×
Extended controversies can have some real benefits for citizens, including that they allow time to be exposed to various arguments and give some consideration to each. It doesn't always produce wise public opinion, but it can. In the case of the Wisconsin union issue, it's giving people an opportunity to think about what unions do, how power operates, and how ordinary people deserve to be treated. That isn't to say that we're getting some kind of perfect model of citizen deliberation on the issue, but it is encouraging to see all the polls showing the people of Wisconsin turning on the governor they just elected and rejecting the idea that public employees should have to give up their right to bargain collectively. There's a thoughtful post on this by Katherine Cramer Walsh, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin who has spent a lot of time listening to people talk about these kinds of issues:
Here is how I would characterize this view of the world: "Government employees are lazy. If they do work hard, they get great benefits, so that doesn't really count as hard work. In other words, they aren't really like those of us who have struggled to make ends meet, and done so with our hands, ever since we can remember."But perhaps what we've seen in the past couple of weeks is a complication of this simple ingroup/outgroup distinction. With major, enduring protests come media attention, and with that media attention and the casual banter that arises around it might come a little bit of reconsideration. The pictures of the people at my state capitol include UW-Madison students, who are sometimes written off as radicals, but they also include firefighters, teachers, families, people of many walks of life. It is likely that there is growing recognition that public employees are not just state workers in Madison, but our kids' teachers, librarians, city clerks, state troopers, etc. They look like ordinary people, too. Are they really the enemy?I wouldn't argue that the events in Wisconsin presage a grand revival of the labor movement or anything. But they may mean that when people hear "union workers" in the near future, they'll be more likely to think of teachers, nurses, and firefighters. Which can't be bad.All of which gives me an excuse to post this, which we haven't seen in a year or two and the union really ought to consider putting a few million behind in a national buy (warning: NSFW due to salty language):
