Balkinization  

Friday, June 17, 2005

Political Science and the Progressive Constitution I: Race and Labor

Mark Graber

Recently, progressives have been making significant efforts to elaborate an alternative constitutional vision to those being elaborated by the Bush Administration, the Rehnquist Court and the constitution-in-exile movement. For the most part, this effort has been limited to elite law professors, legal activists, and a few political activists. If, however, as progressives have come to understand, constitutionalism outside of courts is as vital to political movements as the elaboration of legal doctrine then we might want to expand the ranks of progressive intellectuals thinking about how to create a more just regime. What I thought I would do in the next few weeks is highlight the work of some political scientists who I think ought to play more active roles helping elaborate the progressive constitution and, as important, the sort of politics necessary to bring forth that constitution.

Consider the important work Paul Frymer of U.C. Santa Cruz is doing on the relationship between persons of color and labor unions. In a forthcoming book and an award winning article, "Acting When Elected Officials Won't: Federal Courts and Civil Rights Enforcement in U.S. Labor Unions, 1935-1985," published in the August 2003 issue of the American Political Science Review. Frymer details some of the constitutional struggles between two key components of the Great Society coalition. The good news is that he finds, contrary to the work of Gerry Rosenberg, that courts were able play a significant role integrating unions. Litigation was not a "hollow hope" in this endeavor. The bad news is that the litigation substantially weakened labor unions and may have increased Republican support among workers.

One potential teaching is that important differences may exist between progressive elites and potentially progressive constituencies. Most progressive intellectuals buy pretty much the full progressive agenda. We are anti-death penalty, for gay marriage, believe in affirmative action, favor strong unions, want substantial economic redistribution, etc. As Frymer points out, however, different progressive constituencies have only partially progressive agendas. White workers may be for strong unions, but are not as enthusiastic about integration, much less affirmative action. Hence, a crucial issue is not simply laying out elite ideals ,but figuring out the necessary compromises to ensure a more progressive constitution. Getting better judges is not likely to solve this problem, because what is crucial is that accommodations be worked out between progressive constituencies, not simply that we figure out who has the more progressive position.

At any rate, Frymer's work clearly should be central to elaborating progressive constitutional visions and politics. Crucial to Republican success has been an uncomfortable modus vivendi between social conservatives and libertarians (as well as big business). Creating similar accommodations will be crucial to any future leftist political success.

Comments:

Couple of "meta-comments" from someone who considers himself progressive. First, the constitution-in-exile meme should be allowed to die. It's not a great conceptual label to begin with, being vague and just as easily associated with progressivism as with conservatism. And since most prominent conservatives/libertarians don't accept it anyway, it ends up being, like the use of 'gulag' by Amnesty International, just a distraction. Second, and I have no idea what the right answer is here, there's something unsettling about this continued equivocation between little-C and big-C Constitution. They're not at all the same, even bearing in mind Marshall's "it is a CONSTITUTION we are expounding," so using one for the other is misleading and sets progressives up for the future rhetorical misrepresentation of their views by their opponents. If you mean "polity" or "society" or something, better to say so.

Thanks.
 

Maybe all progressive ideals should be prioritized. It seems that socioeconomic stuff is more important that purely social stuff, and that race comes before gender, gender before sexual orientation, etc. Maybe the problem is that people try to put race before socioeconomics, gender before race, and sexual orientation before gender -- and that alienates everyone. No wonder Republicans mention gay marriage when talking to black audiences and affirmative action when talking to white ones. I think if you prioritize things right, i.e, put positive entitlements after negative rights -- economic opportunity, racial integration, sex discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, then economic redistribution, affirmative action (incl. women) and last gay marriage -- people will respond favorably. You don't seem as radical that way.
 

This is a terrific blog on the used my chemical romance
. My site on the used my chemical romance
is also a great place to get some valuable information. Stop by when you get a sec....

Thanks
 

All of my bad ideas were always my best.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home