The unions and the Democrats did the right thing, in my view.  If they’re essentially going to be forced to accept Republican-determined “fair” wages, union members might as well just go out onto the open market and find other jobs.

But a more likely scenario — before Bush stepped in — would have been that some of the car companies would have filed Chapter 11, but a belated rescue plan would be passed in January by a more democratic Senate and the Obama administration.

I agree with rbates; patriotism has nothing to do with the conversation about the bridge loan or the more general conversation about unions.

Anyway, rbates, I think you are correct when you write, “The only way someone will accept such a deal is if their only alternative is not having a job at all.”

I agree. As it turns out, the auto workers weren’t even willing to do that — they apparently would rather not have a job at all than accept the deal  Corker proposed.

Or it could be that the workers knew that the powers-that-be (i.e. the Bush Administration) would save their jobs at all costs — so they felt free to reject Corker’s amendment without fearing the consequences.

Wouldn’t it be great if all workers in America could expect the federal government to step in and save their jobs even when their employers were on the verge of bankruptcy?

We can only dream…

Corker didn’t make “extremist demands for sudden destructive change at the last minute.” The legislation was DEAD before Corker’s amendment ever entered the picture. The “hard-won bipartisan compromise” that you say had been “reached,” had, in fact, failed with support from only 52 Senators. By the time Corker introduced his amendment, there were only two options on the table: either (a) work with Corker to try to come up with a bill the Senate could support, or (b) abandon any hopes of Congress passing a bailout bill.

Corker’s “extremist demands for sudden destructive change at the last minute” were, in fact, a last-minute attempt to rescue the bailout bill from dying altogether.

You write, “I don’t think anyone thought TARP could be used that way.”

If the UAW didn’t know there would be any bailout, then they must have assumed that if the Corker amendment failed, then there would be no bailout, period. In other words, they preferred to lose their jobs and their benefits altogether, rather than accept lower pay and benefits. If that’s what you think, then fine — but it doesn’t make any sense to me that the UAW would cut off their noses to spite their faces.

You write, “You apparently hold (or formerly held) the position that there WAS no line.  Corker could have demanded anything, and anyone who didn’t accept the deal was not displaying sufficient levels of “patriotism.””

Again, you’re twising my position, turning it into a position you can more easily attack. My use of the word “patriotism” is as follows:

“So I can’t be angry at the UAW — they only realized what I failed to realize: that neither self-interest nor patriotism should have motivated them to accept any deal that was put before them, no matter how unpalatable.”

My point is that patriotism might have motivated some workers to say, “I may not like the Corker amendment, and under normal circumstances I’d refuse to accept it, even if it meant I’d lose my job along with every other auto worker in Detroit, the American auto industry would collapse. But these are no normal circumstances. The American economy is in such a precarious position right now that I must forgo my principles and agree to work for far less compensation, for the good of the country.”

I’m not accusing anyone of being unpatriotic. I’m just saying that no auto worker might feel a patriotic urge to take a hit for the team.

I think you would agree that it is patriotic to volunteer to serve your country in the United States military, or in an inner city school. But when we say this, are we necessarily implying that anyone who doesn’t serve in the military or teach in an inner city school is “unpatriotic”? Of course not! I consider myself patriotic, although I haven’t done either of these things.

Similarly, an auto worker might be motivated by patriotism to keep working in the auto industry for reduced compensation — for himself and his family, for the sake of saving the industry, for the sake of the American economy — partly out of patriotism. This doesn’t mean I think it’s unpatriotic for that same worker to decide not to accept a labor contract. It’s a free country, and “patriotism” doesn’t require workers to work anywhere where they don’t want to work.

You write, “You also apparently think that anyone who thinks there WAS a line is unpatriotic.”

Statements like these utterly infuriate me. You accuse me of trying to make this disagreement personal. Then you suggest I’m participating in the despicable practice of using the “patriotism” frame to bully people into agreeing with me. In fact, you’re using your own frame to bully me into no longer using the word “patriotism.”

But it’s a meaningful word. I know what I mean when I use that word, and it’s not a word I’m prepared to let you take away from me.

That said, it’s good to be skeptical when someone comes to Congress saying, “If we don’t get this loan the whole economy is going to instantly explode.” It was good that auto execs (not the UAW) got sent back when they came in their private jets to come up with a more reasonable plan.  I think these issues are urgent but the timeline for passage need not be instantaneous.

Whether anyone was “lying” depends on whether anyone knew in advance that Bush could use TARP to help the auto industry.  If they knew that he could and that he would, then the whole Congressional proceedings were a waste of time.  But I don’t think anyone thought TARP could be used that way.

As for the UAW and Senate democrats letting this version of the bailout die rather than accepting extreme Republican demands, it all depends on whether you think the Corker amendments were reasonable and related to the purpose of the loans.  If Corker had at the very last minute demanded that every member of the UAW had to take a loyalty oath to the USA or live on no income for a year or some other fantastic/crazy demand, would you say that the bridge loan was too important, you had to accept any arbitrary amendment!

I believe that the Corker amendments were vicious and damaging.  It crossed the line.

You apparently hold (or formerly held) the position that there WAS no line.  Corker could have demanded anything, and anyone who didn’t accept the deal was not displaying sufficient levels of “patriotism.”

This is a great example of what’s wrong with your emphasis on “patriotism.”  It’s lovely to affirm that you love the people of your country — lots of people claim to — but such a frame quickly evolves from “I love my country” to “Those who don’t share my specific political views lack patriotism.”

What you do not do in this post is come out and say what you constantly imply:

* There was no line for you Corker could have crossed.  The UAW needed to agree to whatever demands (“no matter how unpalatable”) the Senate Republican minority made or anyone else for that matter.

That’s the proposition we disagree on.  I think there was a line, you think there wasn’t.

You also apparently think that anyone who thinks there WAS a line is unpatriotic.