The Unions and the Democrats, by Taylor E. Dark, is one of the best books on both subjects in recent years. Although the author, a professor at Doshisha University in Kyoto, Japan, supports both unions and the Democratic Party, it would be difficult to identify a book that is more informative about the political dynamics of organized labor in the United States. Dark's sympathetic attitude toward his subjects undoubtedly helped him gain access to union leaders and union-oriented politicians, but his sympathies did not undermine his objectivity in dealing with his subject matter.

Perhaps the book's most important point is that union political influence has not declined despite declining private-sector union membership. As Dark points out, the unions provide the critical Democratic infrastructure in many states and localities. In addition to contributing substantial funds, unions frequently provide manpower for telephone banks, transportation to the polls, dissemination of literature, participation in call-in shows, and attendance at rallies, demonstrations, and other political activities requiring "people power." The results of the 1998 elections provide dramatic confirmation of Dark's argument and tell us what lies ahead if we do not come to grips with the realities of union political power. Unions already are planning an all-out effort in 2000 in the states that have the highest proportion of union members and union families. These states include Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Illinois -- the industrial heartland, as well as key states like New York.

Dark also explains the AFL-CIO's turn to the hard left during the years after George Meany's retirement as AFL-CIO president in 1979. Meany was opposed to the social agenda of the left wing of the Democratic Party: gay rights, radical feminism, racial quotas, and anti-business environmentalism. After his departure, the AFL-CIO decided to ride these waves, and the 1996 election of John Sweeney can be considered the internal culmination of its change in direction.

Until 1972, AFL-CIO leadership was largely conservative on social issues. It took positions on issues directly affecting unions, such as reliance on authorization cards instead of secret ballot elections, but was silent on other questions for both ideological and practical reasons. For instance, the building trades unions, which were the base of Meany's support, strongly opposed affirmative action programs that threatened to displace white union members with black workers who had been excluded from jobs in the building trades. (Meany had himself come up through the ranks as a member of the plumbers' union.) Furthermore, AFL-CIO leadership at the time was concerned that its political influence was lessening as the Democratic Party became the political home for radicals of various stripes. Today, the array of radical special interests in the Democratic Party is taken for granted, but its emergence was strongly contested in the 1972 campaign. After the nomination of Senator George McGovern, the Democratic Party changed its procedures for choosing delegates to the national convention, and these changes weakened labor's role. But the rise of leaders like Sweeney, who supported the party's insurgent groups, means the divisions no longer play much of a role in Democratic politics.

It is often overlooked that the constituent unions in the AFL-CIO have their own political action committees (PACs). These PACs, along with the in-kind support they can raise, overshadow direct AFL-CIO support. In fact, one of the AFL-CIO's recurring strategic problems has been the difficulty of getting unions to agree on candidates so they do not fight each other in Democratic Party primaries. Since 1984, however, the AFL-CIO no longer awaits the outcome of primary elections before committing its resources. In that year the AFL-CIO worked actively in the primaries to nominate Walter Mondale as the Democratic presidential candidate. The AFL-CIO has been especially influential at this stage of the campaign cycle and its power cannot be matched by any other interest group.

Dark also recognizes the importance of the public sector unions in the contemporary labor movement. These unions now comprise almost half of organized labor. While private sector union membership has dwindled to less than 10 percent of the private sector labor force, membership in public sector unions has increased dramatically. (See table.) Public sector unions are opposed to tax limits, budgetary restraints, and anti-inflation measures that call for limits on union wage demands. As the book makes clear, Democratic candidates who do not support AFL-CIO positions face major difficulties in winning primary victories over union-endorsed candidates. The upshot is that "moderate Democrats" are increasingly scarce.

Dark has some interesting observations about the National Education Association's involvement in national politics. He agrees with conservative charges that President Jimmy Carter created the U.S. Department of Education as the quid pro quo for NEA's support of Carter's presidential campaign. Nevertheless, as Dark points out, Carter did not help himself with organized labor by creating the department. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the AFL-CIO, of which the AFT is a member, opposed Carter on this issue. Both feared that a Department of Education would result in the division of the House Education and Labor Committee into two committees. The AFT and the AFL-CIO feared the National Education Association (NEA), the AFT's sometime rival, would play a dominant role in any new education committee. Because the establishment of the Department of Education benefited only one union, it cost Carter more than he gained from organized labor.

Perhaps the most interesting sections of this study deal with the union role in nominating and electing Bill Clinton president in 1992. Clinton's main opponent for labor support was Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, who was fully committed to the AFL-CIO political agenda. Nevertheless, the AFL-CIO preferred a winner. As Harkin lost primaries, union support increasingly went to Clinton; it was the decisive factor in the critical New York primary. Clinton was careful to downplay his union support in order to avoid being characterized as the candidate of "the labor bosses," but his nomination and election owed much to the unions. The irony is that the public employee unions were the most active in supporting Clinton, even though he ran as a "new Democrat" ostensibly skeptical if not outright opposed to government growth.

For over half a century, the AFL-CIO has been unsuccessful in amending federal labor law in ways intended to enhance unionization. This failure should not obscure the fact that organized labor has been a critical component of Democratic coalitions that have expanded the welfare state. As Dark shows persuasively, the unions, especially the public sector unions, are the building blocks of these coalitions.

Dr. Myron Lieberman is Senior Research Scholar, Social Philosophy and Policy Center, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio.