Labor: Vanishing Vote

"There is a question," rumbled George Meany last week, "where the vote went." Labor had undeniably failed to elect most of its favorite candidates. What was especially galling to the A.F.L.-C.I.O. president was that the federation's campaign arm, the Committee on Political Education, boasted a stronger organization this year than ever before. While anticipating two rough years for labor legislation on Capitol Hill, Meany promised to take "a real good look" at C.O.P.E. operations.

Labor not only lost such champions as Senate Candidate G. Mennen ("Soapy") Williams in Michigan, Illinois' Senator Paul Douglas and California's Governor Pat Brown, but also did worse than it expected in the general run of races across the country. "We had one handicap this time," noted Meany. "We didn't have Goldwater against us."

A good point, but even when the batting average was compared with mid-term 1962, big labor took a beating. In the last mid-term election, 72% of the nominees whom C.O.P.E. supported for the Senate were elected, as were 60% of its choices for the House and for gubernatorial seats. The winning percentages this year were 50% for the Senate, 54% for the House and a feeble 31% in the governors' races. This despite the fact that C.O.P.E. spent just under $1,000,000 this year compared with $800,000 in 1962. Nearly all C.O.P.E.-backed candidates were Democrats.

Blunted Issue. "We raised more money, put more workers into the field and made more contacts than ever, but we just couldn't overcome factors beyond our control," said Alexander Barkan, C.O.P.E. director. Barkan cited civil rights reaction, Negro apathy in some areas, and Democratic fraternal strife in key states. What Barkan failed to mention—and Meany's investigation will hardly alter—is political history. As time and continuing prosperity erase memories of the great Depression and blunt purely economic issues, the Democrats cannot continue to count on reflex support from rank-and-file union members.

As far as achieving its legislative goals in the 90th Congress is concerned, big labor has ample reason for feeling glum. Meany was guilty of understatement when he said that the chances were "pretty dim" to repeal Section 14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act (the right-to-work provision), which triggered a long and bitter filibuster even in the liberal 89th. Equally bleak is labor's chance of getting restrictions on construction-site picketing eased. By contrast, the 90th Congress may prove far more receptive than the 89th to further limitations on strikes—such as airline stoppages—that have national repercussions.