andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> Carl's sarcasm is SO persuasive. We start out from a
> position of appalling weakness with no allies. We
> regard coalition building as "regrettable necessity."
> We refuse to compromise with anyone who differs from
> us in the slightest, insisting it's our way or the
> high way. The outcome is totally predictable. We don't
> even get to the able. We don't even get to lose.
You are paying too much attention to Carl's often fun literary exercises as if they came from someone engaged in organizing. You are of course right about coalition buildong -- which is about all I've engaged with for 40 years. But the real question raised by the subject line is not coalition building but how the coalitionb itself should allocate its energies. I've eorked with libertarians on some issues, but really focusing on them for a general coalition -- you've got to be kidding. Isn't there some biblical parable about sowing seeds on infertile ground? And there is at present such a huge constituency out there --10s 0f millions -- who agree with us on everything that is centrsl except the crucial point of the usefulness of mass action. They think there is nothing to be done. Our task is not to wate our time in futile appeal to hard cases but in figuring out ways we can reach and energise this really huge potential army. It is I think mere intellectual snobbery to want to go hunting for the 50 or so libertarians in the whole u.s. we might reach.
I do chat with a libertarian for about 45 minutes each week -- and even pay $30 for the privilege. 8 years ago to recover a badly stooped posture, and for the last seven years to maintain the gain, I have taken training in the Alexander technique, and the trainer is a libertarian. He's bright (a masters in music theory) & very pleasant. He knows I'm a red; but it took me about 4 years to get through to him that I wan't a liberal, & he still backslides on that every so often & I have to remind him. I think he is typical in this -- libertarians operate with a very crude political typology: they just have too few categories. I suspect this applies even to the highbrows at the Cato institute.
Carrol