> But Chuck's point is Who do these people represent?
>
> Coalitions are supposed to represent a coming together of representatives of
> various organizations with actual members. But increasingly, they end up
> representing lists of names of orgs with no constituency, in fact often
> being the remains of past "coalitions". So this meeting -- a coalition of
> coalitions (often themselves of "coalitions") becomes more and more emptied
> of any democratic content or accoutability.
>
> "It's only picking a rally day" says people thinking democracy is therefore
> unnecessary. No, it's also picking who will speak on the platform that day,
> it's who will pick the message for outreach to the public.
>
> It boggles the mind that so many progressives treat democracy -- actual
> voting, actual counting whether anyone has been elected by anyone else -- as
> so irrelevent.
>
> -- Nathan Newma
Well put, Nathan. I think we are all interested in practicing our beliefs, especially the ones about organizational democracy and accountability. From what I've observed with ANSWER, their so-called "coalition" seems to be a list of endorsing groups with little involvement in the business of the coalition. And the reps from the ANSWER "coalition" who speak at events are always the same small group of IAC/WWP cadre and their close friends within ANSWER.
By the way, I hear that UFPJ is changing their name to United for Peace with ANSWER. ;-p
Chuck0