> I agree that one can dwell on coalition
> building or organization to the deteriment
> of principle and theory.
is it really a choice between principles and coalition-building? I doubt it very much, and this from a perspective of many years in coalition-building and organising.
decisions to take this or that position, or accent this or that position, are always a decision to prioritise building coalitions with one group/sector/etc, which may or may not include a decision _not_ to prioritise building a coalition with _another_ group/sector/etc. the problem with taking a wifty position on abortion is not that 'principles' are watered down, but that it includes a decision not to prioritise a coalition with those groups who want a stronger position. all the talk about principles needing to converge properly with reality is bunkum, because 'reality' is already defined as that which pertains to a certain potential constituency (and sometimes excludes another).
second, claiming that organisations take certain positions because they 'reflect' their constituencies is only ever part of the issue. organisations not only reflect and reproduce a position, but are capable of elevating certain positions (always contested) to the status of a truth, and they are central to determining which positions are articulated as 'representative' and how. moreover, organisations can more often than not choose who/what positions are taken as 'representative'. this is why they're _organisations_ and not unmediated reflections (of what are in any case contradictory positions which are always contested). organisation entails a range of decisions about what to inflect and how.
I've no doubt that the afl-cio justified/explained its decision to regard 'white' (usually male) workers as its 'reality' by talking in terms of representing its constituency, etc. and in the unions here, there was often a very neat maneuver which made it possible to exclude certain issues from the formal agenda to the margins whilst at the same time pretending that these issues where still being represented, which indeed minimally they were: set up a women's auxiliary or a special issue group -- that way, the men could get on with the business of being _the_ universal representatives of labour whilst the women were relegated to a sub-section, a particularity. an illustration of the above.
and, gee, i wonder what 'social issues' is a meta for? perhaps the LP can take a leaf out of the aust unions and set up a 'social issues' auxiliary? even this might be a step forward.
btw, just had a rally of 70,000 workers in my town (melbourne) against the next wave of the govt's industrial laws which (to cite the union spiel) consists entirely of "punishing workers and freeing employers". (that this was curtesy of the Labor Party's time in govt didn't seem to get a mention, but clearly the mood was combative and the numbers outstanding. and, nationwide miners' strike tonight, already declared illegal by the courts under the previous raft of laws.
Angela _________