>Does labor solidarity mean, as he appears to suggest, that one must appear on
>public platforms in efforts and with others with which one has important
>political differences?
Depends. In this case, the "differences" themselves are part of the issue - specifically the ludicrous anti-Communism Feldman professed. The whole point of a coalition, though, is bringing together people who differ in many particulars but who are united on one or more specific issues. I'm not privy to Feldman's inner deliberations, but I'm guessing that "avowed Communists" was shorthand for anyone slightly to the left, and that she was very reluctant to be seen signing on with some broad anti-austerity agenda.
Though it's been a long time, one of the points I remember from Marc Maier's book on the NYC municipal unions was that the city was adamant that the unions it recognized not make any kind of alliance with the public to protect the quality of services. Wouldn't it be nice if the teachers union allied with parents to agitate for better schools, if the transit unions allied with riders for better subway and bus service, etc.? Not likely to happen anytime soon, though. How much public support do you think there is for the teachers in their contract battle with Rudy? Seems pretty low to me, though maybe I'm wrong.
So, again, Leo, the Douglass quote bothers; it's amazing how easily pragmatism and anti-sectarianism morph into conservatism and inaction.
Doug