Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> Jeff is wrong, however, to condemn coalitions as such. There is no way
> they can be avoided. They can be partly controlled by strong voices
> demanding simple slogans, and by narrower coalitions indicating that
> they are going to proceed on their own along certain lines. Beyond that
> one simply has to fight. There ain't no blue printed roads for movements
> to follow.
I don't oppose coalitions, especially self-terminating ones. But I do question the notion of spending a lot of time "building" coalitions. Build good messages and the coalitions will form by themselves, without much work at all.
However, the "coalition-builders" are usually a professional bunch, backed by foundations and big institutions instinctively averse to dynamic change. In these situtations, the expansion and preservation of the "coalition" tends to overtake, dilute and, ultimately, undermine the message itself.
A "nix it or fix it" coalition is like a jury on a death penalty case. You have to believe in the possibility of the WTO being fixable in order to get a meaningful seat at the table. The abolitionists are excluded, de facto, if not de jure.
jsc