I recently was given the first three seasons of Family Guy on DVD. It's a twisted cartoon, due to be back on the air, about a lovable loser, his slightly twisted wife, three children (including a genius baby out to kill his mom .. this last part suggests some of the twisted humor on the show), and talking dog. The quality of the episodes are mixed, but there usually are enough smart jokes and visuals to make even the less than hilarious episodes (a few are priceless, including the one when Brian, the talking dog, becomes a narc) worthwhile.
[A few musings of mine from about a year ago. See here and here for the original thread concerning changing the contours of the political debate.]
"Labor, I'm not so sure about...that implies unions, and I really do think we ought to be looking towards a post-union Democratic party: not turning our backs on labor, but focusing our future efforts on improving conditions for ALL American workers"
Perhaps, this is a game of semantics ... surely there still will be large chunks of "labor" out there, namely ordinary workers that traditionally fit the term "labor." Likewise, as the conditions of "labor" improved from the early 1900s on, the conditions of all workers did too. For instance, OSHA standards apply to all, not just to "labor." Your typical low level white collar computer operator might not want to consider herself part of the "laboring" class, but she is.
I think the idea is to make "labor" a respectable term again, to show that the Democratic Party honors them. Currently, all too often it is Republicans who are said to protect the "ordinary worker." There still is a chunk of voters out there that considers themselves "labor," but if the term seems out of date, the ultimately class of people surely are not. There still is a separation between "upper and professional" and "working and middle class," the latter closer to "labor" than anything else.
Also, as long as employers will continue to have organizations and lobbyists on their side, employees will need them too ... that is, some form of "unions" to protect their interests. The Republican ideal arguably is that each worker is a type of individual contractor, free of union control, able to move from job to job on his own. This group is bigger now, but "unions" surely aren't out of date. Perhaps, like with "labor" the term needs development, but surely still few workers are truly islands ... quite a few still have or need organizations to protect their interests.
The old style top heavy unions* might be out of date, but unions don't seem quite there yet. This applies even if gov't protects workers more than they do now ... in fact, with more gov't protection, a bigger need for some organization to help them might also exist. For instance, if a worker has more health care options, there is but a bigger need for worker organizations to help protect and distribute them. As unions traditionally did.
* As I originally noted, I come from a union family, and some members still are members of important unions. They also often are upset that the unions are not protecting their interests, thus my suggestion of the need to reform the "old style" unions has a personal tinge to it.
The fact, as Joe stipulated, that corporations are run by "real people" is not relevant to this argument as far as I can see. Those "real people" are already self-representing in their capacity as individual citizens/voters/campaign donors.
"[A corporations] is essentially but an association of individuals, to which is given certain rights and privileges, and in which is vested the legal title. The beneficial ownership is in the individuals, the corporation being simply an instrumentality by which the powers granted to these associated individuals may be exercised."
-- Justice Brewer
Exactly. "Certain rights and privileges" are given to "an association" to promote certain "beneficial" ends. So, yes, since the ultimate alleged end is for individuals and society itself to benefit (not some artificial entity, which is but a means to that end), the fact that corporations are run by real people do matter. It behooves us to remember that corporations have some good ends, that is why they exist in the first place. All the same, when these good ends are ignored, that is the real people corporations are made of and are meant to aid are hidden from view, we are in trouble.
If "real people" in their individual capacity is enough, why the need of "associations" of any sort to represent them? Churches, charitable organizations, public interest groups often are corporations. Small businesses are often incorporated. At times, even single individuals basically are. All have some rights, including some constitutional rights (not just 1A related), and at times liberals are quite happy about it. When rights of corporations are not properly limited, when the reasons for the rights (and the responsibilities they bring) are ignored, that is when trouble arises.