And it is a real eye-opener to see how far right this country has tilted in 30+ years.

Absolutely. The Right realized in the early 70s that they couldn't honestly outperform the Left on issues that mattered to most Americans, so they just "changed the conversation" and derailed the process, and the Democrats passively went along with it as the New Dealers faded away. I remember when "liberal" became demonized, and even liberals were afraid to use it. Maybe they still are.

Why, exactly? Now people qualify it, like it's something to be apologized for -- "I'm socially liberal, BUT fiscally conservative." -- that's bogus. It points to the triumph of the Right's noisemaking.

These days "fiscally conservative" is as much bullshit as anything else -- it's just a semantic smokescreen for "no social spending," given how all of those so-called fiscal conservatives blew this country's finances right into orbit. Be ready for their return, however, once they're out of power. They're budget hawks, so long as they're watching somebody else's budgets, and not their own.

I'd like to see some fiscal and political liberals reappear, folks who don't hide from social spending, who don't equivocate and hedge around it, like somehow a government that invests in its own people is something to be ashamed of, versus a sign of a functional government doing its job.

Instead, the GOP model is a dysfunctional government that can't do its job, and hires expensive private contractors to also not do the job they won't do to begin with. Government is the problem? No, you guys are the problem. The worst fear of the GOP is a functional liberal government; their whole ideological industry is dedicated to preventing that from happening.

Great piece, Mr. Conason! I'm hoping that more attention is paid to Mark Penn and other Clintonian hired guns. The Burson-Marsteller angle is disturbing enough; they're out-and-out villains, leaning heavily in favor of the GOP in their client base. And this is even more irritating...

They know very well that Penn is among the leading figures in the Democratic Leadership Council, whose budget is underwritten by major corporations and whose policies favor business over labor.

I'm so sick of the Democrats' Fifth Column, the DLC, who continue to gut and fillet the Democratic agenda, regardless of election outcomes -- when they lose (and they lose lots), they say "Let's water things down that much more, let's scootch a little further to the right." And then they lose again. Or else, rarely, they win, and then they vote with their buddies, the GOP, on issues that screw over the American workers, while Harry "Milquetoast" Reid scratches his head and offers some bland assurance that the fight will go on. When?

When the DLC are exorcised from the Democratic Party, that's when. And where will they go? The GOP, of course, or bogus "independent" like Shoeless Joe Lieberman, former DLC darling.

Sorry, but even as Labor's status shrinks, as American workers continue to lose jobs, rather than ignoring that, the Democrats, if they want to survive, are going to have to be the party that goes to bat for the American worker, one way or another. The globalization harpies will shriek "no protectionism" -- but something will have to be done. The Clinton crew thinks they can just have it both ways -- rhetorical nods to Labor while they sign their souls over to Business. No good.

Somebody wrote...

In other words, labor and management depend upon each other for their mutual survival. And both sides had better wake the hell up, stop spitting insults at each other, and start working on solutions that benefit everybody, not just their own parish.

They depend on each other? Tell that to Management/Capital. The whole point of globalization is maximizing corporate profits by taking advantage of cheaper workforces abroad, in Third World countries. The advocates of it say "Look, you can buy more cheap stuff." But it creates a race to the bottom in First World wages and is wiping out the middle class.

Management has never valued Labor, except as a necessary evil. If they could get away with people making things for nothing (e.g., slavery) they would -- that's how sweatshops come about, all about cranking out maximum profits, and the easiest way of doing that is controlling Labor costs: hack wages to the bone, cut benefits, mandate 80+ hour workweeks, and, yes, destroy Unions.

Labor wants good wages and good jobs and benefits; Management wants high productivity and low wages, minimizing all costs that might impact profits. Apologists will cite abstract economic theories (the F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman Brigades come a-marching) but the everyday practice of it, the reality of it, is that companies don't pay good wages unless they absolutely have to.

And if you study early 20th century American labor history, you'll see that companies didn't generously wave their lily-white hands and deliver workers from bad wages, dangerous jobs, endless hours, no benefits -- rather, workers, in Unions (eek!) forced companies to improve their conditions.

Globalization of Capital is the magic bullet Management has wanted, and it knows it, and Labor knows it. Capital realizes that it can pit Labor against itself, country to country, especially as most corporations are transnational, while workforces remain national.

So, while companies might spend PR money to massage their images, I think they've got very little incentive to treat First World (let along Third World) workers with respect and care. Even if articles of incorporation are revoked, I imagine they can get around that, just going someplace where they're given the freest hand to do what they like.

We know why the GOP has sold American workers down the river; do we have to tolerate it from the Democrats, too?

Where does the US show up on the ranking of failed states? ;)

All accomplished missions aside, it feels like whatever our state is about anymore, it's sure failing to do it.