• halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t see an issue with this, despite how this and other articles are trying to frame this. I’d be more upset if a national labor union wasn’t trying to talk to all political parties and officials. That’s literally their entire purpose, to act as a voice for their members to employers and politicians. Sticking their head in the sand because a party historically hasn’t been helpful doesn’t do anything. Trying to maintain an open dialog despite that history to try and change things is what they should be doing.

    Trump historically has been anti-labor, and likely ain’t going to change, but that doesn’t mean you ignore the politician or the party entirely. Or even try to provoke them like some people seem to be advocating they do. That’s just a stupid idea that creates irrational enemies you can’t even talk to anymore, and that’s the last thing you want when trying to lobby for your members.

    The Teamsters asked to speak at both conventions, the DNC still hasn’t responded. If anything, this says more about the DNC than many people seem to realize to be honest. Yet again they seem to be assuming certain groups will fall in line behind them just because they’re the only other option. Ignoring things like voter apathy and that there’s a decent chunk of people that only vote out of spite rather than for what they want, and blatantly ignoring their needs means turning a potential undecided or non-voter voters against them instead.

    If we’ve learned anything over these last few years, it’s that people are angry and will also vote against their own interests, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. We can’t rely on logic and/or historical results or precedent to predict the future anymore. The old ways simply don’t apply like they used to, that’s been evident in so many polls being wildly inaccurate to election outcomes the last few elections.