> Politics is about choices in use of resources. Unions and their allies
> have
> made the judgement that minimum wage and fair share health care are two of
> the best strategies to make advances for working people this year. And
> there are campaigns supporting both of them in states across the country.
---------------------------------------------------
This is an important point which has wider applicability beyond this
discussion.
One of the great misconceptions in politics, especially on the left, is that you get to "choose" your campaigns, rather than have them chosen for you by the opportunities which present themselves. It's the same as in warfare - that is, "politics by other means" - where generals don't really get choose in advance how, where, and when the battles are fought. Their skill (or lack of it) lies in properly assessing the terrain and the so-called relationship of forces as between themselves and their opponents, and then deciding where there is the possibility of advance; where they can't do so no matter how much they want to; and when and where they must retreat, if necessary.
In politics, where those being led don't unquestioningly follow orders as in an army, it is also a matter, in weighing up the relationship of forces, of taking into account the pressures from your own constituency. If you are in close touch with it and honestly lay out the options, it will unfailingly tell you how far and how fast and in what direction it is prepared to go at all stages of the process, which helps you to avoid running either too far ahead or too far behind of it.
I firmly believe this understanding of the art of leadership only comes from the experience of being in organizations involving large numbers of people responding to events which affect their immediate self-interest, preferably at or close to the leadership level. It's only when you're in the field, and especially when you have a commanding view of it, when you're continually assessing the trends which are developing and weighing the alternatives and discussing the next move with others who are so involved that discussions of strategy and tactics can become meaningful. Second-hand written accounts of the situation, no matter how carefully argued and footnoted, are helpful but no substitute. That is why this direction can't come from the academy, or from involvement in very small groups largely isolated from the struggles of very large numbers of people.
Obviously, I'm now more inclined than I used to be to give the leaders the benefit of the doubt in situations from which I'm at one remove. It's something which runs counter to our political milieu where the tendency is to blame the leaders of the mainstream organizations for "betraying" their followers - an insult, incidentally, to the members of these organizations who are presumed not to be able to make their own decisions as independently and as critically as we are able, at a distance, to make them for them on their behalf.
It's also why I more carefully filter the accounts and recommendations of "dissidents" within or outside of these organizations. It's inherent in the nature of dissent to find fault with what the leadership is doing. Dissenters are often bright and committed people, but as they are (literally) not accountable for what they recommend - they don't risk being disgraced or forced out or beaten up or shot by their defeated angry constituencies for their mistakes - they're more inclined to discount the risks or drawbacks of a particular course of action. It's only when they take power and become responsible for the organization and its members, that they weigh strategic consequences more carefully.
This is why you get the phenomena of so many dissidents becoming more "conservative" when they gain power - whether in unions, political parties, or at the level of the state. Of course, in this situation you have to be concerned about the institutional pressures of conservatism inherent in the requirement to preserve the integrity and security of the organization, but, again, it is almost impossible for outsiders like ourselves to judge whether leaders are being excessively or appropriately cautious in response to the internal and external pressures bearing down on them without being deeply involved in these struggles..
In this sense, I agree with what Yoshie and Carrol are always reminding us about the unity of theory and practice, although I don't necessarily regard all of their activities as conforming to the kind of "practice" I associate with the concept. I always give some deference to the opinions expressed by Nathan, John, Chris, and others who close to what they are discussing, even though I might intuitively come to a different conclusion. When I do, I try, not always successfully, to express to my thoughts in a nuanced and qualified way and sometimes in the form of a question.