Prometheus 6

Professor Kim:

The challenge of coalition politics: A blogging think-aloud, part one

This post is an experiment. In recent weeks, I've read a series of articles and blog posts that reflect debates among Democratic activists that could have a pivotal effect on the party's ability to appeal to the constituencies it needs in order to win elections this fall, as well as in 2008. However, rather than tease out all of my thoughts on one post here, I'm going to try to develop those thoughts in three related posts that I'm writing on three different blog sites.

...

I'm going to split the posts this way in the hope of eliciting a range of comments that I'm not likely to get by posting everything here. I'll try to get everything up in the next 24, and I think that I'll have some useful data for a wrap-up post after all is said and done. (And I think I'm going to share that on Prometheus 6 as well. I'm feeling my way toward something here, and I think this process will help me sort it out).

Her first post is up at BlogHer...I'm going to see if I can hold the good professor to her word as regards sharing the wrap-up post.

As for coalition politics...

I think coalitions have weaker membership requirements than alliances...it's the difference between overlapping and common interests. Coalitions partners will agree on some issues, disagree on others and be unconcerned with still others. For instance I find it perfectly reasonable for Black folks to be quiet on immigration issues per se...in fact, I find it interesting there was an outcry for Black American voices before there was a cry for support from European immigrant communities. I also find it reasonable for Black folks to keep an eye on any legislation motivated by concern over any ethnic group. I do not find it reasonable to leap to the defense and support of any and every person or entity in the coalition, regardless of the issue. I will not obstruct what doesn't obstruct me; will probably even lend a hand if asked.

A guy once asked me if I thought "you should be a good person in life". I asked him to let me think about how to say it, because it's an easy answer to misphrase or misunderstand. What I told him was, "A lot of people think being a good person is the same thing as being a sucker. You should be a good person in life...you should not be a sucker."

That's pretty much where I'm at with coalition politics.