Why what is happening in Wisconsin matters to everyone

Some revealing comments gleaned from the 'Net on the current struggle in Wisconsin:

From The Maddow Blog, Madison teacher Nathan O'Shaughnessy wrote:

OK, for those of you out there that still don't seem to get the importance of this "budget" bill, and its effects on the education of our children ... let me try to break it down:

Once again, whether or not you think teachers and other public employees are overpaid, whiny, and a "bunch of clowns", the issue is not about our pay and benefits. I knew full well getting into the education field that I would not be making six figures (in fact, it's not even close). I have said to people in the past, and it is still my personal feeling, that I would be OK biting the bullet and paying some more for my health care for example. (By the way, we have foregone effective raises in exchange for decent benefits for at least the last decade.)

The issue at hand is being able to sit down at the table, in good faith, with my employer and bargain ... not only for what is beneficial for me, but also for what is beneficial for the school district, for taxpayers, and for the learning conditions and effective school environments for the young people I teach. The larger issue is the fight against the destruction of the middle class and the harming of working people and families everywhere. This, ultimately, is a fight against our political system becoming an oligarchy run by the wealthy few.

This legislation is not about balancing the budget. It is an attack on working families and the middle class in general. It is an attack on our schools. Wisconsin has had the awesome tradition of having some of the best public schools in the nation ... that is about to be a thing of the past. I am amazed by the argument that "well. since I do not have bargaining rights, that others have lost their jobs, that others cannot afford health care, then these public employees should lose their rights too." What has happened to people's sense of humanity and what is right?

From The Washington Post on Feb. 23 by Ezra Klein:

The problem with trying to game out Gov. Scott Walker's negotiating style is that the guy doesn't seem like much of a negotiator. Another politician would've taken the concrete concessions on pensions and health-care benefits, threatened to revisit the collective-bargaining ban in the spring if any of the unions failed to make the promised concessions and thrown himself a parade. But not Walker.

Instead, he's rejected every compromise that's been offered - and his allies are starting to notice. The State Journal, a paper that endorsed Walker, has advised him to take a deal. David Brooks has criticized him for an "unbalanced" approach to cuts. Andrew Sullivan, whose initial position was sympathy for Walker, has turned. And it's easy to imagine the prank-Koch call getting a lot of attention in Wisconsin and looking like one more piece of evidence that the governor is approaching this as an ideologue rather than just an executive. The first nonpartisan poll suggests Walker's position isn't as popular as he - and many others - initially thought.

A few days ago, the question was: How long can the Democrats hold out? Increasingly, it's how long Walker can hold out.

And Andrew Sullivan from The Atlantic, who initially supported Walker, had this to say in a recent column:

Last night, I heard on Fox News from Stephen Hayes that Wisconsin governor Scott Walker had run on a platform to end collective bargaining rights for public sector unions. I can find no evidence of this in the public record. It isn't on his campaign platform where he deals with "government spending and reform". It's clear that he vowed to slash pay and benefits for public sector unions. But not end their collective bargaining rights on everything but wages. There's no reference to any such bid in the final gubernatorial debate.

Here's another substantive piece on Walker's positions on public sector unions from before the election. (NOTE: Original article provides link.) Again no mention of collective bargaining. The same can be said about his State of the State address on February 1.

Why does this matter? If you campaign on one platform and then suddenly up the ante, you cannot cite democracy in your defense. And there is something bizarre about Republican commentators who cheered on Tea Party protests against a clear Obama campaign pledge - health insurance reform - suddenly decrying public protests against something a politician didn't campaign on.