What is wrong with the American voter?

In the wake of the Wisconsin recall, like many on the left, I'd been puzzled as to why so many people would have voted to retain Governor Walker; especially in light of the seeming contradiction of the results of exit polls.  How could the people have wanted to retain a very right-wing governor, yet favor the president over a Republican candidate who stands for nearly everything the retained governor does?

One explanation pointed to the poll question regarding the appropriate use of the recall, with many reserving it for cases of criminal misconduct.  But Governor Walker has been embroiled in an investigation that could lead to criminal charges, and this isn't exactly a secret.  Shouldn't that rise to that level of "criminal misconduct" that would swing voters into the "remove him" category?  Or would charges have to actually be filed first?  Or even a trial be underway?

Another explanation that was put forward related to the Democratic challenger, Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett; claiming that since this ended up being for all intents and purposes a rematch of the 2010 race, the people of Wisconsin were no more inclined to turn over the government to a man they'd rejected once already. But given the raw emotions that had been stirred by the recall movement, and prior to that the protests and movement that grew around Governor Walker's attempts to curb the collective bargaining rights of the public employee unions, you would think that some of the right-leaning working-class union laborers would have been willing to give Barrett a shot.  After all, it would have only been half a term, and in 2014 they could bounce him out if they were unhappy with him.  This would seem to make sense given how the AFL-CIO and individual affiliated unions had sought to characterize the legislation stripping the unions of their bargaining rights as the first step down the road to removing such protections from private sector unions and towards enactment of right-to-work legislation.

But could there be something else?  Something that pollsters don't ask about.  Something thing basic and beyond politics.  Something that could shed a light on the stratification found in our society?

It's often said in the analysis following elections such as these that the fight was won in the middle.  The independents, the moderates in either party.  Looking at the exit polling, as reported by CNN, the only income group that supported Barrett were those making less than $30,000 per year.  Walker barely carried the $30,000-$50,000 cohort.  And while each party gave more than 90% support to their candidate, the independent vote went 6-to-5 for Walker and provided the margin of victory to Governor Walker.  But, a further look at the cross-tabs shows that Barrett won self-identified moderates by a similar margin.  Interestingly, the percentage of respondents who identify as Republican and as conservative are very close, where those who identify as "liberal" was 13% lower than those who identify as Democrats.  That means there are a number of moderate Democrats, and they do seem to have supported Barrett, but the Democrats lost many moderate inpendents, many of whom seem to make over $50,000 per year.  This would seem to indicate that the labor-liberal coalition did hold together to an extent.

So the issue would seem to be a group who seems to be often ignored when analysis of voting and elections is done.  These voters tend to be over 30, and especially more so over 40.  They have families, and they identify with a religious affiliation, even if they aren't active weekly attendees.  Numbers did not seem to be swayed one way or the other based on whether or not a voter attended college, and Barrett's "win" among college graduates was within the margin of error.  The telling numbers are in union membership.  Those who are not in unions and do not have a union member in their home strongly supported Walker.  This election, and likely many future elections, will feature a pitting of working-class and middle-income union members against similar voters who are not in unions.

This is Walker's ultimate "divide-and-conquer" move.  And where Governor Kasich failed in this attempt in Ohio with Senate Bill 5/Issue 2, Walker has succeeded in Wisconsin.  He managed to convince non-union Wisconsinites that union members were living high off taxpayer money.  No mention made of teachers who were laid off because their district had to cut budget because less was coming from the state and federal governments.  No attention given to state workers who agreed to wage and benefit concessions even before this fight began.  And a lot of attention was focused on state worker pension funds and trying to draw a connection between these pensions and tax revenues.  But these pensions are only partially funded from the state budgets.  Much like private sector employees pay into their 401(k) plans and their employers provide a match, so operate the state employee funds.

The major difference is that we who work in the private sector without a union that bargains for our benefits, we take the match that our employer offers; state employees have had their matches negotiated in collective bargaining.  And in the end, the government agreed to that match.  And the Republicans line is that the government has had a figurative gun to its head in the form of these collectively bargained contracts; the union will either win their extortionate demands in the form of wages and benefits or they will strike and grind the government to a halt.  And those who do not have personal experience with unions and bargaining against an employer are susceptible to this misrepresentation, if not outright prevarication, about what unions are after in their bargaining.  They are the ones who fall prey to tall tales of "corrupt union bosses" who "get a larger cut" if their unions win big contracts, and of unions who pour dues money into the DNC.  And those are complete falsehoods; unions "bosses" have set salaries and don't get commissions if their locals get more concessions; and contributing dues money to parties and campaigns is a violation of federal elections laws.  The "union money" that candidates get comes from their PAC funds, which are voluntary contributions from their members.

So, the greatest challenge facing the left is to counteract a misinformation campaign that began in 1960s, and was aided by corrupt leaders being pursued by the likes of Bobby Kennedy.  A campaign that picked up a great deal of momentum and public support when President Reagan blamed the private sector manufacturing industry unions such as the UAW and the United Steelworkers for driving wages to levels that made manufacturing unprofitable in the US, rather than protecting our industries through careful and prudent use of tariffs and excise taxes.  A problem that was made worse when dreams of open and expanded international markets were used to sell free-trade deals that sold out US environmental and labor protections to foreign factories that were unfettered by any sort of conscience and were only interested in providing cheap goods to corporations looking to expand their profit margins.  And in demonizing the unions and convincing the American public that unions were holding us back and making our labor cost too much, the GOP has created a non-union working-and-middle class that who support those who promise to tear those unions down further.  And the curious, bitter irony is that wage equity and American prosperity was at its height when union membership was at its highest.

So, the question is how to counteract this trend.  Many employers now threaten their employees with termination if they attempt to unionize.  If they succeed in doing so, the organizers are usually subjected to a subtle retaliation that they cannot prove, such as being repeatedly passed over for promotions or being denied schedules more to their liking.  And labor laws since the 1970s have been amended in such ways to make it much harder for employees to press such charges successfully.  Meanwhile, employers who abuse the rights of even union laborers, most notably with Massey Energy and their repeated ignoring of MSHA citations and fines, culminating in the disaster at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in 2010.  And the decision in the Citizens United v. F.E.C. case has unfairly levered the balance in the campaign finance realm in favor of corporations, who can now bankroll candidates who will favor their interests to an unlimited degree.

The only way to win this fight is through education.  Just as civil rights for racial minorities were won when whites began to know those of other races and understand that they weren't that different.  Just as civil rights for LGBT people are being won as more "come out" to friends and families members and the "otherness" of that community also fades against the reality of "they aren't that different from me".  So too must union members be more open about their membership, and they must take the opportunity to educate those who do not know what unions are, and who do not have experience with collective bargaining, and to bring the reality of unions to their middle income, non-union neighbors.  It's time to hearken back to that time 100 years ago, and teach our "independent" non-union friends that without unions we would not have the 40-hour work week and child labor laws that the corporations are trying to erode and destroy.  Many feel that unions "had a purpose" in those days, but do not see the parallels to today.  Union members need to make them see those parallels, and through that education help them see that the interests of "the 99%" lie with the Democrats and the liberals.