Ukraine: an analysis

by David McReynolds

(This is a column from Edge Left, an occasional column, written by David McReynolds. It can be reprinted without further permission.)

Before launching into my analysis of events in Ukraine, there are a few points which should be made for an American audience.

Putin:

Commentators are engaged in a campaign to discredit Vladimir Putin, dismissing him as nothing more than the former head of the KGB. I hold no brief for Putin, whom I consider the head of a state dominated by oligarchs. But it is worth remembering Putin is the head of a state with which the US needs to deal. Poisoning the water with personal attacks does not move us toward a dialogue on Ukraine or on other matters where the US needs to work with Russia.

It is also worth remembering that Gorbachev, widely praised in the West (and in my view a major "good guy") was actually the KGB candidate when he took office.  It is in US interests to have a working relationship with Russia on matters such as Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan. And, beyond that, on issues of true nuclear and conventional disarmament.

How legitimate is the new Ukrainian government?

There is general agreement that the ousted president, Viktor F. Yanukovych, was corrupt. The problem is he was elected by a clear margin. Dramatic as events on the Maidan were, it remains unclear what forces were involved, who "won," and what they represent. I've read several eye witness accounts of the dramatic actions in February--the problem is no two agree. The US insists the new government represents the people of Ukraine--but who makes that decision? (Younger readers need to remember that while Britain recognized the new Soviet government, which came to power in 1917, in 1924, the US did not recognize it until 1933. In the case of China, where the present Chinese government took power in 1949, the US did not recognize it until Richard Nixon's term. The US is very selective as to when it recognizes new governments that come to power via a revolution).


How nonviolent were the events at the Maidan?

I was more than a little surprised to find that the Facebook page of the Nonviolent Action Research Network (widely wide by American pacifists) termed the events in Kiev "nonviolent". That is nonsense. One can support or oppose the shifts that occurred in Kiev but one cannot call them nonviolent. Not only were a number of protestors killed, but so were a number of Ukrainian police. If people check the storming of the Winter Palace in Czarist Russia in October of 1917, when the Bolsheviks took power and the Russian Revolution became a reality, there were only a handful of people killed--far fewer than died in Kiev. I support the right of people to resist oppression by the methods they choose, but as a pacifist I will urge that resistance be nonviolent. For better or worse, Kiev was not nonviolent.


What happened at the Maidan? 

 The events in Kiev were turbulent. There have been reports--again, from eye witnesses that far right wing elements dominated the protesters, while other equally fervent eye witnesses insist far right wing elements were marginal. Steve Erlanger, in a "memo from Kiev" in the New York Times of Sunday, March 2, noted that the new government has few representatives of "what was the country's largest and most popular party, the Party of Regions, led by the ousted President, Viktor f. Yanukovych. Instead, the government is currently dominated by those associated with a former prime minister, Yulia V. Tymoshenko, who is widely blamed for the failure of the 2004 Orange Revolution to change Ukraine's corrupt political system." Erlanger's analysis suggests that Russian fears of the new government are valid--and, more important, that the fears of many Ukrainians, particularly in the Eastern Ukraine, are valid.

Andrew Wilson, a Ukraine expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said that an early "mistake" by the new government was the overturning of the 2012 law that allowed regions of Ukraine to make Russian a second official language, "needlessly offending Russian-dominated regions like the Donbass and Crimea."

Commentators on events in Ukraine seem to break down into a kind of "left vs. right" pattern. William Blum, whose writing often makes good sense, argued in a recent piece that developments in Ukraine are part of the conscious pattern of the US to dominate the world, which has governed US actions for the last century. Much of what Blum has written has value, but this is nonsense - in 1914 it was Great Britain which ruled the world, WW I had just begun, and the US did not become conscious of its "new destiny" until after World War II. Other figures--Secretary of State Kerry, President Obama, and Hillary Clinton--are so off base it would be funny if it were not serious. What is one to say of Obama, speaking at a press briefing in the White House, with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu sitting beside him, when he spoke of international law, ignoring the fact that Israel has occupied the West Bank in violation of international law, with considerable brutality and violence, for more than forty years.

And of course what can one say about any Russian actions in Crimea (on which I'll comment in a moment) when they come from the leader of a nation which invaded Iraq, destroying it in the process, and has a bloody record of military interventions, some of which have never made rational sense (as in the case of Vietnam, where an estimated three million Vietnamese were killed).

There has been an almost complete lack of balance in media coverage. CNN has been happy to give extended time to interviews with John McCain, one of those rare veterans who seems to long for war, but little time to calmer voices.

To sum up what happened at Maidan, I'm fed up with some of the left telling me it was an anti-Semitic event, and everyone on the right saying it was entirely a democratic event. Clearly--if one can work through the reports--it was not just a "left vs right" event, but one in which many young Ukrainians, fed up with the corruption of the government, burst into a largely spontaneous and very exciting moment of revolt. However there is no question that the political right was there, and no question at all that it has been given key posts in the new government.

A note on Crimea:

 

Crimea is historically Russian. It does not have the independent history of Ukraine. It also has Russia's only warm water port. It was inevitable, once the events in Kiev took the turn they did, that Russia would move into Crimea, and it is not going to leave. Think back to our own actions--when Fidel Castro took power in Havana in 1960 he posed no threat to the US--only to US control in Central and South America. Yet the US was so disturbed it launched a military attack (the Bay of Pigs), and has spent much of the past half century trying to assassinate Fidel and imposing severe sanctions. And we are surprised that Russia took steps to protect what had historically been part of Russia?

 

The trigger for Russian actions:

 

Early in February, as events at the Maidan has created a crisis, with the death toll rising, Polish and German diplomats met with both the Ukrainian government and with the rebels, working out a series of compromises which would have left Yanukovych in power but would also have met many of the demands of those in the Maidan. It is probable that Putin would have lived with that, but we will never know, since the rioters continued the uprising, which had by then become a revolution, and Yanukovych was forced to flee.

 

The context of the Ukrainian Crisis:

Here I want to step back away from the immediate crisis of Ukraine, for a look at the history which dictates much Russian policy--under Putin as it did under Stalin.

Russia has no natural barrier--no river, no mountain range--to guard it on its Western border. It has suffered invasion from the West three times in recent memory - under Napoleon and then twice under the Germans. In the last invasion, under Hitler, between 25 and 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives. All the factories, dams, railroads, towns and cities west of a line from Leningrad in the North to Moscow to Stalingrad in the South were destroyed. Americans make much of 9.11 (and I don't make light of it) but for Russia it was not just a handful of buildings in one city which were destroyed--it was entire cities, leveled. And then with the wounded to care for, the orphans, the widows.

Americans have never understood what the war meant to Russia and why, after the war, the Soviets sought to build a "protective band" of territory between itself and Germany. This was Eastern Europe, which under the iron boot of Stalin became "people's democracies" or "presently existing socialism."

Something Americans (perhaps including our President and the Secretary of State) have forgotten was that Russia wanted to make a deal with the West. It had made peace with Finland, which (again, memories are short and we have forgotten this) fought on the side of the Nazis. The Soviets withdrew from Austria after the West agreed that Austria, like Finland, would be neutral.The Soviets very much wanted a Germany united, disarmed, and neutral. Stalin did not integrate the East Germany into the Eastern European economic plans for some time, hoping he could strike that deal. But the West wanted West Germany as part of NATO, and so the division of Germany lasted until Gorbachev came to power.

I would have urged radical actions by the West in 1956 when the Hungarian Revolution broke out--it was obvious that if the Soviets could not rule Eastern Europe without sending in tanks (as they had already had to do in East Germany in 1953), they posed no real threat of a military strike at the West.

What if we had said to Moscow, “Withdraw your tanks from Hungary, and we will dissolve NATO, while you dissolve the Warsaw Pact?”

But of course the West didn't do that. The US in particular (but I would not exempt the Europeans from a share of the blame) wanted to edge their military bases to the East. When the USSR gave up control of Eastern Europe, the US pressed for pushing NATO farther East, into Poland and up to the borders of Ukraine.

Pause for a moment and assume that revolutionary events in Canada had meant Canada was about to withdraw from NATO and invite in Russian military advisers. What do you think US response would be?

Why are we surprised that Putin has said, very clearly, "No closer. Back off."

In this case Moscow holds the high cards. Europe is not going to war over Crimea. And it needs Russian gas. Sanctions will cut both ways--Europe is very cautious and, irony of ironies, it is Germany which is behaving with the greatest diplomacy.

If, out of all this, US planners accept the fact that there are real limits to how far East NATO can push, then the crisis will have helped us come to terms with reality. It may even lead us to consider dissolving NATO!

The importance of civil society.

All states act in their own interests. States do not have moral values. What we need to count on is the civil society--and Russia has one--which will modify state behavior, just as civil society here can sometimes modify state behavior. We--folks in the American civil society-- need to reach out to the folks in Ukrainian and Russian civil society. There have been anti-war actions in Russia at this time. Great. Let's try to link with them. We need to worry when, as in Nazi Germany, civil society is silenced. To a great extent that has happened here, in the US. Of course we should hope for a fair referendum in Crimea, but I think the fairest possible referendum will still see Crimea returned to Russia.

Meanwhile, we need to tamp down the talk of military action, of sanctions, and of efforts to humiliate Putin. He isn't my hero, but most Russians are happy with him. He has restored to Russia some of the pride it lost with the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. Americans, of all people, should understand this, with our endless (and tiresome) insistence we are the great nation in the world.

David McReynolds was the Socialist Party candidate for President in 1980 and 2000, past Chair of War Resisters International, and for nearly forty years on the staff of War Resisters League. He is retired and lives with his two cats on Manhattan's Lower East Side. He may be reached at: davidmcreynolds7@gmail.com)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thousands Will Still Die under Obamacare



by Mona Shaw

I am sincerely happy for those who can now have cheaper insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA/Obamacare).  I am happy for those younger-than-26 adults who are now covered on their parents’ insurance.  I am happiest for those who now qualify for Medicaid who had nothing before.

 

But I cannot celebrate this bill.  It still leaves too many without affordable care.  Obamacare (or the ACA) has a cynical and, for many, a cruel name.  The ACA does NOT provide affordable care.  It doesn’t provide care at all.  It only provides (and only for some) affordable insurance.  It does not guarantee care for anyone.  Care is still dependent on how much insurance someone can afford and how much they can pay out of pocket before they reach very high deductibles.  People who cannot afford it will still be denied care.

People will still avoid going to the doctor to avoid the high cost of a doctor’s visit.  People will still use Emergency Rooms when they become seriously ill because they could not afford that visit or any preventative or well care.  (While insurance companies are now required to OFFER coverage for these.  Only the very affluent can afford the policies that include this coverage.)

Also, if a patient has an outstanding bill or can’t afford the co-payment, patients can still be refused treatment, even if they have insurance.  I.e. a patient can still be denied chemo by a hospital if they can’t pay an outstanding bill not covered by insurance.

Hundreds, probably thousands, will die this coming year still because they can’t afford care.  To tell these people “Obamacare is a start” will be cold comfort to those planning a loved one’s funeral.  The people who will die matter.  It is immoral and heinous to regard them as collateral damage in a system that still only works for some.  They matter as human beings as much as the more affluent who won’t die.  Most of them will be low-income people who work hard for a living.

 

I can’t celebrate until I live in a nation where not ONE person is denied the healthcare they need to survive.  I don’t know how anyone can.  Demand Single Payer.

Cancer Treatment Centers of America

Every time Cancer Treatment Centers of America airs one of their syrupy commercials, I have to take a walk until I calm down.  I've taken to calling the outfit, "Cancer Club for Rich People."

You have to fork over at least 150k before they'll even see you, and that's if you have Medicare or insurance.  People in my life can't afford that.  Nor can they afford the Pink Lotus Clinic or the "red carpet" care they boast and where Angelina Jolie recently received cancer preventative treatment.  To Pink Lotus's credit they do have a philanthropic program that makes them accessible to a few low-income and uninsured women.  The problem is these women can't afford the test that informed Jolie she was at risk.  By the time these women reach out to Pink Lotus, they're usually already threatened with dying.

It's impossible for me to not compare Jolie's story with my cousin Annie who was recently diagnosed with cancer.  Annie isn't getting the "red carpet."  Annie is uninsured.  And, she didn't qualify for Iowa Care (barely) until her recent diagnosis.  Doctors tell her she has about two years to live with chemo and only a year without it.  She's taking the chemo.  They also tell her she'd have had longer if her cancer had been detected sooner. She's had symptoms for quite a while now, but was hoping they'd "just go away" because seeing a doctor was so cost prohibitive. 

"What if I'm well, and I'm stuck with this bill I can't pay?" she'd tell us.

Most people who are uninsured do this.  The odds are with you.  But sometimes you lose the odds.  Iowa Cares (Iowa's indigent healthcare program, which really only sort of cares) requires patients be treated in only two locations, Broadlawns in Des Moines or UI Hospitals and Clinics in Iowa City. The residence of the patient determines at which place one can be treated. 

For Annie, this is Iowa City, about a 90-minute drive each way from her home.  I'm given to understand that riding in a car for 90 minutes after chemo is not a "red carpet" experience.  There used to be a free shuttle that would take poor people to their appointments.  I remember people who'd recently had surgery or had a bone fracture traveling in the van with me when I went to appointments.  Some would only grimace.  Some wear be tearful and moan on the trip which took a minimum of four hours because patients were being picked up in a myriad of towns.  However, as miserable as the ride could be, you could get there for treatment.  The 50-year-old service was cut in November.  I was told you can save a lot on Iowa Cares if you discourage people from using it.  So, Annie also has to find the money to get to Iowa City.

Annie and I disagree about a bunch of theological issues.  Annie believes in a literal hell.  I don't.  However, Annie and I do agree that we love each deeply, and we don't want her to die.  She's only in her 50s and has children, grandchildren, and a passel of nieces and nephews who need her.  (Her younger sister died a few years ago due, in no small part, due to inadequate healthcare too.)  So, I find myself admitting it, I might be okay with a literal hell if it had a special place in it for those who let people suffer and die because they can't afford healthcare, places like the entire Heath Insurance Industry, the Cancer Treatment Center for America, and almost everyone in Congress.

As for those who tell me it's unseemly to talk about personal struggles like this in public.  I just want them to leave the grown-up table. 

For some reading entertainment, check out what Yelp has on Cancer Institute of America from people who aren't rich.

http://www.yelp.com/biz/cancer-treatment-centers-of-america-goodyear

 

Boycotting Walmart

I boycotted Walmart for a long time,1992-2007.  I boycotted them before it was popular and when there was still a slim chance their mega-monopolistic sway in retail industry practices could be slowed down.  That time was over by 2006.  (Actually, it was over in the early 1980s when Americans shamefully ignored the International Garment Union workers who were on their hands and knees begging us to buy American goods.) To avoid worker abuse and sweatshop labor in 2013, one would have to shop on Mars. 

As egregious and evil as Wal-Mart's abuses are, they've never been any worse than those of any other major retail corporation.  And, to be honest, they've never been worse than small business either.  In fact, a worker is more apt to have some kind of health insurance benefit, as lousy as it may be, from the big corporations than a small business.  And small business hates unions/organized labor no less than Wal-Mart..

It's no longer possible to wear clothing and not participate in the exploitation or enslavement of another human being.  Target, Gap, VF Corp (North Face, Wrangler and Vans), Sears/Kmart, Footlocker, Macy's (Younkers), JC Penney, American Eagle Outfitters, Nordstrom, Kohl's, and OshKosh B'Gosh all buy their garments from the same sweatshops as Walmart.  That's where local clothing shops get their goods too.

It's understandable that sentient people when they learn of worker abuse (aka seen the Robert Greenwald documentary) want to do something to resist this evil. And, it's understandable that Americans think they can consumerize change, not only because boycotts have worked in the past, but because we've been conditioned to believe we can consumerize (or buy) our way out of anything.  Tragically--thanks to GATT, NAFTA, and the abolition of Glass-Steagall, conditions have deteriorated to the point this is no longer possible. 

In 2013, while boycotting Walmart might make folks feel better, it's close to meaningless otherwise.  But, as one young woman told me, "I don't care if it changes anything.  I 'm just trying to find ways to feel better about myself as a person."

There are a lot of ways we could stand up for workers, but they would require risk and sacrifice, and most folks--even "liberal" folks aren't that interested in change.  We could stop voting for the lesser of two evils, ditch both major political parties, and stand in the street demanding campaign finance reform and not go home until we get these things.   We need a pervasive systemic change now to fix Walmart.  We need to end the personhood of corporations (see Move to Amend), reinstate Glass-Steagall, and abolish/revise NAFTA.  And, yes, we need to dismantle capitalism for a more public economy, but short of that the other things I mentioned would be a healthy start.

 

That's not say, it still isn't immoral to cross a picket line in front of Walmart if you see workers marching.  It's still immoral if it's mostly astro-turf laid by some project coughed up by Citizen Action Network, trolling for votes for Democrats at election time.  They've no doubt sucked in some real workers who deserve our support.  (Though they'll need it more after they're discarded when CAN is done using them.)

Here's a little blast from the past, when there was still hope.  Some may laugh at it, but I weep.

 

 

 

Employees can do little about a hostile work environment.

by Mona Shaw

If things were that bad, why didn’t they….

There is a misconception being spread in the Johnson County Auditor’s race that county employees have “plenty of options” to address a hostile work environment.  (It is generally accepted that a hostile work environment exists when an employee experiences workplace harassment and fears going to work because of the offensive, intimidating, or oppressive atmosphere generated by the harasser.)  In truth, their options are few.  In fact, they have no institutional option that can require a supervisor who is an elected official to treat them with dignity.

Among the options some believe exist are:

Report it to a state or federal agency.

There are no federal or state protections against a hostile work environment unless the hostility is driven by discrimination on the basis of age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion or disability.  Federal, state, county or municipal agencies can do nothing if the abuse is not based on the victim’s status as a member of a protected class.  Neither Iowa Workforce, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), nor the Iowa Civil Rights Commission has the power to address a hostile work environment.  Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) only accepts complaints if the working condition presents immediate physical danger and does not accept hostile workplace complaints.

Further Iowa is a right-to-work state, which means employees can be fired for any reason or no reason, and there is nothing the employee can do about it. 

File a union grievance.

Employees cannot file a union grievance about a hostile work environment.  Union members can only grieve issues that are specifically stated in their bargaining contract.  IUPAT (International Union of Painters and Allied Trades), Local 2003 contract does not include workplace conditions of any kind.  The Contract did not include discharge or discipline for several years and was added in 2005, accounting for the spate of Auditor grievances for unfair discipline after that time. 

Filing a grievance is a daunting process.  E.g.  Grievances against the Auditor must go through two appeals before they are heard by the Board of Supervisors.  Employees cannot use work time to prepare a grievance.  Employees who need FOIA evidence are charged hefty “administrative” fees for information generally given free to the public.  (Amounts have ranged from $5-1500.)  Grievances are dismissed if an employee discusses their grievance with anyone while at work.

Filing a grievance almost always leads to retaliation.  I.e. nearly every grievant is given formal discipline for something very soon after filing.  The employee can grieve that discipline as well, and some do.  However, the employee will be caught in an endless grievance loop until the employee gives up.  Not to mention being away from work duties to attend grievance hearings puts the employee behind and leaves that employee open to more discipline as well.

Deputy Auditors are not covered by the union contract and cannot file a union grievance about anything.

The County does provide a provision for grieving bullying in the workplace outside the union contract for any employee.  The process is complex to the degree that it is advisable to retain legal counsel to pursue it.  A few have attempted this process to see them dismissed on technicalities before there is a hearing.  Attempts at these grievances have always been followed by formal discipline and bullying.  Deputy auditors are aware they will be fired if they file such a grievance.

File a law suit.

It is theoretically possible to sue for damages caused by a hostile work environment or retaliation for whistle-blowing.  Attorney retainers have been quoted as high as $10,000 for those exploring this.  Even if an employee has access to these resources, the process is grueling and takes months if not years.  Even if the employee prevails and wins damages, even this cannot force the employer to stop the abuse.

Since elected officials report only to the electorate, they cannot be replaced for this by a superior.  Only the voters can do this, so the employer is free to maintain a hostile work environment as long he is re-elected.

A public official can be removed from office by the court for:

   1.  For willful or habitual neglect or refusal to perform the duties of the office.

   2.  For willful misconduct or maladministration in office.

   3.  For corruption.

   4.  For extortion.

   5.  Upon conviction of a felony.

   6.  For intoxication, or upon conviction of being intoxicated.

   7.  Upon conviction of violating the provisions of chapter 68A.

It is arguable whether a judge would agree that a hostile work environment meets any of these criteria.

Persuade the electorate by going public.

An employee who attempts to persuade the public to vote against a public official by going public with the problem pays a very high price.  The employee will endure public scorn and often slander.  Moreover, doing so is a near-guarantee to destroy one’s future employability.  The employee will have poisoned their resume as being a “trouble-maker” or at the very least “controversial.”  There is no law suit that can force a prospective employer to hire someone so branded.  It is unreasonable to expect people who need employment income to take this risk.

Quit and find another job.

This is the only real option a Johnson County employee has to be free of a hostile work environment. (The employee who quits may also filed for and win workman's compensation if they prove the work environment disabled their abillity to function on the job.)

Fourteen deputies alone have left the Johnson County Auditor's Office over the past nine years.  Most of them left without having another job.  A reasonable person would wonder just how bad things must be for someone to let go of a $60,000-plus salary in these hard economic times.  It's wrong that our laws and labor protections provide no other choice.

___________

Related Links.

Hostile Work Environment: Why Human Resources Doesn't Care about You

http://undercoverlawyer.hubpages.com/hub/Hostile-Work-Environment----Why-HR-Doesnt-Care-About-You

Understanding Hostile Work Envirnoments and Remedies

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=20379

What is illegal mistreatment at work?

http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com/CM/PracticeAreaDescriptions/PracticeAreaDescriptions16.asp

There Is No There in Electoral Politics

by Mona Shaw

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." 

-Emma Goldman

I was a junior in high school when our gym teacher decided to teach us how to play golf.  She had acquired an afternoon pass at the local country club where we took turns using a bag of borrowed clubs.  Learning to play golf is not only learning the rules or developing the skills to play the game, it requires significant knowledge about the equipment (putters, drivers, woods and irons, etc.) as well the courses where it is played.  One can feel quite clever learning and retaining this information then impressing others with all one knows about the game.

It’s a lot like electoral politics.  It’s a good game in theory, and offers a fair amount of intellectual gratification to know a lot about it; but at the end of the day, if you don’t have the money for the clubs and the green fees, you don’t get to play.

In the spring of 2008,  I immersed myself in a social justice experiment that allowed me to analyze the value of electoral politics in creating positive change.  I'd pretty much lost confidence in the process.  It wasn't that I found no hope for change within electoral politics.  It was that I believed there to be less hope for change to be found at a ballot box than, say, investing the same effort into collecting troll dolls or wishing on a star.

Truth and democracy in Johnson County, Iowa, are like they are any place else.  You cannot have a functional democracy without the truth.  Unfortunately, in electoral politics Truth is always the first player kicked off the team.  The fact that candidates lie, are groomed to lie, and are rejected if they're not willing to lie, spin, hedge, obfuscate, or otherwise deny the truth is so accepted that we now choose candidates based as much on the hope they are lying as on the hope they are not.  If I had a dollar for each time I've heard someone defend a candidate's questionable position by saying "Well she/he has to say that to get elected," I could probably afford to buy my very own candidate. 

And, the problem with elected officials is that they never stop being candidates.  Every remark, gesture, and action is carefully calculated according to how well it will translate into campaign contributions and reelection returns at the ballot box.  A candidate's "electability" holds far higher currency than a candidate's character.

The day politics became a career is the day even hope for a functional democracy died.  On that day serving the people took second place to keeping the job.  And when this happened we began to hold political office and office holders in higher esteem than the People.  Our heart is where our treasure is.  And treasuring the "job" spawned other treasures or "jobs."  From pollsters to pundits to campaign managers to lobbyists to corporate CEOs, new treasures took so much from us that there was no heart left for the People.

The toxic waste brewed by reverence for the "job" has seeped into and hijacked the conscience of the culture-at-large.  It has poisoned our souls to the degree that we will spill our last cup of decency before we will sacrifice a drop of sycophancy on the job.  We have become so morally frail with this sickness that we will allow not only the children of others but our own children to be murdered in a war that we know to be hideously immoral before we will risk our jobs by publicly offending the powers that allow this to happen.

It is frequently suggested (or at least hoped) that an antidote to the corruption in national politics is deeper participation in local politics.  In local politics the stakes are not so high, nor as wickedly entrenched.  On the local level you're dealing with people you know rather than personally-detached corporate interests, depraved lobbyists, and the other shepherds of career politicians who prize their own jobs most of all.

The connection between local and global politics is an inescapable reality.  As Tip O'Neill's father once advised, "all politics is local," (even though this advice was driven by a desire to win the "job").  Even if local politics holds no answers, it is an elementary template that instructs where we go wrong. 

I chose to study this template by running for the office of County Auditor in Johnson County, Iowa. I had witnessed first-hand (while an account clerk in the Johnson County Auditor's Office from 2004-06) how the incumbent auditor had brutally and routinely abused his staff, willfully violated their negotiated labor contract and federal laws, and systematically discriminated against women and people of color.  The Auditor's abuse and the suffering it caused wasn't the worst case of human suffering in the world or even the County.  Then again, choosing the suffering one will address on the basis of it being the "worst" suffering is a snare that can restrain us from addressing any suffering at all. Plus, this was suffering wrought within County government itself, and if the public officials of the County couldn't practice the principles they espoused within their own ranks, how could they be trusted to engender these for citizens-at-large?

While confronting human suffering within the electoral political process seemed functionally inadequate for, if not contrary to, expressing my personalist philosophy, I couldn't knowledgeably state there was no redress for suffering in the process unless I sincerely tried it. 

In theory it should have been an easy fix.  And, if the incumbent had been a Republican, I wager it would have been.  Johnson County is renowned as the most "progressive" county in Iowa by far.  Organized labor, civil rights advocacy, and progressive politics reputedly rule the political scene to the degree that detractors and fans alike refer to it as the "People's Republic of Johnson County."  People in Johnson County, after all, were up-in-arms when former Congressman Jim Leach insensitively used mock Native American headdresses as campaign paraphernalia, and they put a stop to it. 

However, in this case, the incumbent was a Democrat who self-identified as a "liberal progressive."  He was a donor to most women's and human rights causes, made appearances at their public functions, served on area human rights committees, and was one of the first public officials to grace the stage at Iowa City's annual Gay Pride Festival.  And, ironically, he had even hosted an international meeting on torture.

Even so, in his official role, he fell far short of "walking the walk."  Still, it seemed reasonable to assume that all that was required was documentation or "proof" that a public official, regardless of partisanship, had committed outrageous violations of labor laws and human rights principles in order for a public official to be held accountable and then required to change or leave.  Initially, I naively believed that once proof was provided that labor leaders, women's, civil rights, peace and justice activists, and “progress-ive” public officials would insist on the same.

I had towers of documentation compiled over a two-year span.  My greatest barrier had not been establishing the veracity of this "proof," but finding anyone willing to look at it.  I was repeatedly advised by public leaders or justice advocates that before the matter could be considered that all the existing resources for addressing these grievances must first be exhausted.  I took this advice and exhausted every available resource at least once and most more than twice. 

A factor that worked against my credibility was despite years of abuse and discrimination, not a single employee had filed an employee grievance.  If it were true, they would have, right? While several had complained confidentially to Human Resources as well as staff in the County Attorney's office, they were too afraid of retaliation to confront the Auditor formally or directly.  Human Resources would tell us that since these employees would not formally and directly complain, the hands of the County Attorney's Office and H.R.'s were tied from doing anything about it. 

I not only filed the first employee grievance against the Auditor.  I filed eight.  It was more than a little dispiriting to witness a "feminist" assistant county attorney (another Democrat who would later be elected County Attorney) help the auditor identify "technicalities" (typos on filing dates, etc.) in order to dismiss two of these grievances to avoid their hearing.  I was told this was personally painful for her since she knew he was "guilty as sin," but that she was just "doing her job."  Only one grievance was denied, and one was upheld. The others were resolved because the Auditor's violation of the contract was so flagrant that he capitulated to negotiated remedies again to avoid the finding a formal hearing would obviously bring.  (A formal grievance requires that the employee stipulate a remedy. If the employer agrees to the remedy, the grievance is considered resolved. And, while I was the first employee to file a grievance in the Auditor's Office, the trail was blazed, and I was not the last.)

After awhile my Union representative would essentially tell me "You've become almost frighteningly good arguing and winning these grievances.  You'll no doubt keep winning most of them.  But my time is being swallowed up by this, and there is nothing in the grievance process that can make a public official stop violating the law or even our contract.  He can keep violating both.  You can keep grieving it.  But we can't stop him from doing it again.  Eventually he'll find some way to fire you that will stick, and you'll be stopped anyway.  My best advice to you is to let this go and find another job."  Legal violations by public officials, I was told, are a matter for the State Attorney General to address not the Union or the County.

So, I faxed an outline of my documentation to the State Attorney General (a Democrat) and asked to meet with a member of his staff.  My fax was likely still in the printer when I received an email from the Attorney General, himself, declining to meet with me and stating that my concerns belonged in the jurisdiction of federal agencies or with the Iowa City Human Rights Commission.  My reply email asking if I could meet just once with someone from his office was ignored.  A former deputy in the Auditor's office would tell me later that as soon as my fax had appeared, the Attorney General's Office phoned the Auditor and reassured him nothing would be done with my complaint.

I took the Attorney General's advice and filed a complaint with the Iowa City Human Rights Commission.  Without explanation (or even telling me), the Iowa City office, rather than review it themselves, forwarded the 34-page complaint along with several hundred pages of grievance settlements and other documentation to the State Human Rights Commission in Des Moines.  Without a single follow-up question or any manner of meeting or conversation with the Commission, after several months and after failing to meet its own required deadline, I received notification that the Commission was "administratively closing" the complaint without an investigation because the information provided was insufficient to proceed.  The notice was clear that the Commission was NOT stating that discrimination and retaliation had NOT occurred, but only that they were choosing not to investigate it.  No response was given to my concern of a possible conflict of interest in the Des Moines office given that the chair of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission is one of the Johnson County Auditor's closest friends.  Even though I had proven that this same friend at the onset of my first employee grievance had, at the Auditor's bidding and with ethical violations of his own, solicited others to bully me into dropping it.  The Commission, however, did give me about the only thing it ever gives women who claim discrimination that right to sue on my own.

I had retained an attorney with borrowed money and was ready to proceed until I realized two things. 

First, it's simply wrong when Civil Rights protections only work (as is usually the case) if the victim has the personal cash to enforce them. 

Second, I didn’t want money.  I wanted justice.  I wanted the abuse to stop.  And there was way through the court system that this could be made to happen.  Holding an elected official accountable for violating the law is not a winnable option.  Even if I persevered through the two or so years it would likely take to bring my case to court, and even if judge and jury agreed I'd proven my case, the most I could win were the actual damages the discrimination had cost me.  Moreover, if the County chose to "settle" by offering a cash payout close to these damages without admitting guilt, I could be forced to accept the settlement.  I didn't want money.  I wanted justice.  I wanted to end discrimination against women and employee abuse in the Auditor's Office.  And, there was nothing provided in the Federal Civil Rights Act, the Code of Iowa or any of our courts that could keep a public official from doing it again.  And again.

I hauled my full basket of "exhausted resources" back to those I'd first approached.  "Well, of course," they said rolling their eyes as if this information were as common as prayer on Election Day, "the only way to hold a public official accountable for labor or civil rights violations is to get them voted out of office."  And, so, when no one else would do so, I filed to run against the Auditor.

Support I'd received up to that point was wildly enthusiastic compared to the support I received in the Campaign and led to a rehash of partisan centralism that was itchingly petty and mostly too dull and repetitive to report.  The first response came after I announced my candidacy on a Johnson County Democrats for America email list I'd belonged to for years.  This list was created to support candidates who championed progressive causes outside the comfort level of the Democratic Party mainstream.  The moderator (a former candidate for chair of the Johnson County Democratic Party) responded to my announcement by kicking me off the list because he considered accusing the Auditor of sex discrimination to be a personal attack.

"Just because something is true doesn’t mean you have to say it," he wrote.

Not once did anyone tell me in public or in private that they didn't believe the accusations I'd made.  Not once.  Direct responses to my candidacy were actually scarce and basically fell into four groups.

● Those who supported me publicly.  All six of them.

● Those who would vote for me privately, but not say so publicly.  "I'm voting for you, and I admire you, but I can't afford to risk my job, career promotion, tenure promotion, donor base, client base, re-election campaign, merchandising campaign, political career, professional career, academic grade, University Athletic Club status, dating pool, etc., etc., by being publicly associated with you.

● Those who believed the Auditor was guilty but refused to vote for or endorse me because they disapproved of what I'd done or not done about it.

● Those who believed the Auditor was guilty but felt partisan loyalty required supporting him anyway.

   All but the first group were lying, if not to me then to someone else.  The same way rust is the glue that holds an old jalopy together, lying is the mortar between the decaying bricks of electoral politics.  Without lies, the whole machine falls apart. 

So, when an Iowa state senator told an employee in the Auditor's Office, "Don't worry, we're making sure you won't lose Tom."  The employee wasn't sure if the senator was really that oblivious about their working conditions or shooting a veiled threat toward anyone else who might think to complain about it.  In either event, they knew compassion for them was not the senator's priority.

Democratic Party leadership was as irritated as an infected mosquito bite at a flea family reunion to be forced to determine: how to discredit someone who'd exposed one of their own and simultaneously not risk appearing to condone the malpractice I'd exposed.  As one labor leader put it, "Mona couldn't care less if this damages the Party's image or threatens the fragile complexities of political relationships that it's taken us years to cultivate."

The first tact was to simply ignore or attempt to quash these allegations from public view. 

The local press, paranoid about unlikely law suits, wouldn't even print the allegations in quotes.  Party-loyal forum moderators limited the questions to issues that didn't consider them.  They did not hide their disapproval when I squeezed as many as I could into 30-second intervals anyway. 

The second tact was whispering wrinkled-nose insults that were as amusing as hurtful and that came back to me quickly.

"She's not a team player." (How would they know?  We've never played on the same team.)

"If the choice is between a communist and a drunk (alluding to the Auditor's DUIs and driving employees while drunk), you pick the drunk."  (It's not just that I'm not a Communist but, given the notorious Vodka consumption by leaders of the former Soviet Union, can such a distinction even be made?)

"If she's elected, she'll use that office to end the war in Iraq."  (Well, only if that’s possible.)

The most peculiar criticism was that I'd disqualified myself by being too personal.  A party official attempted to explain this to me by pointing out that I couldn't be objective because I had been personally victimized by the Auditor.  When I asked him if he might then publicly take up the matter, he explained, although he believed it to be true, he wasn't qualified because he had not personally witnessed the abuse himself.  When I asked him who then was qualified to take the problem to the public he said, "That's a good question."

I might have taken the critique of being too personal as a compliment, had I been able to increase any palpable effect of personalism within party ranks.  I'd documented that the lives of at least eight women and an African American man had their lives thrown into upheaval from fleeing the Auditor's mistreatment and discrimination, and one woman had even won workman's compensation based on her claim that her health had been damaged to the point she couldn't work because of the Auditor's abuse.  Despite the fact that I knew these cases to be the tip of the iceberg, not one single person in a position to do something about the abuses ever came to me expressing personal interest, let alone compassion, for these workers.

Not a single feminist, peace and justice, or labor group or leader came forward to stand up for these workers.  In fact, holding more regard for loyalty to power than confronting the abuse of power, a number even publicly endorsed the Auditor.  At least two of these leaders privately acknowledged they knew he was guilty.  (The fact that I was the only candidate on the Johnson County Democratic Primary 2006 ballot who was not a white, heterosexual man, by itself, tells a story.)

In any event—to them all—the fact that I had publicly said that the Auditor had done these things was more interesting, controversial and disturbing than the possibility, let alone the fact, that the Auditor had done them.

It's a wrenching thing to discover that the worker and human rights protections we've worked so hard to win are worthless to those who need them most.  It's sobering to realize that all I've accomplished after a lifetime of human rights advocacy is that I've helped a handful of already over-privileged people get better jobs.

By the time Election Day arrived, I would have been stunned to win fifty votes.  Not only shunned by the party in power, I'd run a provocatively unconventional campaign.  I'd taken no campaign contributions, printed no buttons or yards signs, mailed no campaign leaflets, held no fund-raisers, ran no newspaper or radio ads, nor reeled in one "big name" endorsement.  I put up a web-site and sent out a broadcast email to about 700 people pointing them to it, attended two public candidate forums, and simply told the truth. 

I also refused to tout my "professional" accomplishments because it's supposed to be true that any common citizen with obvious intelligence, talent, and conviction should be as eligible to serve in public office as those with credentials only available to the economically privileged.  In this context, I surfaced as the only candidate who took my candidacy seriously. The rest were in it for the stunt of proving their electability and scoring the job.

It is necessary to reveal, and for honest justice seekers to realize, that, even on the local level, electoral politics does not make good use of our time.  It isn't that you can't help people unless you win.  It's that you can't help people if you do.  The beast is all belly and devours all heart. Wherever there is heart for healing human suffering lies, however harsh or not harsh that suffering may be, heart is not there.  We need to stop looking there.  We cannot make change in a temple controlled by the money-lenders and other masters of evil.

Even though I lost the election, I received far more than fifty votes. I received 31% of them.  I collected nearly the percentage received by Ed Fallon (a self-identified "progressive" U.S. congressional candidate for Iowa's third district) who went into debt for his race, and as much as a previous candidate who'd challenged the Auditor; both had run full-blown campaigns with "power-house" endorsements and had played by party rules.  I received 60% of the vote in some low-income precincts.  Not surprisingly, I lost by the highest margins in precincts where mostly affluent, "liberal" Democrats reside.

Hope for humanity lies with that 31 percent, those who see through the lies and are ready to act to end suffering if someone just shows a way.  When we treasure them, rather than the electoral political machine where moths corrupt and thieves steal, we treasure justice.

The call for justice isn't for those who have to be talked into it but for those who can't be talked out of it.  Change isn’t wrought by holding a high-minded opinion or spending five minutes in a voting booth.  Change is measured by the amount of personal sacrifice and human equity we’re willing to put on the line.

Evil isn’t wrought by systems, including electoral politics; it’s wrought by people who have constructed systems to make it easier to commit evil.

Change will not come from coddling or compromising with the masters of war, torture, suffering, and evil.  It will come as we, more and more, take the evidence of the suffering they are causing to their doorstep, call them to repentance, and then refuse to leave until their hearts are touched enough that they emerge from their temples and join us in making that change.

 

Journal of Work Experiences in the Johnson County Auditor's Office

 

Group Grievance

This grievance was filed by three employees against a supervisor who was following Auditor Slockett's specific directives.