President's Viewpoint

The Political Endorsement Process

(This article first appeared in the January/February 2008 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine.)

An APWU member recently submitted a question to “Ask the President” on www.apwu.org, and instead of restricting my response to the audience that frequents the union’s Web site, I have decided to share my views with the entire membership. Dave Coker, of the Denver Metro Area Local, wrote:

Question: I would like to know whether the APWU remembers NAFTA and GATT. Does the union consider issues such as these when deciding which presidential candidate to endorse?

(Editor’s note: The North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT] were treaties signed during the Clinton administration that were denounced by unions for costing American jobs.)

As a member of the AFL-CIO Executive Committee, as well as the federation’s Executive Board, I have participated in several discussions related to political endorsements. The AFL-CIO constitution requires a two-thirds majority to officially endorse a candidate, and at this time sufficient support has not been achieved for any candidate. Individual unions have, in the interim, endorsed Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama.

The APWU National Executive Board has also discussed this issue, but to date we have refrained from making an endorsement.

What’s at Issue

While it may be inspiring to hear candidates declare solidarity with labor’s objectives, what matters most is winning the presidency and electing a Congress that will actually pass legislation favorable to working people and middle-class America.

Over the past six or seven years, every pillar of support for working people has been significantly weakened. On issues such as fair trade, foreign policy, constitutional protections, tax policy, energy, budget discipline, justice, education, Social Security, healthcare, safety, labor policy, the war in Iraq, and immigration, government has been used in support of entrenched power rather than to improve the lives of the general population.

Before a future president can begin to change government policy on these important issues, he or she must stop the erosion we have experienced over the recent past. The expression, “If you are in a hole, stop digging,” applies. We must stop the digging before we can start climbing.

Winning the presidential election is what’s important: We must win! Promises to support legislation affecting specific issues are less important when compared with the wide range of outcomes resulting from the policies implemented by the president and his or her cabinet. A candidate who announces opposition to NAFTA and GATT but has no answer for rising energy costs will not satisfy the needs of working people. The quality of life for average citizens does not turn on a candidate’s ability to deliver a crisp sound bite.

Campaign Fiction/Post-Election Reality

No matter the promises of the candidates, change will not occur at a fast pace, and assurances made by the winners during the campaign will inevitably meet with the reality of the political system. Legislation frequently must traverse a minefield of political accommodation before becoming law, so what a candidate supports or opposes when soliciting votes is often irrelevant to legislative outcomes.

As opposed to promises made on the campaign trail, the paramount issue is whether the candidate can win, and after he or she wins: What are the priorities? We need to know the candidate’s strategy — once in office — for passing progressive legislation: How does he/she propose to overcome the obstacles to change?

A candidate who supports fair trade as opposed to cheap labor and corporate profits often provides little more than good theater during the primary season. The mere fact that a candidate has a “good position” on the issue does not guarantee change. There are so many other factors that must be considered.

While it is important to support a candidate who supports policies embraced by workers, we hope the primary process will result in a progressive candidate who also has the best chance of succeeding in November. Regrettably, media coverage does not lend itself to thoroughly addressing the pertinent issues. Too often we are left simply asking what candidates favor and oppose. Many of the candidates will appeal to us on some of the issues important to working people, but being for something does not make it happen. John Kerry was opposed to NAFTA, but so what: How has that helped working people the past few years?

Deferring Judgment

I am willing to defer making an endorsement at this time, but when we give our support to a candidate, the American Postal Workers Union will lend all of its resources so that we can begin the process of restoring the government to the people. And I do mean begin.

It is anticipated that when the APWU National Executive Board makes a presidential endorsement I will receive a round of protestations from members who object to our choice of candidate or party. These expressions of disapproval will center in part on whether the board has the authority to speak on behalf of the members, many of whom will support other candidates. (Most frequently, such objections come from members who favor conservative candidates and parties whose politics are not supportive of labor’s stance on the issues.)

The president and the NEB do speak on behalf of the American Postal Workers Union: Consistent with the principles of the APWU constitution, we have the right and the responsibility to publicly express support or opposition in the political arena, on the basis of labor’s agenda.

Our expression is not intended to be the voice of each of the 280,000 APWU members, who are free as American citizens to exercise individual political rights. We merely fulfill the responsibility of our constitution:

When the timing is right and consensus can be reached, we shall make an endorsement for president of the United States and for members of Congress who, in our judgment, embrace the policies that we believe will provide a better future for America.