Labor has a long tradition of fighting for social legislation which affects the lives of many who have never belonged to a union and never will. In areas like aid to education, medical care, social security, and anti-poverty measures, the political power of the organized workers has been a crucial element in achieving democratic reforms.
-- Michael Harrington [The Price of Liberty essay]
May 1 traditionally had been a pagan festival celebrating the oncoming of spring, but it survived into the Christian Era just as Easter celebrations now combine similar themes with other concerns as well. The holiday retained a popular, anti-elite flavor, also seen by those same elites to give the masses a means to blow off steam. One way this was done was dancing around a "maypole," which was sometimes given a patriotic flavor during the protests against the English monarch by re-labeling it a "liberty pole."
Such flexibility and flavor made it not too surprising that it ultimately was made into a worker holiday. Some might not like to know that it was officially done at the Second International (Lenin and Trotsky was present at the meeting), but then workers' rights movements have long been tainted as socialist/communistic conspiracies. Thus, things now generally accepted as legitimate, if not ideal, such as strikes were once deemed "conspiracies." Boycotts also were deemed restraints of trade and still seem a bit irregular ... Scott M. (is he still around?) noted in response to questions about yesterday's immigrant action that the President is against boycotts. [Likewise, some are wary about boycotts as a whole, such as against certain ideological groups, like boycotting companies with conservative ownership.]
This was done in the 1880s, the beginning of fifty hard years of pushing to legitimate workers rights in this country with the next fifty plus used to try to cement and equally apply the legitimacy gained in the New Deal years. Democracy Now!, for instance, yesterday had an author on discussing the infamous Haymarket Affair, where eight anarchists were sentenced to death (four executed, one committed suicide, three later pardoned) largely for their radical politics -- the actual bomber was never found.
The author noted that the city (Chicago) was an armed camp -- owners having private militias, workers arguing they too need to be armed and prepared. Haymarket itself was somehow connected to protests arising from deaths of workers. And, a somewhat important 2A case (Presser v. Illinois) was handed down about this time as well ... it dealt with a state law against parading of unofficial militia groups.
Those deemed radical often have certain basic messages that later become the official line, though a truly complete honoring of the principles still is deemed quite radical all the same. As suggested by the opening quote, this was the case with groups deemed illegal conspiracies at the turn of the 20th Century. For instance, many workers do not really have an eight hour day, but the push for one in effect did come to pass. Eight hours is deemed the basic workday (travel alone might make it at least ten, but that is another issue) and those who work more by law generally get time and a half. There are plenty of loopholes -- and the Wal-Mart situation alone suggests the need to fill them -- but as with child labor and unsafe working conditions (ditto) -- the change is remarkable.
But, such moves were once -- and in some parts still are -- deemed "socialist" or worse in character. A violation of our basic ethos of individual based capitalism. Such is the fiction of self-image. One notes that inherently a society is in some fashion "socialist," the base of the word alone tells you that. It surely is the case since the New Deal, even among those who are still not a big fan of the era (and even they generally do not wish to totally turn back the clock).
The President saw this all too well with his attempt to "reform" Social Security. This is not deemed "socialist" by many since they see it as some sort of pension plan. As it is, but a special sort of one that kicks in even if the funds you put in it does not completely cover the payments given. The idea, however, is that it is a nation-wide pension/insurance plan. The nation as a whole pays and is paid. Yes, Virginia, this is a form of socialism.
Ike made May 1 "Law Day," some say as a way to remove its more socialist tendencies. Honoring law (including as applied to workers) is a good thing as well, of course, especially given the lawless now in power. It is somewhat ironic though when -- in the spirit of past mass efforts similarly put in place as signs of power -- undocumented workers ("illegals") chose this May Day to make a statement. The protest seems to have been pretty successful ... a nationwide signal of just how important these workers are to our economy and nation as a whole.
As an article in Slate notes, put upon and marginal groups also traditionally tend to reaffirm our faith in basic ideals like fairness and equality: "the crucial struggles that began more than a century ago, today's marches have forged a link among working-class aspiration, celebrations of ethnic identity, and insistence on full American citizenship. It's an explosive combination. And it could revive and reshape liberal politics in our time." Rights are promised to all, but it is the disfavored who always tend to find them so much more important. They move to obtain them -- showing themselves quite like the rest of us in the process -- relivens our belief in them overall. [And, we need it! The fallow period of recent years must end!]
Also, the use of "illegal" is amusing really. Suddenly, after allowing them in for so long (and not targeting their employers as a general rule), people are sticklers for the law. You know as they speed along the Bronx River Pkwy at 65-75mph in a 55mph zone. As they fudge their taxes and send their kids to school with verboten cell phones. As their leaders ignore basic constitutional and statutory rules or favored radio hosts are said not to be "arrested" because it was all so voluntary and all [when a member of the Weather Underground "voluntarily" surrendered, was she not "arrested" as well?]. Or, smoke pot -- oh, yeah, only when "they" illegally do drugs is it appropriate for police action to occur. And so on.
Yes, many are illegally here, and this is of some concern. But, as with any number of issues, the edge of legality must be put into perspective. Underenforcement (a term in some cases rather generous) sends a certain message, a certain quasi-legality at worse. Sometimes, this is unfair -- one of the better lessons re-enforced on the Al Franken Show is the tendency of the federal government to selectively enforce tax laws against the poor (the useful Earned Income Tax Credit* was accepted by Republicans in part because of an agreement to particularly enforce "abuse" of such measures -- leading to many false positives and less resources for truly serious money tax frauds). All the same, even though warning flags in some sense arise, this does not necessarily mean the underlining acts are totally legitimate.
Still, let's cut the bullshit,** ok? Just pointing out that some of these workers (some who have children who are citizens by birth) are here illegally is not an easy answer to critics. Such sanctity of the law concerns turns out to be mighty selective and in practice quite arbitrary. The ultimate value of yesterday's protests hopefully will be to put a human face on the "problem," not only show how important they are to our economy, but to remind us of the human lives at stake. This is not a total trump -- in some fashion, some rules need to be in place. Now, I think demand based rules often would be the way to go, but it still will not be an "anything goes" move for the workers.
But, there are two sides to the debate (at least), and the generally disenfranchised side made themselves known yesterday. This fits into our tradition, especially our May Day tradition, even if (yet again) many deem there to be a taint of illegitimacy to the whole affair.
---
* This sometimes benefits more than the poor since it is based on general income. Someone, therefore, can simply make a relatively small sum one year, and get the credit. Thus, a rich person might work a month one year, and benefit. Nonetheless, and this affected someone I know recently, there is a guard against the rich kid deal -- those under 25 do not get the credit (I'm not sure about if they are married or have dependants overall.) Appears overinclusive since many young people by that age are on their own and might need the money.
** A suitable edited quote from the Daily News by Paul Lo Duca, concerning his winning (per an error) "fielder's choice" (it should have been an inning ending double play -- time for extras -- but one cannot guarantee a double play) in the Mets final at bat:
I thought it was going to go up the middle at first anyway ... but then he turned and threw it into the (toilet). It's all about placement. I guess I hit it in the right spot.
Did you say "crapper," Paul? Such a potty mouth.