Do Washington State Democrats Have A Labor Problem? Let’s Ask Jay Inslee

OK: so I’ve been working what is, on one level, a Jay Inslee story (Inslee is the Congressman from Washington’s 1st District, now running for Governor in ’12), and, on another level, a story of why Democrats are having all kinds of problems with what should be “natural” constituencies – and why those problems might not be going away anytime soon.

I thought the two elements of this narrative would come together last Monday, when I attended the “announcement event” that marked the beginning of the Inslee Gubernatorial Campaign, and in fact they did…but it wasn’t in a way I would have expected, and that’s why we have something to talk about today.

I reached out to some helpful outside voices, including Inslee himself; all of that will be brought to the discussion – and as another news organization famously offers to do, I’ll report, and leave you to decide.

Krusty the Klown: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Good evening. Tonight my guest is AFL/CIO chairman George Meany, who will be discussing collective bargaining agreements

George Meaney: It's a pleasure to be here, Krusty

Krusty the Klown: Let me be blunt: is there a Labor crisis in America today?

George Meaney: Well that depends what you mean by crisis...

--From “The Simpsons” episode S06E01, “Bart of Darkness”

So here’s what I know: Jay Inslee brings to the contest for Governor a Congressional voting record that could be great news for Washington State’s Progressive community: he’s generally supportive of LBGT and other civil rights issues, he seems to support the sort of elections I like (clean ones), he’s very much interested in a “next generation” energy and environmental policy, and he voted against the TARP Program (that’s the bank bailout that was passed in the last months of the Bush Administration) and the extension of the Patriot Act.

All good stuff.

But I also know this: if you are a State worker in Washington State, you are under attack, and you have been for some time now – and among the attackers are members of the Democratic Party – and the reason I’m so personally familiar with this fact is because The Girlfriend is one of those workers (she’s a nurse working within the Division of Developmental Disabilities, and she has been for more than 15 years), and I’ve seen it with my own two eyes.

And I know that for these workers, each year the question becomes: “This year’s wage cuts: in cash, by jacking the cost of health care, or through furlough days?”

This sort of problem extends to workers all across the State, as business interests target the State’s Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Industrial Insurance programs for attack, to give just two examples of recent legislative battles.

And the State’s Unions are reacting: I had a back and forth with Kathy Cummings (she’s the Communications Director for WSLC, the Washington State Labor Council), who confirmed what I thought I’d been seeing: that since 2009 there has been an effort by the WSLC to bring the fight to Washington State Democrats, including a successful effort to unseat State Senator Jean Berkey, who was targeted, according to Cummings, because of her votes on UI, public education and health care, pollution laws, and tax policy, which the WSLC viewed as favoring corporate interests.

2009, by the way, was a watershed year for this State’s Labor unions, as that was the year Washington Democratic leaders actually called in the State Patrol to investigate whether internal discussions about whether to withhold future campaign contributions if those Democrats didn’t get more cooperative was some sort of criminal act.

As a result, the WSLC formed the DIME PAC (DIME, of course, is an acronym; Don’t Invest in More Excuses, to be specific); this and other Labor-associated PACs are apparently acting as any PAC can, much to the chagrin of Democrats and business interests alike, including what appears to have been a controversial decision to promote a Republican in Berkey’s primary in order to knock her out of the contest early. (Washington uses a “top-two” primary system to determine who gets to the general election, and Berkey came in number three.)

And sure enough, Democrats do appear to be less than supportive: Unions held two rallies this spring at the State Capitol in Olympia, both of which I attended – and I couldn’t help but notice that Washington State Democrats weren’t up on the dais talking about how much they supported those workers gathered just outside.

In fact, the only elected Democrat I saw on either stage, in March or April, speaking to the crowds was State Senator Spencer Coggs…who is a Wisconsin State Senator. (Kathy Cummings helpfully points out that, despite what I thought, about 20 Democrats were introduced by name and were somewhere around the stage at various times during the April event to show support – and you’ll want to keep that in mind as we go along.)

So here’s what I’m thinking as I’m on my way to attend Jay Inslee’s announcement and presser last Monday: Inslee is presumably aware of this history, and if he were to become Washington State’s top elected Democrat he would presumably want to act in a manner that heals that rift…which would be a pretty good story to report to a Progressive audience.

That is not how it turned out.

ME: "I attended two Labor rallies in Olympia over the past couple of months; the only Democratic elected official who seemed to be able to get out and speak to the crowd was from Wisconsin, Spencer Copps, State Senator [which was an error; I should have said Spencer Coggs]. I wondered what you think about that and what are you going to do to try to change it?"

INSLEE: "Well, I'm not sure what you're referring to..."

ME: "Well, you mentioned honoring unions..."

INSLEE: "I'm sorry..."

ME: "Well, you mentioned honoring unions, these folks were out trying to promote union rights, but Democrats don't seem to want to get out and support union rights in person. Do you see that as a problem; how would you like to change it?"

INSLEE: "I don't see this as a problem, because I believe as I said I fundamentally believe in work, I fundamentally believe in workers, and I fundamentally believe that people have collective bargaining rights as an organized group, and I think what has gone on in Wisconsin is a travesty, and the reason it's a travesty is that, uh, Governor Walker, if he wanted to be angry at someone, he shouldn't have been angry at the first grade teachers, he should have been angry at the Wall Street investment bankers whose greed was responsible for the economic collapse, and yet I saw the Governor turn his sights on the middle class, and I don't believe an assault on the middle class, which is what happened in Wisconsin, is productive for economic growth, of anyone in our State, or our country. Now I've been pretty forthright in that regard, and, uh, I'll maintain that position."

Here’s the video:



Now let me be the first to say that I did not ask the best possible question. What I should have done was be more specific about how much of a rift there is between Labor and Washington State’s Democrats, and then specifically asked what steps Inslee would take, to, as I said earlier, heal the rift.

So normally what you do in a case like that is you go back to the campaign staff and send a follow-up question, and some helpful person who is doing the Candidate’s communications work will get you an official response.

But that’s where it gets weird.

If you try to go to the campaign website to locate the contract information, it is literally nothing, except for three links: give me money, get on the mailing list, or click through to facebook.

I posted a note “on the wall” at facebook, asking who the contact person was for the campaign for media inquiries, and not only did that get no response, the request was removed from the wall within minutes.

I sent follow-up questions to the originating address of the email that invited me to the Inslee event in the first place and to his Congressional office; those also went unacknowledged.

And that, right there, is pretty much the entire story as I know it: there is a significant and growing rift between Labor and Washington State’s Democrats, I tried to bring Inslee out on the issue (albeit clumsily), which he did not seem to want to address – and, oddly enough, there appears to be no desire on the part of the campaign to take the opportunity to follow up and affirm that an Inslee Administration would be a friend of Labor when it comes to things like protecting UI, and not balancing the budget while exempting corporate interests from taxation, and protecting workers from environmental hazards on the job.

Except there is one more thing.

I asked the WSLC’s Cummings this question…

Since the 2010 election cycle, have Democrats become more reliable partners, in the estimation of the WSLC?

…and she gave me a bit of a “tease”: the WSLC will release their 2011 Legislative Report, which will address that very question, just in time for their Annual Convention, which begins on August 4th – and we are told to stay tuned.

On Immigration, Or, How To Turn Purple Blue

Those of you who have been reading my work for a while have likely observed that my interest in electoral politics extends beyond this electoral cycle; and that my focus is often three or more cycles distant.

With that in mind, let’s talk immigration.

The face of immigration in America has changed the past generation or so, the Pew Hispanic Center tells us in their new report “Growing Share of Immigrants Choosing Naturalization”.

Here are the four biggest changes:

--Immigrants are more likely today to become citizens than at any time since World War II ended.

--Hispanics and Asians are the largest groups of immigrants today, replacing Europeans and Canadians.

--Immigrants today are more likely to be less educated, and therefore lower on the economic ladder than in the recent past.

--A larger proportion of immigrants are eligible for deportation (the “illegal immigrants”) than in the past.

These changes, combined with the recent expansion of immigrant communities into new parts of the country, means the Democratic Party has an opportunity to change purple, and even somewhat red states, into blue states for years to come.

These changes also create a “worst of both worlds” situation for Republicans-a population becoming more and more defined by immigration; and a base not supportive of immigration-at least not when it’s from Mexico, or points south.

So who are the immigrants?

Today, naturalized citizens represent about 12.8 million of our population. Another 11.8 million are legal permanent resident who are not yet citizens. The total of all foreign-born residents, including temporary visa holders and “deportable immigrants” totals 36 million.

Where they come from, however, has changed dramatically. This “fourth wave” of immigrants is not based primarily on European and Canadian migration. Today about 2/3 of immigrants are Asians and Hispanics.

There is a greater diversity among Asian immigrants than Hispanic-about half of all Hispanic immigrants are from one country (Mexico), which is not true of Asian immigrants.

Legal status? In 1995:

--about 20% of immigrants were undocumented (“deportable”).
Today that number is 33%

--47% were legal permanent residents.
Now that’s down to 33%.

--30% were naturalized citizens, and today that’s up to 35%.

Economic status? Trending downward, even amongst legal immigrants. 38% of today’s newest citizens earn income below 200% of the poverty level. That number rises to 52% of residents eligible for citizenship, but not yet naturalized; and 58% for those eligible in the next six years.

Immigrants are becoming less educated, as a community.

--37% of naturalized citizens hold college degrees, and 15% are not high school graduates.

--Eligible, but not naturalized citizens graduated 22% of their number from college, and 38% did not graduate high school.

--There is an improvement in this trend for legal residents not yet eligible: 35% college graduates, and 27% not high school graduates. These numbers are still below the levels for naturalized citizens, however.

It is important to note that immigrants from Mexico (as opposed to other Hispanic immigrants) have a major impact on these numbers-over 60% have not graduated high school, and 37% of Mexican immigrants are under 18.

It may also be surprising to learn that Asians are also, in large numbers, working at the bottom of the economic ladder. C.N. Le, at Asian Nation, offers an excellent examination of the data and explains that even entrepreneurial immigrants often work long hours at relatively low hourly wage self-employment, or have unpaid family employees, or both, which can depress family incomes.

Le’s data shows about 60% of Hispanics work in “Skilled Blue-Collar” or “Sales, Operations, and Support”. With the exception of Asian Indians, a plurality of all Asian immigrants also work in one of those two categories, but there is wide ethnic variability-for example, over 70% of Cambodians, Laotians or Hmongs fit into these two categories, but only 37% of Chinese work in these fields. (The plurality of Asian Indians, 25.8%, are computer workers, with the two categories we’ve been discussing being second and third.) The Census Bureau tells us janitorial, maintenance, and laundry workers, receptionists, and jail workers are included in the category.

Here's another fact that matters:

Hispanic households are more likely than non-Hispanic White households to be single female parent households.

What is required to become a citizen?

Generally, the Pew Center tells us, legal permanent residents must do the following to become citizens:

--be 18 years old.

--live in the US for five continuous years.

--demonstrate the ability to read, speak, and write basic English.

--pass the background check.

--demonstrate attachment to the US Constitution, and take and oath of allegiance to the US.

--pay a fee that can range from $225 to $330, but which may increase to a range of $460 to $595.

Which immigrants are most likely to become citizens?

About half of foreign-born residents become citizens today (52% in 2005), which is a trend that has lasted about 25 years. It is a decline from the peak of 79% in 1950.

Without going into a lot of facts and figures, it’s fair to say the longer you’ve been in the country, and the higher your income, the more likely you are to move from legal permanent resident to citizen. You may recall that Mexican-born residents tend to be less educated, and as data from 1995 to 2006 suggests, they are also about half as likely to become citizens. This trend is also affecting Asian immigration, as the ethnic mix of immigrants grows to include all Asian nationalities, as opposed to times past, when Japanese and Chinese nationals represented most Asian immigration.

So now to the good part-how do we apply this data to expanding the Democratic voting base?

First, look to the population distribution:

Here’s an excellent map, again from Asian Nation, showing, county by county, the change in pattern of Asian immigration from the 1990 to 2000 Census tabulations.

Note that areas of greatest increase are in Western States, and in States along the Atlantic Coast.

Over half (54.7%) of all Asians live in six US cities: LA, New York, San Francisco, Honolulu (with 64.9% of the total US Asian population), Washington DC/Baltimore, and Chicago.

This map shows that areas of the US where Asian populations are above 2% in a county include Iowa, Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and a belt of real estate that stretches south from Nebraska to the Gulf of Mexico (Eastern Texas!)

90% of Hispanics live in or near metropolitan areas.

Here’s a map from the Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service showing Hispanic population distribution outside metropolitan areas. Note that the areas of greatest population gain are, again, in the West and the Carolinas-but note the increases in the Midwest.

Ironically, greater geographic dispersal does not equal greater integration. There is a phenomenon known as “residential segregation” that points to the tendency of this community to create enclaves, if you will.

So let’s recap.

At this point we have the two most important immigrant groups, well dispersed in purple States, and representing potentially 10% of US population; who might be disposed to vote Democratic more or less forever with a lot of outreach and an introduction to D Party values-helping America’s poor become middle-class, and more, through education and economic opportunity, fighting discrimination, and a concern for the dignity of all of America’s citizens.

How do we take advantage of this situation?

Here’s the tough part: finding a way to engage insular communities with language issues. Here are some ideas...

--Help citizens become citizens. Find a way to involve prospective citizens in Democratic Party politics that doesn’t involve fundraising (remember Al Gore’s Buddhist Temple incident?)-maybe sponsor a mock Convention with immigrant groups, or mock primaries. Actively seek the advice of immigrants before platforms are set. Find ownership opportunities for new citizens in the Party-then let the fundraising begin!

--Do what Democrats have done for 70 years-look out for the American worker. Promote worker rights, continue to push minimum-wage legislation; continue to advance efforts to educate more Americans.

--Democratic candidates come to unions for support, and now it’s time for payback. Make unions and the help they provide workers a daily conversation on the campaign trail. Today the Party is reaching out to help the efforts of the SEIU in organizing. Why not run voter registration and union awareness campaigns in coordination with each other?

Every Democratic event should be a Union awareness event, as well. Help a worker make the job better, and that worker remembers you at election time. For decades, if you handle the relationship well.

--Economics matter, and home ownership and education matter most in American’s personal economics. That means we need to help immigrants buy that first house, and find the education they and their kids need. Suggesting expanding adult education could pay big dividends.

--Continue to reinforce the perception that D candidates will support immigrants-and that R candidates want to deport them.

To wrap all this up, Democrats have an historic opportunity to “lock in” a voting bloc for a generation or more-a bloc that equals about 10% of US population, is theoretically inclined to vote D anyway, and who, with outreach, would likely be happy to come along for the ride.

So let’s look around, find Hispanic and Asian communities in these purple States, and help them find their way to the American political process; then let’s welcome them aboard, now and for the future.

To quote Dr. Peter Venkman: “Lenny, you could be saving the lives...of millions of registered voters...”

Editorial Note: A great deal of today’s discussion was based on the work of the fine folks at the Pew Hispanic Center (and big thanks to you!), and comments unsupported by other links are based on data derived from the Pew Center’s report.

On Experience Marketing, Or, Dude, Where’s My Party?

In a previous conversation, I discussed the concept of “transelectional” candidates-those who are, over the years, always running, even if not for any particular election.

To put it another way, there are political actors who continuously maintain themselves in “candidate mode” because they might find themselves in a Senate, gubernatorial, or Presidential election, depending on circumstances. Candidates not preparing for one particular office, but any “election of opportunity”.

In that discussion, I addressed the concept of how these transelectional candidates have begun to develop “brands”, just as we see in the consumer marketplace; and used Al Gore’s association with global climate change issues as an example.

In today’s discussion, I’d like to further address the issue of political branding, discuss the role of the Democratic Party in this evolution, and examine strategies that could develop long-term bonding between younger voters and the Party.

When a candidate develops a “brand” it is typically a single concept brand-Global Warming, Reducing Poverty, War On Terrorism, Out Of Iraq are all being used today. So where does that leave the Democratic Party, in a world of individual candidates who can now develop their own communities without a Party apparatus?

To answer that question, consider Disney, Evangelical Christians, and the 13-17 year old pre-voter.

How many of you have a Disney upbringing? That is, you grew up on Mickey and Donald and Annette Funichello (or Britney Spears), you visited the theme parks, maybe went to “Disney On Ice”, and now you and the kids are watching “Finding Nemo”.

For a child born to Evangelical Christianity, there is a similar outcome: childhood upbringing often leads to adult affiliation.

There is a common thread between these two, and I submit that common thread is the fact that both are more than a “product”-they are an “experience”.

Experience marketing bonds consumers to a philosophy, not just a particular product of a company. For example, the same customers who grew up on Ford trucks are likely to see the Mustang in a positive light. And not as likely to buy Chevy. And that preference is probably going to last that consumer’s entire life. (Coke and Pepsi?)

Let’s take this a step further.
Let’s talk about teenagers aged 13-17.

The New Politics Institute tells us this group...

...bases much of their understanding of the world on our recent ”terrorist mode” history.
JFK, the civil rights movement, the Warren Court, Vietnam, Watergate, and the optimism of the Clinton years are not part of that history.

...is surprisingly conservative regarding security issues-nearly half (46%) do not see the Iraq war as a mistake; and they tend not to object to monitoring all electronic communications of US citizens.

...favors incarceration over changing the social conditions that lead to crime-42% to 35%.

...of all groups, is least likely to see the Iraq war as a mistake.

The picture is not entirely pessimistic for Democrats. Consider this:

Surprisingly enough, this group supports Government action to lessen the differences in economic opportunity in America by a near plurality (45%). (Yes, I noted the contradiction as well...)

70% favor more Federal money for school construction, and 66% want to fund college for all qualified high school graduates.

46% consider the state of the environment an important issue.

Most interesting of all is the issue of self-identification.
Half of the respondents report no political affiliation, and the remaining half are about evenly split between D and R. As the New Politics Institute report notes, this group “seem[s] to be up for grabs”. (Page 6)

It stands to reason, then, that it would behoove somebody in the progressive political community to engage in a process of voter development through “branding and bonding”, directed at this 13-17 year old group.

And I submit that somebody should be the Democratic Party.

That just as the Party, as part of it’s ongoing business, provides access to donor lists and other candidate resources throughout the 50 states; they should also be providing access to a “Democratic Party experience” that bonds these “eventual voters” to Democratic candidates yet to be identified, and enhances the effect of the Democratic fundraising apparatus, however it may evolve.

This “experience” does not have to be a political event.
Consider the Republican equivalent: the experience of church.

Obviously faith and politics are not the same, and they don’t derive from the same source. But at the same time, common faith provides a bonding experience that is effectively harnessed by the Rs. Thus the “Republican base” and the “Religious Right” are essentially the same people

What “Common Faith” brand could Ds develop that could make younger voters more inclined to self-associate D? I have one suggestion:

“We Work For You”

Look at the issues of greatest concern for this community-Iraq, education, the environment, security, equality of opportunity.

Then look at the issues where we might differ with this age group-for example, we might be more likely to support individual freedom and personal privacy initiatives, since the older amongst us can actually recall such a thing being a goal of Government.

There are a ton of opportunities for the Ds to align themselves with the thinking of this age group, so the question now becomes: how do we create the bonding experience?

My guess is that no single answer will apply here, but I would suggest four areas of action:

1) Empower this age group to take action to “save the world”. Encourage, and even fund, projects submitted by and using volunteers from this group. Use sponsorship as a means of showing that when it comes to cleaning up parks, helping to recycle, or trying to fight global warming, that Ds are “Working for You”. Consider operating a “volunteer clearinghouse” independent of electoral cycles. Organizing and grant writing workshops could teach young community leaders, who might become future precinct captains.

2) Sponsorships, Sponsorships, Sponsorships. Sponsor students, sponsor schools, sponsor bands on tour. There have been efforts by the hip-hop community to reach out to the Ds. Take advantage-sponsor a Jay-Z tour, for example. Once again-“We Work For You”.

3) Teach the benefits of freedom. The more this group understands the rights of American citizens, the more they understand that Ds are “Working For You”.

4) Harness the power of handmade media. Create a community, not unlike YouTube, that could provide a public voice for young filmmakers who want to address their local concerns to a national audience. Provide resources (downloadable editing software?) that send what message to the community? “We Work For You”, of course.

This 13-17 age group is not a monolithic society, and what is cool today is uncool in 6 hours, but there are universal messages, as we see above, that can be communicated. If we respect the audience, and let them have substantial control of the process, bonding will occur.

Traditional wisdom suggests there is no return on this investment for many years, but that may be changing. The fastest growing age group in terms of voter participation from 2000 to 2004 was the 18-24 age group.

There’s another bonus in all of this-the “Kidfluence” the members of this age group have on their parents. Respect earned today could equal votes earned in the very next electoral cycle.

Is it appropriate to target such an audience?
I submit that if the corporate owners of Yu-Gi-Oh, and many others like them, can place themselves on television to promote a consumer product aimed at this age group, and younger, then the door is open, and it’s time for the Democrats to step through.

So let’s summarize.

We now see candidates creating individual “brands” and developing communities around those brands.

Branding, as an emotional experience, is an avenue to long-term bonding.

The Democratic Party should develop a single overarching “brand” such as the “We Work For You” suggestion, that could be reinforced through empowerment, sponsorships, and online community development.

Creating emotional bonding opportunities with the 13-17 age group could help counteract the Republican use of the church experience as a bonding mechanism.

And finally, the influence of this group on their parents, combined with the data on the growth of participation by younger voters , suggests this approach could be successful sooner than anticipated.

If there’s one thing 13-17 year olds are doing, it’s looking for a party.
Let’s invite ‘em to this one.