Preface

Wilson Carey McWilliams, mentor, teacher and friend during my days in the early UC Berkeley student movement, said, “Politics is with whom and for what, and in precisely that order.” [paraphrased] (The full quote: “The political process is an effort to unite [people] in the pursuit of a common goal and vision. Politics, then, involves two questions: the question of ‘with whom’ and the question of ‘for what.’ Furthermore, it involves these questions in precisely that order.”)

My appreciation for that thought’s importance has steadily grown over the years. It is especially relevant to the times in which we now live.  Here I apply it to the angry reactions to Teamster Union President Sean O’Brien’s speaking and speech at the Republican National Convention (RNC).

I don’t write to support what he did—but to attempt to explain it from an outsider’s perspective so that the energy condemning him is better spent.

What He Said (in brief)

O’Brien gave the Republican National Convention a militant defense of working class interests and organized labor as the best vehicle to fight for them. He declared himself a “life-long Democrat” and noted that past labor trust in Democratic Party politicians had been misplaced—(he didn’t acknowledge Biden’s strong support for unions and ignored the deeply anti-union history of the Republican Party in general, and Trump and Vance particularly). He added criticism of “backlash from the Left” that attacked him for being there.

The 1.3 million Teamster membership appears equally divided on the presidential race, with many of them having voted for Trump in earlier elections, and committed to him again in 2024. That membership is now engaged in an internal process—a small “d” democratic one—to determine whether, and if so who, to endorse. From what I understand, this process was initiated by O’Brien and his allies and is the most small “d” democratic one that has taken place in the Teamsters for many years, if ever.  That O’Brien wants that process to take its course seems a welcome sign to me.

O’Brien sought favor with Trump by calling him “one tough SOB,” and thanking him for opening Republican doors previously closed to the Teamsters. He gave the impression that the Republicans might actually support unions. I think he could have gotten where he wanted to go without doing that. Harking back to Abraham Lincoln would have been a better way to go.

What His Critics Say

Criticism of O’Brien has been widespread among labor, left, progressive and liberal observers. Among the most thoughtful of these are Larry Cohen’s Nation article, “Donald Trump Is Not a Friend to American Workers”, and Labor Notes Alexandra Bradbury‘s July 18, “O’Brien Speech Played into Republicans’ Phony Pro-Worker Rebrand”.

The criticisms are widely noted, and don’t need repetition here. But there are other things in the articles that deserve both mention and emphasis. Clear clues to why O’Brien might have done what he did are to be found in these critics’ articles.   

Bradbury/Labor Notes

“Union leaders, though, should lead. They owe it to their own members—and to every member of the working class who would be harmed by a second Trump administration—to fight to keep anti-worker politicians out of office.

“We get why union leaders want “access”; they’ve been shut out of real influence for so long.(emphasis added) But it’s delusional to think that Trump might swap out his anti-worker—really, anti-humanity—policies; they are at the core of his being. One more person kissing his ring won’t change that.”

When leaders and organizations don’t have the power to win something, they seek access to insiders to help them get it.  That may be part of what O’Brien is doing. Certainly in the long-term it doesn’t work, and often it doesn’t in the short-term. But it does give “consumer members” the idea that leaders are trying to represent their interests. He may also be taking his pro-Trump members through a process that leads them to conclude for themselves that Trump isn’t their man. That would be very good.

Cohen/The Nation

“For too many of us in labor, we confuse our individual journeys in life with a collective one. We all echo the rhetoric of an “injury to one is an injury to all,” but too often our own immediate fame, or even our own organization, takes precedence over the needs of working-class Americans. With just 6 percent of collective bargaining covered here in the United States—the lowest, by far, of any democratic nation—we need to focus on outcomes, not our individual value as a messenger.

“We can’t condemn O’Brien for speaking at the RNC unless we commit to working together in a much deeper way, and building a movement for economic justice and democracy, and a political movement that delivers results, and not just promises.” (emphasis added)

What Cohen confirms is that the labor movement we would like to see is not the labor movement that is. “Unless” is the key word here. The “movement” Cohen has worked for remains an ambition to be realized, not yet a fact on the ground. We have labor organizations, not a labor movement. The question is: how to build one.

Perhaps the sharpest indictment of O’Brien comes from a fellow Executive Board member of his union:

“We have been used enough! If O’Brien is going to satisfy his ego, if he’s going to pander and beg for the Republicans to abandon their anti-union policies, then the Teamsters’ membership would be better served if O’Brien stayed  home.”  John Palmer, a Teamster Vice-President, “Teamster President Sean O’Brien Should Not Speak at the RNC,” writing in New Politics (7/10/24).

Much as I appreciate and have learned from New Politics over the years, I feel on firm ground when I say not many Teamsters read it. It reads like the thought of someone positioning himself to oppose O’Brien in the next IBT election.

Here’s a different spin on O’Brien, after reading a number of the negative ones: He is walking a tight rope between where his membership is, where the rest of organized labor is, and where the country is. I hope he walks it safely. In any case, the deluge of criticism is hardly a fraternal one, and it is fraternal conversation that is required to build a movement not a number of separate organizations and separate individuals jockeying with one another for position in the labor and political worlds.

The “Labor Movement”

It is widely recognized among radicals that most unions are service and advocacy organizations. “The union” is a combined insurance company and law firm. Elected leaders and staff do things for not with members. They deliver services for them and speak in their behalf. They “turn them out” for internal and general elections. At best, union democracy imitates national political democracy:  honest elections are held; a few leaders develop a following among activists; together they seek to sell their candidate as the best person to act for the members.

To expect the leader of that kind of organization to take a position that is deeply divisive within his own organization is asking too much. The expectation of these leaders that they will “educate” the rank-and-file is dangerous—in practice it means leaders tell members what they ought to think and do, sometimes by lecturing to them, other times using participatory techniques without their liberation principles, and speak on their behalf without representing what they think.

With whom 

The country in general, and workers in particular, needs a strong labor movement whose participating unions act powerfully for their members, the communities in which their members work and live, and the common good. They can best do that by building their own people power and acting in concert with other people power organizations—both at the workplace and in communities. Characterizations of newly elected reform leaders as “kissing [Trump’s] ring” aren’t helpful.  In my experience, they turn regular people off, insuring that they will remain the consumers of what others claim (and sometimes hope) to do in their behalf.  

Fraternal debate and deliberation are what is now needed.  It is needed in face-to-face forums, not in the mass media.  It needs to reach deeply into the rank and file of all the organizations and constituencies required to build a base for transformative politics in the United States.

Self-righteous characterizations of rivals (as distinct from adversaries) are not helpful.

For what

We agree on a lot, but not so much on the means to get there. In recent times, the Left hasn’t been particularly good at the latter—i.e. fraternal discussion and debate. It has to cross this bridge before its common good program of equality, liberty, solidarity, community and justice for all can take concrete shape that will convince majorities.

Conclusion

Eugene V. Debs got it right:

“…I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition; as it is now the capitalists use your heads and your hands.”

I can conclude no better than to quote from a leader in Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) who doesn’t support the indictments of O’Brien and wishes to remain anonymous:

“Trump is a master peddler of hate and division and a lethally dangerous front man for Wall Street, employers and the ruling class. TDU members are some of the best leaders I know to organize workers away from the Trump disaster. They’ll be in this fight, just not in the name of TDU.”

…

To learn more about Mike Miller and his work, visit: www.organizetrainingcenter.org