Opinion - ‘We win, they lose' — GOP should take Reagan's approach when it comes to unions
Republicans are falling into a familiar trap. From President Trump to Vice President JD Vance to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a growing number of party leaders have come to believe that coercive labor unions are a permanent part of American politics, so the Republicans might as well forge an uneasy truce if not an outright alliance with them.
To build that bridge, Hawley released his first of several promised pro-union bills in early March. The thinking seems to be: If labor unions are here to stay, why not put political expediency ahead of deeply held Republican principles like worker freedom and equal opportunity?
Fifty years ago, Republicans made a similar argument about another kind of union — the Soviet variety. In the mid-1970s, Republican leaders, along with the Democratic Party and virtually the entire foreign policy establishment, assumed the Soviet Union was here to stay. Two successive Republican presidents — Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford — pursued a policy of détente with a coercive regime that rejected American principles and was actively working toward America's destruction. What other choice did they have, if the Soviet Union wasn't going anywhere anytime soon?
One Republican knew better. Ronald Reagan had no interest in playing nice with the Soviet Union. I recently heard William Inboden, author of the Reagan biography 'The Peacemaker,' explain the 40th president's thinking. Like other Republicans (and like Democrats, too), Reagan believed that two forces were at play. First, the Soviet Union was a fact of life — a regime that existed whether he liked it or not. Second, the U.S. and the USSR were locked in a battle of ideas — a battle between freedom and tyranny. But what made Reagan different was that he believed the second force was more important and powerful than the first.
The only reason the Soviet Union continued to exist was because liberty-loving nations didn't believe freedom could truly triumph over tyranny. But Reagan did believe in freedom's strength, which is why he marshaled America's economic and military might to pressure the Soviet Union into collapse. His philosophy was summed up in his famous saying, 'Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.' His vision was widely derided as impossible, yet the Berlin Wall fell within a decade of Reagan's election to the White House.
The Soviet Union was obviously a different beast from labor unions, which at their best give workers a voice. But for at least 75 years, American unions have given in to their worst instinct of coercion. Given how long they've been around, it's no wonder that a growing number of Republicans think they'll always be here, though unions represent a smaller share of the workforce with every passing year — now 9.9 percent, the lowest in recorded history.
These Republicans have it backward. As Reagan showed with the Soviet Union, America doesn't have to blindly accept the eternal existence of something antithetical to our national principles. To the contrary, applying those principles — and vigorously reminding the American people of their power and truth — can ensure their victory over injustice.
In the case of unions, that means fundamentally reforming the current labor model. This doesn't mean going back to the bad old days, when unions were treated as a criminal conspiracy. But it does mean ending the legal favoritism that allows unions to coerce workers, control businesses and advance their selfish interests at the expense of everyone else. The Republican goal should be to make unions earnestly compete for workers' support, with neither a monopoly in the workplace nor restrictions on workers' ability to choose the union that's best for them.
When is the last time Republicans forcefully advanced such a principled vision? Even before the recent backsliding, Republican leaders rarely made the moral case against forced unionization. Sure, they broadly supported policies that would have empowered workers, and most Republicans still do. But with few exceptions, the party tip-toed around the real stakes. If union coercion is wrong, then anyone who loves freedom has a duty to fight it — without apology and without quarter.
Reagan showed that a principled approach can work, and Republicans may get another opportunity sooner than they realize. Last year, a federal court ruled that the National Labor Relations Board — and by extension, the labor law that governs America's labor-union framework — is unconstitutional. This case seems destined to end up at the Supreme Court. If the justices strike down the law, will Trump and Republicans side with the unions they're trying to appease?
Or will they stand with American workers against union coercion, seeking to end injustice the same way Reagan defeated the Soviet Union?
Joseph G. Lehman is president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
The 21 cases left for the Supreme Court to decide, including transgender care
The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. 7 The Supreme Court has 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May. REUTERS Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. 7 The oldest unresolved case stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law on transgender youth AP 7 The court is weighing the case amid other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, such as which bathrooms they can use, and pushes to keep transgender athletes from playing in girls' sports. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. 7 Protesters confront law enforcement outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Los Angeles. Getty Images These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. 7 A majority of the court last month expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. REUTERS The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. 7 LGBTQ+ veterans hold signs protesting the ban on transgender military members as they march in the World Pride parade in Washington, DC on June 7. Nathan Posner/Shutterstock The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. 7 The case about Louisiana congressional maps involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court. AP Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
Axios
28 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump told Putin U.S. is ready to resume nuclear talks with Iran, Kremlin says
President Trump told Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call on Saturday that White House envoy Steve Witkoff is ready to resume nuclear talks with Iran's foreign minister, the Russian president's foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov said. Why it matters: Putin, in previous phone calls, proposed that Trump help in the nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran. The current crisis between Israel and Iran will be a test case for Trump's strategy of mending relations between the U.S. and Russia in order to solve crisis around the world together. Driving the news: The nuclear talks planned for Sunday in Muscat have been cancelled due to the Israeli attack against Iran, the foreign minister of Oman Badr al-Busaidi said. "While there will be no meeting Sunday, we remain committed to talks and hope the Iranians will come to the table soon," a U.S. official said. Trump told Axios on Friday that he thinks the Israeli strikes on Iran might help in pushing Iran toward a nuclear deal. Trump and Putin both spoke on Friday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Putin spoke to Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian. Putin told both Netanyahu and Pezeshkian that he is ready to mediate between the parties to prevent further escalation of tensions, the Kremlin said. Behind the scenes: Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi told the EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas on Saturday that Iran will not continue its negotiations with the U.S. as long as the Israeli attack on Iran continues. He claimed the U.S. directly supports the Israeli strikes, the Iranian foreign ministry said. But two sources with direct knowledge said Araghchi told several foreign ministers in the last 36 hours that Iran will be willing to resume negotiations with the U.S. once its retaliation for the Israeli attack is over. What they're saying: Ushakov said in a briefing with reporters that Putin and Trump spoke for 50 minutes and discussed the war between Israel and Iran.
Politico
29 minutes ago
- Politico
The Resistance 2.0 arrives with nationwide ‘No Kings' protests
As President Donald Trump's military parade rolls through the nation's capital on Saturday, millions of Americans across the country are taking part in the largest coordinated protests against the president since the start of his second administration. But while Trump's parade aims to show America's military prowess in its new era — remade under the administration's anti-diversity, equity and inclusion policies — over 2,000 protests planned for major cities and small towns across the country are expected to outdo the president's parade in scale. The demonstrations, organized by an extensive list of progressive organizations including the ACLU, Indivisible and the Service Employees International Union, are dubbed 'No Kings' protests, aiming to highlight Americans' resistance to the Trump administration. 'No Kings is really about standing up for democracy, standing up for people's rights and liberties in this country and against the gross abuse of power that we've seen consistently from the Trump administration,' ACLU's chief political and advocacy officer Deirdre Schifeling said in an interview earlier this military parade and the nationwide counterprotest come at a time of heightened political tensions across the country. In the last week alone, Trump deployed the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles over the objection of state and local officials amid protests — and some unrest — over the president's extensive deportation agenda; Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was manhandled and briefly handcuffed at a press conference for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem; and two Minnesota state lawmakers were shot, and one killed, early Saturday in what Minnesota Gov. Tim Waltz described it as a politically motivated assination. Over 100 of the protests were planned by volunteers in the past week alone, organizers said, popping up in response to the Trump administration's crackdown on anti-immigration detention protesters in California. 'The Trump administration's goal was to scare people, to make them afraid to stand up for their rights and afraid to protest and stand up for their immigrant neighbors. And it's backfired spectacularly,' Schifeling said. But Saturday's early morning shooting in Minnesota is already weighing on the events. A spokesperson to one prominent battleground Democratic Senate candidate with plans to participate in the demonstrations, granted anonymity to discuss security procedures, said that they are taking extra precautions after the attack in Minnesota. Walz recommended that people not attend events in the state in the aftermath of the killings. 'Out of an abundance of caution my Department of Public Safety is recommending that people do not attend any political rallies today in Minnesota until the suspect is apprehended,' he wrote on social media. But organizers elsewhere said the events will go on. Diane Morgan, a Cleveland-based mobilization coordinator with Our Revolution, said that in the wake of the shooting she's hearing from people on the ground who are saying that 'more than anything else, it makes people more determined, much like what happened with L.A.,' to attend a protest Saturday. Democratic governors in several states — including North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs — released statements on the eve of the planned demonstrations, emphasizing the right to peacefully protest but urging Americans taking to the streets to remain peaceful. 'The right to peacefully protest is sacred and enshrined in our First Amendment, and I will always work to protect that right,' Stein said. 'I urge everyone who wishes to be heard to do so peacefully and lawfully.' While No Kings demonstrations are planned across the nation in what organizers expect to be 'the largest single day of protest in recent American history,' no protests are slated to take place in Washington itself. 'Rather than give him the excuse to crack down on peaceful counterprotests in downtown D.C., or give him the narrative device to claim that we're protesting the military, we said, okay, you can have downtown D.C.,' Ezra Levin, the co-founder and co-executive director of Indivisible, said. 'Instead, we should organize it everywhere else.' The military parade — which is set to mark the army's 250th anniversary, but also happens to fall on Trump's 79th birthday — will include over 6,000 marching soldiers, battle tanks and other military vehicles, as well as military aircraft accompanying the procession overhead. Army estimates place the cost of the festivities somewhere between $25 and $45 million, an expense that 60 percent of Americans say is not a good use of funds. But Saturday's festivities may yet face obstacles, with thunderstorms predicted to hit the city in the evening. But Trump is unfazed. 'OUR GREAT MILITARY PARADE IS ON, RAIN OR SHINE. REMEMBER, A RAINY DAY PARADE BRINGS GOOD LUCK. I'LL SEE YOU ALL IN D.C.,' the president wrote in a post on Truth Social Saturday morning. Trump has maintained, in the face of the No Kings protests, that he does not view himself as a monarch. 'No, no. We're not a king,' Trump said at the White House on Thursday. 'We're not a king at all, thank you very much.' Schifeling said she finds Trump's objections 'laughable.' 'This is a person who violates the law at every turn, and is doing everything in his power to intimidate and crush — using the vast power of the presidency and also power that he doesn't even have — to crush anybody that he perceives as disagreeing with him or as his enemies. Those are the actions of a king,' she said. Adam Wren contributed to this report.
