>I doubt he'd have very kind things to say about the
> Working Families Party either, since you try to lobby the unpersuaded
I don't know that this would be a point of disagreement. My own sense is that in almost any organizing context -- union, political, whatever -- persuading those who disagree with you really isn't that productive, if it's even possible. Better to focus on the people who do agree, but are too demoralized, frightened, cynical, or isolated to do anything. In a union setting your first goal is almost always to develop leadership. So the most critical people to reach, at least initially, are those who agree with you most strongly (and have the other necessary qualities, obviously). Most organizers will tell you that once you've marked someone down as 4 -- definitely against -- the only thing to do is move to the next person as quickly as you can.
One serious objection to this approach is that you may be too quick to dismiss someone as against you when they might only disagree over some peripheral issue. But the basic principle seems right.
> in the interests of greater saintliness, which is a status that the
> ex-Catholic in me hasn't ceased to aspire to, I should turn the other
> cheek.
Well, yes. More seriously, the reason your treatment of Carrol bugs me is that it's contrary to the really admirable way you normally discourage people on this list from drawing lines and then regarding those on the other side as the enemy.
Josh