Bringing labor movements (back) into foreign policy
Speaking Security Newsletter | Congressional Candidate Advisory Note 8 | 12 May 2020
A couple quick things: SPRI published an article last week on the importance of McKayla Wilkes to the global working class (we’ll be rolling out similar pieces on other primary candidates as well). I was on a podcast, too.
Summary
Reforming US foreign policy will require a mass movement. This will take considerable time and effort, but the good news is you all are already building that coalition through your support of Medicare For All and/or Green New Deal. These initiatives not only promise a more livable world but direct benefits for exactly the same people you need on your side to make these policies a reality. More good news: labor movements have already shown us how foreign policy can fit into domestic programs for social betterment.
Some history
What follows are some examples of how labor unions have talked about economic conversion (public funds used for war remaining public funds, just converted to better purposes like health or environment) across time. So they all proposed divesting from ‘national security’ (war, empire) and investing instead in the stuff that improves working-class security (like what M4A and GND offer today). These examples are all lifted from research published by Michael Brenes (his forthcoming book, here).
1964 Following a recession in the mid-1950s, George McGovern proposed creating the National Economic Conversion Commission (NECC) that would oversee “defense conversion” that included channeling ‘war’ money into social welfare programs.
1969 John Kenneth Galbraith proposed nationalizing the defense industry (title of op-ed: “The big defense firms are really public firms and should be nationalized”) in order to de-link profits from national security policy, which would then facilitate an economic conversion. While members of Congress opposed the idea, labor groups—that included defense industry employees—supported the idea.
1970s The labor groups UAW and Machinists both supported a form of economic conversion.
1972 The “Labor for Peace” forum was held. The emergent coalition comprised over a thousand different labor groups, demanding ending American involvement in Vietnam and steering the United States away from a path of “killing and destruction” to one marked by “peace, dignity, and full employment.” (Transcript, here)
1977 through mid-1980s Rep. Ted Weiss proposed conversion legislation with the support of House Majority Leader (and later Speaker) Jim Wright.
Late 1980s through early 90s Following the Cold War, a bunch of grassroots campaigns (like the ‘Arizona Council for Economic Conversion’ and ‘Stop the Trident’ coalition) pushed for alternative spending priorities. Although their demands ultimately were not adequately expressed in the budget that was passed, they were reflected in Clinton’s original interest in cutting defense to fund domestic infrastructure projects.
Conclusion
When we’ve gotten close to reducing military spending in any meaningful way, labor groups were involved.
Not sure how useful any of this will be to your campaigns, but at the very least I hope it inspires confidence.
Stephen (stephen@securityreform.org; @stephensemler)
Subscribe to Polygraph
Visualizing politics through a class lens. A newsletter by Stephen Semler.