Labor in Politics

Report Outline
Emergence of Labor as Active Political Force
Political Policies of Labor Prior to 1936
Recent Changes in Labor's Political Policies

Emergence of Labor as Active Political Force

John L. Lewis' recent prediction of “ignominious defeat” for Roosevelt if the President should run for a third term, his public criticism of Vice-President Garner and Paul V. McNutt, his ostentatious friendliness with Senator Wheeler (D., Mont.), and his repeated charges that the New Deal has broken faith with labor have generally been interpreted as showing the determination of the Congress of Industrial Organizations to exert all possible influence on the selection of the Democratic presidential candidate for 1940. Organized labor has never before attempted to control the presidential nomination of a major party. When it has not abstained from participation in presidential campaigns altogether—by adhering to a policy of neutrality as between Republican and Democratic nominees—labor has limited its participation to endorsing one or the other of the candidates chosen by the party conventions. Current C. I. O. strategy presages a definite break with this tradition and indicates that organized labor—so far as it is represented by the C. I. O., at least—intends in the future to play an active, rather than a passive, role in national politics.

Attack on Roosevelt Administration by John L. Lewis

Having previously attempted to dim the presidential aspirations of Vice-President Garner and Security Administrator McNutt by referring to the one as a “labor-baiting, poker-playing, whiskey-drinking, evil old man,” and to the other as a “political adventurer,” Lewis launched a bitter attack on President Roosevelt's policies, in a speech, January 24, at Columbus, Ohio, before the biennial convention of the United Mine Workers, of which he is president. Declaring that the Democratic party was a minority party which “comes into office under abnormal circumstances, when it receives the support of the national independent vote,” the C. I. O. leader attributed the party's victory in 1932 to “the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican party.” In 1936, he said, a coalition had been effected between the Democratic party and organized labor, with the latter furnishing money, speakers, party workers, and “many millions” of votes. “Psychologically and politically, organized labor created the atmosphere of success that returned the Democratic party to power with an ample margin of safety.”

A political coalition, at least, presupposes a post-election good faith between the coalescent interests. The Democratic party and its leadership have not preserved this faith. In the last three years, labor has not been given representation in the cabinet, nor in the administrative or policy-making agencies of government. The current administration has not sought nor seriously entertained the advice or views of labor upon the question of national unemployment or lesser questions affecting domestic economy… relations with foreign nations, or the issues of war or peace.… In the Congress, the unrestrained baiting and defaming of labor by the Democratic majority has become a pastime, never subject to rebuke by the titular or actual leaders of the party….