2014 Mid-Term Elections Recap
So the 2 014 Elections were a bust. Locally, of our donee candidates, only
Suzan DelBene ( via OPEUI Int’ l’ s VOTE PAC) won her seat, with final
results for Christine Kilduff ( poised to win) still outstanding.
Nationwide it was a landslide for regressive and conservative candidates,
and in-state we lost some of our best legislators.
That being said, the fact that pro-worker/progressive policies such
as minimum wage increases [ Arkansas, Alaska, Nebraska, South Dakota, San
Francisco] , paid sick leave [ Massachusetts] , background checks
[ Washington] , and sentencing reform [ California] had success indicates
that while the American people currently despise the Democratic party they
are not necessarily opposed to the causes that are important to us.
To some extent these losses are cyclical. As cynical and useless as this
analysis may be, observation supports the idea that every x election
cycles, the electorate votes against those in power on the basis that they
were ( always, as ever) unable to accomplish what they were expected to
accomplish. You can take this both ways: on the one hand, the Republican
romp doesn’ t speak to a permanent, nationwide shift to the Right; on the
other, regardless of the quality of a candidate, s/he always runs with or
against the political climate of the day.
As abortion becomes de facto illegal in state after red state, and
as marriage equality and marij uana become de j ure legal blue-by-blue,
individual issue campaigns seem like a very attractive option. For
reliable outcomes, they’ re less likely to accomplish little or sell-out
their constituents than any given legislator or executive.
Issue campaigns also have a much decreased nose-holding factor— as
preferable as a President Hillary Clinton may be to a President Ted Cruz
or Chris Christie, she would still hold the odious distinctions of having
lead our charge into Iraq from the left in 2 003, of being besties with the
Wall Street elite, and of self-identifying as more hawkish than President
Obama, who, himself, is no dove.
Yet the government isn’ t run by issues. As dissatisfying as
legislative politics may often be, we still live in a representative
democracy, however deformed by wealth it has become. This means we still
need to elect representatives who represent ( as often as possible) the
working person.
But what do
you like to
candidates,
Drop a line
you think? OPAL is your Political Action Committee— how would
see OPAL directs its energies going forward? What causes,
or other efforts would you like us to focus on? Let us know!
to: corinne@ opeiu8. org
Opeiu#8/afl-cio
Better Know an Amendment - The Second Amendment
On November 4 , 2 014 , initiatives 591 and 594 were voted on by the citizens
of the State of Washington, with I-591 being rej ected, and I-594 being
approved. Throughout the campaigns, as has occurred so often in our
country, debates arose regarding “gun rights” and the intent of the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment, as it is
currently interpreted through Supreme Court decisions over the last few
decades, protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment was influenced partially by the English Bill of
Rights of 1689. Among other provisions, it prevented royal interference of
the people to have arms for their own defense, as suitable by their social
class and allowed by law. During the creation of the Bill of Rights,
conflict and compromise between Federalists ( those who supported the
adoption of the Constitution) and Anti-federalists ( those who supported
limited government) resulted in the language of our 2 nd Amendment: A well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This carried the basic intentions that the citizens, who at the time
were required to serve in local and state militias, should have the ability
to possess firearms should they need to serve in defense against potential
government tyranny-- a strong concern among government leaders who had j ust
been through a war to end government tyranny.
On September 2 1, 17 89, a final vote was taken in the House which
agreed up on the final language of the Amendment. This Amendment, along
with the 9 others which make up the Bill of Rights, was adopted on December
15, 17 91, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Upcoming Events November - December
November 24-28 – Walmart Black Friday
protests - Walmarts throughout the
state - see blackfridayprotests. org
for details for a protest near you
December 3 – OPAL Meeting - Seattle
Labor Temple, 5: 30pm ( early start
time)
December 6 – " Winning Big In Hard
Times" Shop Steward Training w/ Mark
McDermott - Executive Inn, 2 00 Taylor
Ave N, Seattle - 9: 30am
January 7 – OPAL Meeting - Seattle
Labor Temple, 6pm
For additional information please
contact Corinne Cosentino,
Editorial Note
Our OPAL Sisters and Brothers: We
apologize for missing the deadline
on our last issue of the newsletter.
In order to make up for the lost
issue, we will be releasing two
newsletters before the end of 2 014 .
This is the first, and the second
will go out at the end of December.
Vol. 2 , No. 4
November 2 4 , 2 014
OPEIU Local 8 AFL-CIO
Our Brothers and Sisters
Watching the events in Ferguson, I am haunted by ( among other things) a nagging pang of guilt. A sick pit in
the stomach when I think of what will, or, more accurately, will not happen next.
Even if a grand j ury deems this killing worthy of a trial to determine whether it may have been outside the
normal and accepted behavior expected from a police officer, there will never be any repercussions for those
anonymous officers— no badges, no nametags— who so far have gassed, threatened, shot with rubber bullets those
protesting police brutality.
If Darren Williams is fired, or faces any official negative consequences for his actions, he will be in
the vast minority of police officers who do so. The ‘ victim’ of video and media headlines, ritually
sacrificed to maintain the illusion of consequence.
While the government does track statistics for officers shot in the line of duty, they do not track
statistics of the number or details of shootings committed by officers. Independent efforts based on selfreported figures from maj or police departments track the number as over 1, 000 shootings per year, half of
which are fatal. In more than 95% of these cases, the police involved shootings are deemed j ustified by the
fellow law enforcement officers tasked with investigating them. No consequences result.
There is power in a union. This power is derived from the alliance and unity of many individually powerless.
This power, in turn, is dispelled when the individual actor acts alone.
But what of a union of the individually power-full? A union that amplifies the power of those who choose
which crimes are crimes and when and when done by whom, those who carry the legally-protected privilege of
conferring instant death upon those they feel merit the sentence, and can publicly beat and coerce and
conduct chemical warfare against those who protest?
It would be absurd to think that a union-free police force would be substantively less corrupt or more
humane. Power is power; studies have shown and continue to show that those in power, regardless of prior
belief, come to see those outside of power as ‘ less than’ and act accordingly.
And this violence is systemic. The powerful protect the powerful. As long as prosecutors depend on
police to give them neatly packaged cases, as long as elected officials depend on prosecutors to put
sufficient people behind bars to demonstrate their electability, as long as prisons foot the bill for elected
officials’ elections, as long as increasingly costly elections require those not independently wealthy to
take on corporate sponsors in order to run, as long as wealth remains our selfish gene— the secret hero of
these poems, the real protagonist alongside which we humans exist to exalt in its creation— these parties can
continue in their abuses with limited-to-no consequence.
But when our privileges enable true inj ustice— not steroid use or the unauthorized use of cell phones on
company time— but murder and systemic violence and the creeping incursion of a militarized police state, to
what extent should we feel culpable?
When our privileges, designed to redistribute some modicum of power back to the vulnerable, instead
protect the abuses of those empowered to protect us— then what?
There are no answers in this piece. It is as difficult to dismiss as it is to accept the possibility that our
most indispensable rights may, to whatever degree, stand in the way of real police accountability. But, while
power is power, and those who have it protect their own, it is hard to imagine that cops who instinctually
shoot suspects, or pepper spray the eyes of protestors, or stand multiply accused of myriad abuses, would so
often do so with impunity if they were not our brothers and sisters.
[ Note: this article was written, in large part, three months ago and was finished before the grand jury
decision whether or not to charge Officer Darren Williams with a crime. ]