Many conservatives are displeased that Mitch Daniels has not supported his legislature’s attempt to pass right-to-work legislation. Given the passions engendered by the Wisconsin situation, it’s understandable that many conservatives are upset with what they see as an unnecessary punt on an important issue. There is, however, a fair amount of Indiana-specific context that they should consider.
First, as Josh Barro notes, there are important differences between public-sector unions (the topic in Wisconsin) and private-sector unions (the topic in Indiana). Given the problems posed by the Wagner Act, right-to-work laws do have their merits, as Daniels himself has acknowledged. But private-sector unions represent only 7 percent of the private-sector workforce. Public-sector unions are a far more serious problem, given the conflicts of interest they have with the taxpaying public.
Second, as Katrina Trinko points out, Mitch Daniels decertified all public unions, entirely rescinding their collective-bargaining rights, on his first day in office in 2005. Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, as a reminder, is seeking to limit collective-bargaining rights for most public-sector employees, with notable exceptions for public-safety workers: a reasonable, but much more modest, reform. In other words, Mitch Daniels has already done more on the issue of public-sector unions than Scott Walker is even attempting.
Third, the Democratic minority in the Indiana legislature wields considerable power that Daniels has no choice but to deal with. In the Indiana House of Representatives, Republicans have 60 seats and Democrats 40. However, quorum in the Indiana House is 67. By contrast, in the Wisconsin Senate, a quorum of 20 senators is required to pass fiscal legislation, but only 17 are required to pass non-fiscal legislation; Republicans control 19 seats there. Hence, in Wisconsin, Republicans have the ability to pass a wide range of legislation while Democrats are absent. Not so in Indiana.
Fourth, as much as Republicans may not like it, quorum requirements are effectively quite similar to U.S. Senate filibusters, and unless those quorum requirements are modified, the Indiana minority can block all legislation. Indiana’s legislative calendar is only four months long, meaning that other pressing reforms that Daniels campaigned on will wither. These include education reform, which, it is worth mentioning, is fundamentally about challenging the interests and security of teachers’ unions. The moral case against absentee legislators is compelling — but that moral case may not be enough to get things done this year in Indiana.
Fifth, it’s worth reviewing Indiana’s recent history, for those who have the impression that Daniels is a coward. Back in 2005, Indiana House Democrats used the same tactic, leaving the capitol and boycotting votes on dozens of pending bills just before a critical deadline. At that time, Daniels said that “Indiana’s drive for growth and reform was car-bombed yesterday by the Indiana House minority. … If you want to know why Indiana’s economy fell behind, why state government is broke, broken, and awash in scandal, just look at [Democratic minority leader Pat] Bauer.” He said Democrats didn’t have “the courage or conscience to stay at work” and that he was “embarrassed for them.”
In 2011, Daniels’s rhetoric has been more conciliatory, likely because he knows from his experience in 2005 that he needs seven Democrats in the House to get anything done. Jim Geraghty asks, “If the Indiana House Democrats get what they want through this tactic, what’s to prevent them from using it again and again every time they think they’ll lose on a big issue?” The answer is, they already have, and Republicans can’t do much about it. Indiana House speaker Brian Bosma admitted as much to Katrina Trinko. What Daniels seems to be hoping is that Democrats won’t walk out for an issue like education reform, which has broader public support, because he campaigned on it.
Conservatives who criticize Daniels for his stance on the right-to-work legislation remind me a bit of liberals who called Obama a coward for abandoning the public option in 2010. Obama said often that single-payer health care was his preferred approach, but that he simply didn’t have the votes for it in the Senate. Daniels is, unfortunately, in a similar position in Indiana.
Daniels may or may not run for the White House in 2012. But the courage of those who do run should be judged by one issue above all: their willingness to put substantive entitlement reform on the table, instead of vague but crowd-pleasing rhetoric. If conservatives assess Daniels on that basis, he will come out ahead.
Mitch Daniels is not the sort of leader that the GOP needs right now. If the voters Indiana wants to keep him as governor, that is their decision. For me Daniels is dead as a presidential contender. He has been equivocal and saying things that caused conservatives worries. All doubts are now confirmed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis Hoosier thinks Governor Daniels is taking the proper action in this matter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm still not happy with Daniels' position on the Democratic walkout, but this info does provide some ameliorating context.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe Mr. Roy is missing a very important point in the Mitch Daniels situation. When dramatic, fundamental events occur which alter the entire political landscape you must take the lead and address those events. To blithely fall back and say “well, I was making education my priority” is downright stupid when you have the Democrats violating their oath, their duty and obligation to function within the structure of the established government. By fleeing the state, like a bunch of 60’s and 70’s draft dodgers because they cannot have their way, requires a realignment of one’s priorities. That Daniels cannot recognize that shows he isn’t ready to be President. The Democrats brought this issue to the fore by their actions (apparently a repeat of past behavior); Daniels should force the issue and make sure all players in government play by the rules. He has ceded the field to what amounts to Democrat political terrorists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you. Some sense from the media Right about this.
DANIELS 2012
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Roy's argument is that Governor Daniels just has so many important things to do that he doesn't want to jeopardize them by supporting Right to Work. Hogwash.
Daniels, who likes to imagine he could be elected President, understands what every union activist does, Right to Work is a clear litmus test - both to conservatives and union officials. You can't take a principled stand for Right to Work and expect anything but opposition from the union bosses.
Daniels has chosen the same road Governor Pete DuPont took in Delaware. DuPont also had presidential ambitions. And they died the day he decided to kill off a Right to Work bill that was in his legislature.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's clear to me from the comments of people like Levin (and Mr. Joe) that a certain (sizable?) portion of conservatives are so much more interested in style over substance in potential Republican presidential candidates. The very thing conservatives disliked about Obama - that he had no experience, no accomplishments, and was just saying the right things to the American people - they now seem to be forgetting in their assessment of potential candidates. Daniels has experience and accomplishments, but because he doesn't say the right things to the right wing he is not presidential. It is troubling, to say the least, that inconvenient details like the context of the Indiana situation provided in the post do not seem to matter. This is not characteristic of a thoughtful movement I'm sorry to say.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlso, there is a full brass band playing in the Indiana Statehouse right now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAudio of Mark Levin to Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels: "You’re not presidential"
Levin, in part:
“Now he may be good for Indiana the way [New Jersey Gov.] Christie may be good for New Jersey but that’s not good enough,” he said. “Good enough is an articulate, confident, conservative voice that whenever confronted with tyranny, speaks of liberty. That whenever confronted with lawlessness, speaks of the Constitution. He doesn’t compartmentalize issues because that tells me that he’s not a Reaganite. That he’s not a conservative.”
“Mr. Daniels, you get a little ‘x,’” he said. “You’re too weak. You don’t see the full horizon. You’re ready to battle on some turf, but on way too much you’re ready to surrender the turf. You should be speaking out in defense of your fellow governor from Wisconsin and you’re not. You should be encouraging exactly what the legislature is doing in — Indiana, to attract more and more enterprise and create more jobs but you’re not. That’s why you’re not presidential. Like I say, you may be a great governor. I don’t know. I don’t live in Indiana but I do live in the United States and you get a little ‘x’ next to your name.”
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have yet to hear anybody explain why Daniels lost control of his own Republicans. If education reform is important, and was part of his campaign, then why are state Republicans off-message? I'll give Daniels a pass about his too-subtle response to fleeing Democrats. His inability to corral his own party is the real leadership failure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>But private-sector unions represent only 7 percent of the private-sector workforce.
So if it were 8% it would be a big deal? Is there not a matter of principle involved (something conservatives used to care about). If not, why bring the matter up at all.
>. . . Mitch Daniels decertified all public unions, entirely rescinding their collective-bargaining rights, on his first day in office in 2005.
Really? It was that easy? For all time? Gosh, then any Republican governor can do the same thing at any time (if only Arnold had known). Or is there a whole lot of state "context" (the favorite boogy word of NR pseudo-cons) being left out? And the next time a new Indiana governor (a democrat maybe) comes in, the unions will come roaring back?
I suspect Mighty Mitch is an ok governor. I also think he should stay where he is. Like Bush II, he would attempt to govern the country like he governs his state and would be steam-rollered by the democrats in the process, spending all his time seeking "reconciliation" by reaching across the aisle and telling republicans to go fly a kite. Sorry, but the nation needs much stronger stuff than that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour article makes an essential point. One of the compelling reasons the Founding Fathers framed a federal republic, with only specified powers, the rest being reserved to the states or the people, was to enable government to respond to local and regional conditions.
The author argues that what Daniels is going for is appropriate to- and has a chance of succeeding in his state. Issues involving morals -- e.g. abortion -- are universal, but self-appointed conservatives who insist that all issues be nationalized, or that state officials be evaluated on the basis of decisions they make at that level, fail to acknowledge the nature of our federal system.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't get too upset at Mitch Daniels for not supporting right-to-work laws. Right-to-work laws don't have any impact on public unions' collective bargaining power. Right-to-work laws really apply to the private sector, not to public sectors, where legislators can write rules that split public-sector unions from right-to-work laws. There are other things to call Mitch Daniels a wimp on, but saying no to adding right-to-work laws isn't one of them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnpersuasive. If Daniels seeks a national office he did himself no favors by softsoaping on the issue that currently has Walker and Kaisich fighting tooth and nail. He's not getting my vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@tiredturtle Precisely how do you propose that "Daniels should force the issue?" A political leader needs the ability to improvise, but it doesn't seen that IN law gives Daniels any tools to do that here. It's fine to engage in passionate rhetoric, but you need to explain how Daniels could actually DO what you want him to do. In WI Walker can pass all kinds of non-fiscal bills which might induce Dem Sens to return. That seems to be impossible in IN.
Moreover Roy makes a vital point that the argument in IN is about private sector unions -- not public sector unions which Daniels eliminated six years ago. Both Christie and Walker have had great success in convincing private sector union members that they too, as taxpayers, are being hurt by their public sector counterparts. Much as I believe in right to work laws (I'm a Texan), bringing up the IN bill right now actually undercuts those governors who still have to deal with the public sector unions -- a far more important problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDaniels is starting to sound petulant. "Don't distract me with right-to-work, I'm interested in a different issue." I hate to say it but he reminds me of Obama, stubbornly sticking with health care and trains while the public is desperate for jobs and growth. As tiredturtle notes, leaders must be able to adapt to changed circumstances.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's possible to have so big a tent that you don't stand for anything. But when the conservative tent doesn't have room for Daniels it's not big enough (IMHO). You can reasonably disagree with him on this issue, but to paraphrase Rumsfeld, Mitch Daniels is not what's wrong with America.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But private-sector unions represent only 7 percent of the private-sector workforce."
That citation covers the national workforce. In Indiana, the number is almost double. Over 300,000 workers in Indiana are in unions. And Indiana continues to lose private sector jobs to Right to Work states. I cannot think of any reason why a Fortune 1000 company would want to re-locate or set up new operations in Indiana. Big Ag seems to be the only game in town for Indiana. Like other Rust Belt states, the influence of labor unions has become a big albatross around the neck of Hoosiers.
Avik Roy should visit cities like Fort Wayne, Logansport, or South Bend. Not all of those closed factories and tool shops are the result of offshoring. Many of those companies relocated to the Sun Belt. This is a big issue for Hoosiers, but Govenor Daniels would much rather immerse himself in the education sinkhole (of which his reforms will just re-arrange the deck chairs). I suppose education polls better with the Soccer Moms.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice try but the democrats already see the Daniels is weak. They just said on tv that now that he folded on the right to work law there are 10 more bills they don't like and they are staying out until he folds on them.
As for right to work on private sector unions you conveniently fail to notice that businesses are leaving union states and going to right to work states.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf I am to understand most of the commenters, Daniels is unpresidential because he doesn't get on TV and lob insults at the democrats and insert himself into Wisconsin's affairs (like Obama did).
So, we are supposed to be more interested in blustery talk than in actual accomplishment. Daniels can't force Bauer to bring those democrats back, but so what! More talk on TV! THAT will show them!
Governor Daniels is my very excellent governor. I never thought he would run, and it's a shame. I am now understanding why.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse