps into basic human emotions – negative ones, to be sure, but very common human weaknesses, like envy and resentment.  In yesterday’s Counterpunch article, Steve Horn argues that working class people succumb to right-wing populism because “the Left” – by which he means unions and the Democratic party – have abandoned them.  There is some truth to that, but it wasn’t just working class or uneducated people who bought into the “haves” and “have nots” framing.  And the people they turned against weren’t only generalized institutions like unions and the Democratic party.  They were specific people – their own neighbors, friends, and relatives.

Another reason divide and conquer is so successful in the United States is because we have for decades been propagandized into an extreme individualist ethos.  As a result, the ability of many Americans to understand where their collective interests lie is deeply impaired.  They are vulnerable to strategies that persuade them to ally themselves with powerful elites rather than other workers.

So what is the solution?  How do we overcome the susceptibility of human beings to the divide and conquer strategy?  The tendency to fight among ourselves for scraps while ignoring the elites pulling the strings?

I don’t pretend to know the answers.  I have only one suggestion and a story of hope.  My suggestion is to keep talking to one another and to do so with respect.  We can’t wait until important elections come up and emotions are high to have relevant conversations on the issues at hand.  We can’t afford to let off-hand, ill-informed remarks go by.  Somehow we have to find ways to talk – not preach – but engage in dialogue, even if only in short conversations here and there, so that we can begin to understand and bridge our differences.  (That’s my weakness – I tend to preach.  I’ve been practicing asking pertinent questions and listening – it’s a work in progress.)

The dialogue can’t be patronizing.  Noam Chomsky and the late great Joe Bageant are right.  Talking down to and ridiculing Tea Partiers and “low information” voters is not a winning strategy for getting people to understand where their true class interests lie.

My story of hope is from a panel presentation on water rights at the Democracy Convention here in Madison last summer.  Water rights activist Ruth Caplan (chair of the  Defending Water for Life Campaign) made the startling claim that “the most radical work being done in the US today is in rural conservative Republican communities.”  Caplan was discussing the push back against water privatization and the assertion of water rights for both people and nature.

Caplan explained that in Barnstead, New Hampshire, in March of 2006, citizens passed a water rights ordinance declaring that “water is essential for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, both for people and for the ecological systems which give life to all species.”  The ordinance further declared that

all our water is held in the public trust as a common resource to be used for the benefit of Barnstead residents and of the natural eco-systems of which they are a part.  We believe that the corporatization of water supplies in this community… would usurp democratic processes and result in tyranny and that we the people are therefore duty-bound under the New Hampshire constitution to oppose such usurpation and tyranny.

Caplan went on to describe who was leading the charge:

The chair of the select board of Barnstead, New Hampshire, is a Vietnam vet who voted for George Bush.  And he got it.  And when he was told by the lawyer working with them that this would take on settled law of more than 100 years of Supreme Court decisions, you know what he said?  He said, “Well, I understand that.  And I’m ready to walk point for you.”  Walking point means walking ahead and flushing out enemy fire.  That’s walking point.  He understood that they were taking this on.

In the room, I cried. And every time I tell this story, it just touches me so deeply that he understood it in this very, very deep way.  And who did he work with, hand in glove?  A Rastafarian biodynamic gardener.

And that’s why I think that while twittering and blogging and all of these new communication devices are important, it is the person to person that is so important in our organizing.  And I don’t want us to lose sight of that.

Caplan urged us to deal “person to person,” giving the example of another town where similar water rights legislation was passed, and where a key individual who made it happen was a Tea Partier.

So it can be done.  It is being done, in some places on some issues – although I admit haven’t personally experienced it.  I don’t for a minute imagine that it’s easy.  In some cases, it may be impossible.  I’m not talking about Democrat and Republican politicians working “across the aisle.”  I’m talking about finding ways for different segments of the 99% to work through differences, identify common ground, and unify against the class warfare perpetrated against us by the oligarchs and their puppets, the politicians.  For if a large segment of the 99% continues to ally itself, against its own economic interests, with financial elites, we are doomed to continued failure, despite the heroic efforts of people like the Wisconsin activists who worked so hard to defeat the austerity agenda and monied interests.

Katherine Acosta is a freelance writer currently based in Madison, Wisconsin.  She blogs at UndisciplinedPhd.com.

13 Comments.

  • The end of this is so hopeful it makes me sick… Because it has identified a chink in my cynical armor. I believe that change occurs in society and not through politics. Gay rights is now supported by the majority not because of useless politicians, but individuals with common ground. Political parties make no sense, they force you to constantly defend positions that are indefensible. No rational human can agree with all of hell honestly most of the things one party or another would represent. Individuals working together on issues they have in common and just that one issue? Shocking, how could it work? Of course, it wont work because Americans have been trained to believe in supporting their party, because its better than the other guy.

  • Thanks for your comment, Patron (I’ll forever identify you with Tequila – my favorite spirit :))

    Usually I am pretty cynical, too. I was more depressed yesterday than I expected to be – since I was pretty sure Walker would survive the recall. I was just shocked at how entrenched people’s attitudes were – especially considering all the horrendous legislation that has been passed. It affects not only teachers and state workers, but seniors, rural people on Badgercare and many more.

    So I had to listen again to my recording of Ruth Caplan’s presentation and try to revive a little hope that people of good will do exist. She inspired me to write this post.

    Katherine

  • suetonius17
    June 7, 2012 5:24 PM

    Very interesting post. I certainly agree that talking down to people is a very very bad idea, what we on the left have to work on is making it clear to all and sundry, tea partiers included, is that we all share class interests which are opposed to the people who actually run things in this country. That said, what I think is missing here is the fact that electoral strategies will never, ever, work. What the unions should have done is shut Wisconsin down, and involved the whole working class. And yes, I understand that in this country very few people believe there is a working class, but there is, and the goal is to make people in the working class understand that they are on one side, and the rulers are on the other.

  • That said, what I think is missing here is the fact that electoral strategies will never, ever, work. What the unions should have done is shut Wisconsin down, and involved the whole working class.

    I completely agree, Suetonious. I just wanted to focus on this particular piece of the problem in this post. But you are absolutely right – as Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward show so clearly in their book, Poor People’s Movements. In fact, they show that most of the gains workers won were achieved BEFORE unions were formally legalized – through wildcat strikes and other direct action.

    Thanks for your comment.

    Katherine

  • Wild cat strikes? Those have been illegal in the USA since the National Labor Relations Act was passed in the 30s. Shutting down the state is probably illegal too. There have been rulings forcing longshoremen back to work under the Railway workers acts that prevent strikes that hurt the national interest. That’s why Regan got to break the air traffic controllers strike. The system simply will not allow people to “shutdown Wisconsin”. However, even if it did i think we would soon discover we hurt our own cause. It would play right into the GOP’s labor mafia narrative and strong antiunion laws would pass as a result.

    IMO the only way unions are going to regain relevance is for more people to join them. The only way people will return to unions is if union bosses stop hiring college kids that don’t know crap about the real world to be ‘organizers’ and start letting workers self organize. Also union bosses need to stop paying themselves 6 figure salaries unless every one of their members is also making 6 figures.

  • Here is a related older piece on a similar topic, the motivating of conservative Americans to vote against their better interests via their overwhelming envy and spite: http://exiledonline.com/we-the-spiteful/

  • Any talk of Unions has to start with the frank admissions that Unions today are a business and are not after the best interest of their employees. Andy, the secret to striking is that all the times that it was done successfully, it was usually illegal. It’s hard for people today to understand, but back then, when something was really worth fighting for, you actually took risks to achieve it. Those strikers faced murder, by both employers and the federal government. Today, we think we are brave because we go hang out at the park until the cops come and tell us its closing time. The reality is, when something is worth fighting for you’ll do it. Obviously the majority of Americans are still comfortable, we are willing to say its broken but we aren’t willing to risk our limbs to fix it. When we need change, we’ll do more than complain, we’ll put in the work of fixing it.

  • Someone and Sue, you have both somewhat missed the point here. From reading the article, it doesn’t seem as if the goal should be to turn conservatives into liberals, rather, to find common ground where you can work together. Expecting a conservative to become liberal is probably asking too much, but asking certain conservatives to support the idea of water as a community resource? or perhaps to another segment to support gay rights, and another segment to support union rights, and another segment to support abortion rights… ect. I would even go the other way it would be alright for some liberals to break off and vote for things that they might support that aren’t liberal, perhaps a tripper happy blue dog democrat could fight for gun rights… You could accomplish something if you did it piece by piece rather than trying to do it wholesale under the signage of “the liberal agenda” we know how paranoid that makes Republicans… but fighting for one cause that makes sense, could work.

  • aabrown1971
    June 8, 2012 6:01 PM

    Excellent article Katherine, although I was a little dismayed at your example of a “right wing person working with a person who practices quackery” as an example we should follow. I wish more people on the left would disassociate themselves from quackery of all sorts. Your point is understood and appreciated though.

  • @patron002: I never suggested it was about turning conservatives into liberals. I was suggesting that most conservatives don’t do anything based on intelligence, good will, or even rational self interest, they work on angry spiteful hate, and will do whatever for whomever gives them access to the greatest angry spiteful hategasm. Hence why they vote against their own best interests so long as it hurts others. The solution being not to turn them into anything. Liberals have been naively imagining that they are well intentioned but ignorant and thus salvageable people. But they are not, they are awful unsalvageable people, and instead the goal is to accept that they are nothing more then useful idiots so long as you can give them an appropriately targeted outlet to serve a steaming pile of hurt to someone else (even at their own expense) as to satisfy their only motivating emotion: schadenfreude.

  • There can be no common drown with the tea party. As one of the pundits said- “That’s like saying: ‘I want Italian for dinner.’ and the other side says ‘I want dogshit and broken glass, covered in arsenic.'”

    Seriously, anybody who looks at another persons benefits and goes “They have more than me. How can I take their benefits away from them.” rather than “They have better benefits than me. How do I get my boss to give me that level of benefits?” is simply a horrible human being who needs to, and deserves to be shunned.

  • common ground, even. Sheesh.

  • Ms Acosta’s article is one of the most important I’ve seen on the left-right divide and the successful push of right-wing ideology. The massive right wing propaganda campaign is amazingly successful. Here is the power of mass advertising right before your very eyes.
    But keep your eye on the ball. As always, the real goal is to destroy any and all opposition to the right-wing elites who are trying to take all wealth from the American people. The recent financial figures show net wealth of average Americans down by something like a third.
    A sidebar to this are the many Tea Party supporters who are themselves mostly retired and so are “on the way out”; bluntly speaking. They have no more interest in say, supporting jobs and pensions for school teachers. Not their problem anymore. Never mind that those school teachers are taxpayers that are putting money into the Social Security checks the Tea Partiers are cashing each month.
    The right-wing succeeds because they can hide the interconnectedness of our society.
    Wisconsin, Citizens United, and the right-wing blockade in Congress are all proof of the complete take-over of government institutions. I see only one readily available tactic: lawyer up.
    That is: fund an army of lawyers and investigators that will dig into every corrupt and dirty goings-on of the right-wing and then SUE THE BASTARDS. From voting machine rigging, to Clarence Thomas ‘forgetting’ $600,000 of taxable income, to John Boehner passing out checks in congress. Make these people personally responsible for their misdeeds. The Mafia were brought down on income tax fraud. Whatever it takes. The right-wing has done this for years, we should turn the tables on them. Right now!

Comments are closed.

css.php