Well, leaving aside the snotty comments about "not understanding the politics he's dealing with" or whatever that quote was, (and personally I'd say it's a mistake to underestimate the intelligence of someone you've never held a conversation with), I'd say it basically comes down to the conflict over whether if you want to change something, you try to do it from outside or inside.
If there's an issue which concerns you enough to want to do something about it, there are really two ways to approach it: You could join a group which tries to convince politicians to take action on the issue in question, maybe by speaking to them directly or by having a public campaign and encouraging other people to contact politicians about the issue. You're staying out of the actual decision making process but you're trying to make the people who make those decisions realise that your issue deserve consideration.
Or else you could decide that you want to be involved in the actual decision making process. Maybe that's in the form of trying to get elected to an office which has reponsibility for the issue. Or by working for someone who has responsibility for the issue. Something which makes you actively involved in making something happen rather than convincing other people that it needs to happen and waiting for them to act.
So then you have the conflict over whether you stay outside of government etc and never have to compromise what you believe in or work with people who you disagree with. Or if you get involved in government (or any other formal structure) and maybe you can't always be as outspoken as you'd like to on the issues. Maybe you have to compromise. Or you have to work with someone whose politics you hate, without letting them know that you despise them
Well to some people that's compromising your integrity because you're becoming involved in institutions which you might not agree with or you're dealing with people you disagree with.
But which way is more likely to get results?
And just to make this vaguely relevant to that article, instead of a load of abstract ideas...
One of the people quoted there was basically suggesting Bono should have gone to the 'alternative' meeting in Brazil. But ask yourself, would he have got the same amount of publicity as he got for being at the WEF in New York? I'd suspect not. We've all seen how much news coverage this got, and hopefully it will have made more people aware of the issues, hopefully some of them will be inspired to take action about this. And secondly, I'm not saying this with any disrespect to the people who did attend the meeting in Brazil, but to be honest, the people who were at the WEF were the most influential people. One example: US Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill - we all know influential he is, just look at the power he has over the G7 countries to stop them increasing their overseas aid budgets and that's just one example. Think how great it would be to have someone that influential on your side, or any of the countless other influential people at the WEF.
So what I'm saying is that sometimes getting things done is about compromise, about working with people you don't agree with, being involved with organisations which you don't necessarily believe in. Some people are going to accuse you of selling out or compromising your integrity or whatever their choice insult of the day is. But at the end of the day, what's more important? What those people think of you, or what you manage to achieve for a cause you believe in?
:::shuts up::: Sorry for ranting so long.