Not a binary choice, no, but usually a trade-off.
>>>
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.
>>>
absolutely right. I don't really get what you're driving at in the rest of your post, so I'll respond from this point.
As I see it, the current configuration of the U.S. left is a federation with fairly clear lines of demarcation (labor, women, race, gays, and various single issues). I suspect it is much different in countries with substantial laborist or social-democratic cultures. Of course, the labor parties have their own problems, but that's a different story.
The unity of the left 'federation' in the U.S. is completely opportunistic: it's based on you wash my back, I'll wash yours. Separately, we are weak; together we are less weak.
There is no intellectual coherence or depth to this "mosaic" (a favorite word here; another one is a patchwork quilt). Our philosophy, as perceived by the public, is meeting "human needs." The Right has the force of Judeo-Christian theology and the classical liberalism of our 'founding fathers.' It is no contest. The left is stupid, the non-left is sensible.
My hypothesis is that the public perceives the left as an marriage of convenience where the goals of the partners are not even compelling enough to gain enthusiastic support within the coalition, across the board. The leaders of the constituencies give lip service to the interests of their peers; the rank-and-file themselves are in different worlds. In the end, in my view, this enterprise is immobile. It can't go anywhere. In fact, there's no "it" in an important sense, as Carrol has said.
Take an issue as obvious as universal health care. The importance of this for women, minorities, and gays, to name a few, does not need elaboration. Moreover, polling shows the majority of the public favor it. But none of the constituency groups (including labor, by the way) see this as important enough to make it a major, constant focus. Why not? Their own parochial concerns are more important. So there is no meaningful campaign for universal health care, except from our teensy-weensy Labor Party (rah rah) and some "health" groups.
That's what I mean by prioritizing, focusing, and making the compromises that leave you better off than when you began.
In the health care struggle, for instance, it could prove feasible to get a universal system at the cost of foregoing public funding for abortion. Or rejecting free distribution of needles to heroin addicts. Or failing to abolish patents for government-subsidized pharmaceutical research. Any number of things. An a priori purist approach is doomed.
I do not claim that health care must be the issue we choose here. But in the U.S. there are only a handful which are a) important, and b) could garner real mass support. A serious left would sink its teeth into them and not let go. The harder stuff you leave for later. The simple stuff is hard enough.
Structures of domination based on race and gender, among other things, are certainly not deniable. My premise is that a victory in an area such as health care, a profound advance in the dimension of equality, renders these structures somewhat less onerous and more susceptible to remedy.
That's the gist of my pragmatism.
mbs