I'm saying "us," though I know she's talking to -- flattering -- the leftosphere.
"Let me say something a little unexpected: Thank you. Thank you for building a modern, progressive movement in America and standing up to the right-wing Republican noise machine!"So -- by her lights -- am I part of "the right-wing Republican noise machine"? I call myself a liberal, which is -- ironically -- something she won't do:
Posts
123 comments:
Hillary! is all things, all of the time, whatever the circumstances. The smartest woman on the face of the earth. Obama is more and more being marginalized as the inexperienced lightweight. He'll never be the dark horse in this race. Hillary! has this one all wrapped up.
"I am [a right-wing Republican noise machine]!"
They're all there in one room clapping in unison, and we're a noise machine. Got it.
You're nothing to her. She is a cold and calculating woman who I find myself liking more and more, but trusting not at all.
"Progressives" are 60s Liberals with Donna Karan clothes, a Prius, fully-funded 401K, fair trade coffee, and a World Music collection. Daycare, Montessori, and trendy pets. They were horrified by The Graduate's one-word advice "Plastics", but only for a moment. Now they live on plastic., and have regular plastic surgery.
Initially admirers of Stalin, then Mao, then Che and Fidel, they still read Chomsky and nod because they can both afford to vacation in the Hamptons. They applauded when Hugo Chavez called the US President Satan, even while he becomes just another brutal communist dictator. Vietnam is a hammer, and all military issues now look like nails.
They long for Sweden's democratic socialism; well, that plus gated communities and private schools. They love government planning, but only if they get to be in charge. They know what's best for you, and want to to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. The common good being them, of course.
Progressives are 60s liberals with a good focus-grouped rebranding. They're still the same old Tide, but Now With A New Formula!. The price went up, too.
Liberals have spent the last forty years so completely destroying the reputation of the word "liberal", they are now afraid to use it, and have turned to the word "progressive". (hopefully "liberal" can be restored eventually to its original 18th century legacy) Soon the left will destroy the reputation of the word "progressive", and move on again. I suggest the "know-nothings".
"Progressive" comes pre-destroyed: it's been used for decades now by people who are too far left to be willing to call themselves liberal. (What Pogo said.)
Let me say something a little unexpected: Thank you.
How is it unexpected that she'd want to flatter a room full of bloggers?
Althouse wrote:
I call myself a liberal
You can call yourself whatever you like, but it doesn't make it so.
non-bien pensant = right wing
free speech = noise machine
Pogo wrote:
"Progressives" are 60s Liberals ... Initially admirers of Stalin, then Mao, then Che and Fidel, they still read Chomsky and nod because they can both afford to vacation in the Hamptons.
Pogo, why do you post such garbage? For example, did it ever occur to you that many people who regard themselves as progressives weren't even alive in the 60s? Do you find it easier to simply ignore reality as you soldier on in your little black and white world?
Pogo, why don't you save us all some time by just writing "I don't like progressives?" Not that I care about your opinion particularly, but it's far better to get straight to the punchline without having to wade through the ignorant babbling first.
Re: get straight to the punchline
It's no joke, so there's no punchline. I gave examples supporting my argument that progressives are merely 60s liberals in socialist bureaucrat's clothes.
And I disagree. Writing should be interesting, funny, and challenging, using metaphors, evidence, allusions, and lyric combinations. Otherwise, why bother? Instead, one could simply tick off "yes/no" or "for/against" on a series of statements, but learn nothing at all.
Cyrus, while I am a conservative, I enjoy seeing good arguments opposing or critiquing what I write. I do indeed learn from them, and am frequently humbled, especially when I stray into hubris. And I don't dislike progressives, only their policies.
Finally, ignorance cannot be derived merely from the fact that we disagree. If you reject my statements, do so with without ad hominems; they merely diminish you.
gahrie wrote:
Liberals have spent the last forty years so completely destroying the reputation of the word "liberal"
Liberals did that, huh? Why don't you give us some sources for this interpretation of US political history?
Your claim certainly doesn't match H.W. Brand's analysis; perhaps you can tell me why he's wrong.
Pogo,
Please explain why your definition of a "progressive" is correct given that many of the people I know who regard themselves as "progressives" were not alive in the 60s. Are they wrong to call themselves progressives? Or, more likely, is your definition far too narrow to be fairly regarded as anything other than ad hominem? And if so, would you like a free pass for the hypocritical mini-lecture at the end of your response?
Cyrus:
Please cite one mainstream prominent liberal politician who is willing to admit he is a liberal. You can't. They know that the term liberal is electoral poison. That's why they call themselves progressives now.
I sure hope your question was rhetorical because it seems obvious to me that what she was referring to conservative dominance of radio talk shows.
Are they wrong to call themselves progressives?
No, they are simply unaware where their beliefs and policy preferences arose from. The history of Marxism to democratic socialism in the US goes back over 100 years, but the current crop of leftists calling themselves progressives has its origins firmly in 1960s liberalism, which turned radical for a time.
So no, it's not too narrow, and not an ad hominem.
How timely:
New generation of activists re-form 1960s Students for a Democratic Society
Remember the SDS, the proto-terrorists?
gahrie wrote:
Please cite one mainstream prominent liberal politician who is willing to admit he is a liberal.
This is an entirely irrelevant response to my post. I'm not challenging the claim that few national politicians identify themselves as liberals. What I quite clearly challenge in my first response to you is this assertion of yours:
Liberals have spent the last forty years so completely destroying the reputation of the word "liberal"
Again, can you defend this statement? On what historical evidence do you base your claim that liberals are responsible for the destruction of liberalism?
Pogo wrote:
Remember the SDS, the proto-terrorists?
More ignorant babbling...
Aren't you embarrassed to be so uninformed Pogo?
Pogo wrote:
No, they are simply unaware where their beliefs and policy preferences arose from.
And exactly how do you claim to know this?
Pogo, you are making a mistake by assuming that other people think as you do, and more to the point, have your peculiar perspective on political history.
For example, I don't know of any "progressives" who have acknowledged being admirers of Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc... On what basis do you insist that they must? In fact, when I read your definition of what a "progressive" is, I have to conclude I know not a single one. However I do know many people who identify themselves as progressives." Therefore, in your opinion, how have they managed to get it all so wrong?
BTW, you wrote this earlier:
[Progressives] applauded when Hugo Chavez called the US President Satan, even while he becomes just another brutal communist dictator.
Pretending for the moment that your claim is true (and clearly it is not), when did rightwingers stop liking dictators?
We have met the enemy and he is indeed us.
Cyrus, one can be a Stalinist and be born long after Joseph was dead, one can be a "progressive" and be born long after the 60s. One can also mislabel, or accurately label, or use different labels. Classical liberalism (small l) is in many ways what we call today conservatism (small c). Too, one can describe a general observation about progressives and be just as accurate as one who describes in minute detail.
Pogo is correct, those that frequently (though not always) who describe themselves as progressives fit the mold that Pogo has described. Just as one can describe an ideology such as progressivism so that only a very few meet the criteria, and then the description can be changed/modified to exclude those you don't want.
The argument you put forth is based primarily on semantics methinks.
Cheers from a Nuckledragging, Neandertholic Conservative that 75 years ago would have been called a Liberal. ;-)
Aristophanes = GM Roper
I'm saying "us," though I know she's talking to -- flattering -- the leftosphere.
This blog is generally not considered part of that. While this blog is must-read for the American Idol-sphere, astute commentary on law, politics, and policy really isn't its bailiwick.
Re: "SDS, the proto-terrorists?
More ignorant babbling...Aren't you embarrassed to be so uninformed"
David Horowitz [snip]: "Three out of four of the drafters of the famous 1962 Port Huron Statement were "red diaper babies" and Marxists. The fourth was Hayden himself, who by his own account in his autobiography, Reunion, learned his politics in Berkeley in 1960 at the feet of children of the Old Left. By 1965, SDS president Carl Oglesby was proclaiming publicly, in a famous speech, that it was time to "name the System" that we all wanted to destroy. The name of the System was "corporate capitalism," and it was analyzed by SDS leaders in pretty much the same terms as in Party texts read by the Communist cadres in Moscow, Havana, and Hanoi.
Hayden was already calling the Black Panthers "America's Vietcong," and planning the riot he was going to stage at the Democratic convention in Chicago that August [1968]."
The SDS declared "war on Amerikkka"at its Flint War Council in 1969
October 1969, the Weathermen orchestrated the “Days of Rage” -timed to coincide with the trials of the Chicago Seven- during which they rioted in the streets, destroying public property, and detonating an explosive at the Haymarket police statue, in attempt to "Bring the war home."
December 1969, Weathermen bombed police vehicles to protest the murders of two Black Panther leaders.
March 1970: the organization issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government, using for the first time its new name, the "Weather Underground Organization."
Shortly after that Declaration, three members of the Weather Underground accidentally killed themselves in a Manhattan townhouse at 8 West 11th St. while attempting to build a bomb they had intended to plant at a social dance in Fort Dix, New Jersey -- an event attended by U.S. Army soldiers.
The Weather Underground went on to claim credit for some 25 bombings over the next several years, detonating explosives at the rebuilt Haymarket statue, a bathroom at the Pentagon, the Capitol barber shop, the New York City police headquarters, and a variety of other targets.
"FBI files from 1976, recently made public under the Freedom of Information Act, confirm the connections between Weatherman, Havana, and Moscow. Weatherman leaders like Mark Rudd traveled illegally to Havana in 1968 to engage in terrorist training. There, camps set up by Soviet KGB Colonel Vadim Kotchergine were educating Westerners both in Marxist philosophy and urban warfare."
You can call yourself whatever you like, but it doesn't make it so.
Same applies to Cyrus Pinkerton, who posted the comment. Same applies to anyone. So what?
More ignorant babbling...
Aren't you embarrassed to be so uninformed Pogo?
Ah, to be all of 26, and to know everything (except how to conduct civil discourse) like Cyrus.
Aristophanes wrote:
[O]ne can be a Stalinist and be born long after Joseph was dead
This was never in dispute.
[O]ne can be a "progressive" and be born long after the 60s.
Not according to Pogo's definition.
I'm glad you acknowledge that Pogo's definition is garbage. But wait, you then write this...
Pogo is correct, those that frequently (though not always) who describe themselves as progressives fit the mold that Pogo has described.
As a person who likes numbers, I'm pleased that you are attempting to quantify the issue at hand. Since you claim that those who identify themselves as "progressives" frequently fit Pogo's definition, I assume you have some polling or survey evidence to support your assertion. Please provide me with a citation and I will be happy to look at whatever evidence you have.
I don't claim to know a representative sample of American "progressives," but of those progressives who I know, none fit Pogo's narrow definition. None come anywhere near to fitting Pogo's definition. This makes me very skeptical of Pogo's claim, especially since he is so often wrong, and so openly guided by partisan hackery.
However I'm delighted that you are stepping forward to provide some evidence to support Pogo's position, and I'm especially keen to see the evidence you have relating to frequencies of certain characteristics among progressives. It's definitely something I'm looking forward to seeing.
cyrus pinkerton gibbered...
gahrie wrote:
Liberals have spent the last forty years so completely destroying the reputation of the word "liberal"
"Liberals did that, huh? Why don't you give us some sources for this interpretation of US political history?"
Do you really want to wade through FORTY years of newsclips? The failure that was Carter. Mondale. Dukakis. HillaryCare? Didn't think so. You're simply trying to set a goalpost so far out there as to be impossible to deal with in a blog comments section.
So we won't. You lose, due to the obstreperousness of your demand.
Pogo,
As you would know if you read anything other than the writing of David Horowitz, the Weatherman had split from the SDS by 1969, prior to the "Days of Rage" and the other incidents you describe. To incorrectly assign those actions to the SDS shows ignorance.
Again, describing the SDS as "proto-terrorists" is inaccurate and goofy.
The SDS, instigators of the Chicago DNC riots in 1968 (an act of terror) gave birth to and were replaced by the Weathermen, much as 1960s liberals gave birth to and were replaced by Progressives, as was my initial argument.
"It was just a question of what your lame excuse would be. And now I know."
Cyrus, you are arguing in bad faith. What's your point, other than initiating some Is Not! Is So! juvenile exchange? Snotty retorts like that are a waste of time for adults. Are you game for discussion, or are you going to do that piss-ant stuff instead?
psginfinity wrote:
You lose, due to the obstreperousness of your demand.
Well, to be fair, I didn't expect anyone to produce any evidence. It was just a question of what lame excuses would be given. And now I know.
Cyrus what do you call the people who called themselves Progressives before you and your friends chose to call yourselves Progressives?
As for SDS being the original terrorists, it is true. I knew a bunch of them from college. They wound up on the 10 most wanted list. At least one of them is still in jail doing hard time for the Nyack Brinks Robbery.
On 9/11/01 the NYTimes wrote a puff piece about Bill Ayers, who had set off a bomb in the Pentagon in the 60s. After jail, he became a professor of education at the U of IL Chicago campus.
We could go back another generation to the Communists who infested the Roosevelt administration, and who founded the left wing of the Democrat party, but that would be too time consuming.
Pogo wrote:
The SDS, instigators of the Chicago DNC riots in 1968 (an act of terror) gave birth to and were replaced by the Weathermen, much as 1960s liberals gave birth to and were replaced by Progressives, as was my initial argument.
Factually wrong. Pogo, the SDS did not instigate the riots in Chicago in 1968. Nor were the protests an "act of terror." Clearly you are unfamiliar with the Walker Report. Your "history" is plainly wrong and your analysis is faulty.
Pogo, I am not arguing in bad faith. I'm surprised that you don't recognize that I'm asking people to support their claims with evidence and specifically noting when they don't. Apparently you consider my preference for a fact-based discussion "snotty." If so, too bad for you.
If you want to play "Daddy" to the commenters (and I can't imagine why you would), do so fairly by applying the same standards to all. Otherwise you just look like a hypocrite.
dlb,
I don't call myself a progressive.
Honestly, I have no idea what the progressives I know called themselves before "progressives." Since many of them are relatively new voters, I don't even know that they've changed the way they identify themselves.
I don't see that it matters in any case. The pertinent question is not how they came to identify themselves as progressives but whether or not they fit the narrow description given by Pogo. And the answer is that they don't.
snitch wrote:
Same applies to Cyrus Pinkerton, who posted the comment. Same applies to anyone. So what?
Actually there's a difference. Some identify themselves in a way that is consistent with their stated views; others identify themselves in a way that is not consistent with their views. It's called accuracy in self-reporting.
Frankly, for someone as old and wise as you, I'm surprised that a youngster like me has to explain this to you.
snitch wrote:
Ah, to be all of 26, and to know everything (except how to conduct civil discourse) like Cyrus.
Who would have known that "mister snitch" is actually Miss Manners?
Putting aside the ageism evident in your comment, and putting aside the wild illogic of your premise (i.e., that by challenging incorrect information supplied by others I claim to "know everything"), and putting aside the hypocrisy in your remark ... Oh wait, that's putting aside everything in your comment. In that case, you've said nothing intelligent that would deserve a response.
Honestly, I have no idea what the progressives I know called themselves before "progressives." Since many of them are relatively new voters, I don't even know that they've changed the way they identify themselves.
That's not what I'd asked you.
Cyrus the term Progressive has a well established provenance in American politics. Regardless of whether you agree with Pogo's specific formulation, he's correct that the use of the term Progressive predates your generation and those born since the 60's. It's actually been in use since the later 19th century.
The reason that people are now condescending to you is that it's apparent that either you're unaware of this fact, or simply intend to be obstreperous.
1. the narrow description given by Pogo
It's not a formal definition, Cyrus, but an editorial critique.
2. the SDS did not instigate the riots in Chicago in 1968
Tom Hayden, head of the SDS, admits he was initially convicted with the Chicago Seven of inciting a riot at the 1968 Democratic convention. He writes: "There is no doubt that many of us, myself certainly included, evolved from nonviolent direct action to acceptance of self-defense or street fighting against the police and authorities by the decade’s end."
He omits his speech in Chicago, where Hayden addressed 10,000 to 15,000 demonstrators at the bandshell in Grant Park, opposite the DNC's headquarters in the Hilton. SDS leader Hayden told the audience: "Make sure that if blood is going to flow, let it flow all over the city. If we're going to be disrupted and violated, let the whole stinking city be disrupted. I'll see you in the streets!"
SDS were proto-terrorists.
In 2004, more conservatives voted for Kerry than liberals for Bush. Now it's perfectly fine for you to be in a such a statistically irrelevant subset of the electorate -- but it just means that though you may call yourself a liberal, you certainly don't vote like one.
And I don't know too many liberals who's favorite hobby is linking to one partisan attack on Democrats after another.
"Hey look at this great piece by Charles Krauthammer bashing Obama."
"Oh, look what Jonah Goldberg says about Hillary."
"Isn't it funny what Glenn says about the Democratic Congress?"
You look more like a Bush-voting Democrat hater than a liberal.
Cyrus, are you always so exacting? OK, I'll play by your rules. Since you stated: "I don't claim to know a representative sample of American "progressives," but of those progressives who I know, none fit Pogo's narrow definition. None come anywhere near to fitting Pogo's definition," please supply us with names, phone numbers and addresses of all the progressives you know so that we can observe and determine if in fact they do NOT represent what Pogo claimed they do.
Also you will note that I didn't say always, I said frequently and that is of the progressives I know, both my age (early 60's) and some quite a bit younger (early thirties like my new son in law) and those adjectives/phrases/terms (do you need definitions for those, or will you take my word for it?) seem to fit pretty well. Exactly, not always!
The tendency to ask for numbers and examples is a red herring. If you want numbers, look them up yourself and prove him wrong. If you want to be argumentative and obstreperous for itself, keep doing what you are doing, cause you are doing a good job at imitating a juvenile thought pattern.
Let's see. Hillary will not call herself a liberal. You will call yourself a liberal. There are tons of progressive comment-makers here who say that you are not one of them.
Leaving aside the questionable intelligence of that last group, maybe it makes sense to see how to reconcile all of these.
Perhaps progressives are not liberals any longer. Perhaps you still are. That would be a tidy explanation, more so even than the idea that one or another is incorrect.
That makes you a free agent, Ann! An orphan! Homeless, from a party perspective!
"more conservatives voted for Kerry than liberals for Bush."
True. But more conservatives voted for Bush than liberals voted for Kerry.
***"Leaving aside the questionable intelligence of that last group"
When saying this, I meant not all progressive commenters, but that subset which seems to think Althouse is a right-winger.
That Liberals are to the right of Progressives should not be in dispute.
That Progressives might call a Liberal 'Right-Wing' should not be surprising.
That disruptive argumentation is rarely followed by evidence but often followed by insult should not be so predictable.
'Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.'-DPM Democrat, Liberal.
I can't argue with that very much. Although I think it goes without saying, that if everything to the right of a progressive is right-wing, then the overwhelming majority of the country is right-wing.
So I guess I am saying that if progressives truly think that everyone to their right is right-wing, it is the progressive outlook that is unrealistic in this regard.
Liberalism is dead. Ted Kennedy's "Saddam's torture chambers re-opened at Abu Ghraib" and Dick Durbin's spewing how the guards at Gitmo are Nazis are two prime examples of gas erupting from the still-putrefying corpse.
They love the state. But why do they love the state? One more verboten question in an ever expanding list.
Jim C,
All too true, so just what do we call irresponsible fools such as Kennedy and Durbin.
dlb wrote:
Cyrus the term Progressive has a well established provenance in American politics. Regardless of whether you agree with Pogo's specific formulation, he's correct that the use of the term Progressive predates your generation and those born since the 60's. It's actually been in use since the later 19th century.
dlb, I have to assume you didn't read Pogo's original post on the subject. Otherwise you wouldn't be babbling mindlessly about how the term "progressive" has been used in the past. Can we agree that Pogo's definition doesn't apply to the "progressives" of the early and mid 1900s, for instance? Can we also agree that Pogo was not referring to progressives of the 60s, 70s and 80s? For example, note Pogo's reference to the Prius (late 1990s) as a defining feature of "progressives." Note Pogo's references to Donna Karan clothes (mid '80s) and fair trade coffee (late 80s). He isn't defining what progressives were at some point in the past; he's defining what today's progressive is (e.g., a 60s liberal).
Again, let's be clear about this: Pogo and I are NOT debating how the term "progressive" has been defined in the past, contrary to what you have wrongly concluded. Pogo has offered a list of characteristics that define the modern "progressive." I've found NO consistency between his list and the characteristics of the progressives I know. So far no one has provided a shred of evidence to support Pogo's claim, including you. If you'd like to enter the reality-based debate that Pogo is carefully avoiding, please provide evidence to support Pogo's contention. I'd be thrilled to see someone try.
But I suspect no one will actually provide evidence; you certainly haven't offered any here. Instead, you brush aside the fact that I don't agree with Pogo's "specific formulation," but that's the whole point of my objection to Pogo's post. Can you see that now? In the future, I wish you would pay closer attention if you are going to insert yourself in discussions in which I am involved.
The reason that people are now condescending to you is that it's apparent that either you're unaware of this fact, or simply intend to be obstreperous.
Well, dlb, I'm a bit of a stickler for logic and accuracy. For example, although I'm well aware of the fact that the term "progressive" has been used in various ways in US politics for over one hundred years, I didn't mention it because it's not at all relevant to the discussion! It's very kind of you to condescend by raising this irrelevant point, however. Perhaps you find that condescension is particularly gratifying when you lose the plot and make a totally irrelevant point. Frankly, I don't mind condescension if it hits the mark; however, in this case, you're well wide of the mark.
Since it is clear Cyrus did not live through the sixties, and admittedly was not an eyewitness to that history, what is his source for contradicting what I believe is Pogo's accurate summary.
Who are you going to believe?
Cyrus or your lying eyes?
fatmouse wrote:
Oh, bullshit, you pretentious little asshole. Who do you think you are to waddle in whining "NOOO! Your facts are wrong!" without any evidence? Did you expect us to simply accept your divine wisdom without question?
Wow! That's some serious attitude from a not very bright rodent.
Look fatmouse, you are welcome to provide some evidence to support Pogo's claim if you can find some. The truth is that whenever I undercut Pogo's claims with facts, he makes up some other garbage. If you want to compete in a reality-based discussion, do some research as it's terribly clear that you don't have anything remotely intelligent to offer as is.
Oh, one more thing, fatmouse: tone it down. I don't know what your relationship to Pogo is (and for Pogo's sake, I hope it's none), but Pogo's a big boy and can take care of himself. If Althouse thinks I'm out of line, she'll let me know. So try to play nice if you can, and if you can't, stick with your usual routine of scavenging for crumbs and spreading disease, okay?
vnjagvet,
Apparently you aren't a reader either. Pogo was not describing people in the 60s. His description reads in part:
"Progressives" are 60s Liberals with Donna Karan clothes, a Prius, fully-funded 401K, fair trade coffee, and a World Music collection. Daycare, Montessori, and trendy pets. They were horrified by The Graduate's one-word advice "Plastics", but only for a moment. Now they live on plastic., and have regular plastic surgery.
Do you understand that the Prius was not available in the 60s? Do you know that Donna Karan clothes weren't available in the 60s? Why do you think this is about the 60s?
Pogo is describing today's "progressives" as having been "liberals" in the 60s. Get it now?
Sheesh!
Aristophanes,
Don't worry, I knew you wouldn't come up with any evidence at all. It's so very typical. And you had the nerve to use the word "frequently" too, in describing how often Pogo's description applies. What does "frequently" mean to you anyway?
Or look at it this way: What is the value of a description that is wrong more often than it is right? I'd argue that a definition that is far more likely to be inaccurate than accurate has limited or no value. Therefore, unless you contend that roughly half or more of all progressives fit Pogo's description (i.e., drive a Prius, wear Donna Karan clothes, etc...), then the description is useless.
It is interesting that the single qualifying progressive that you mention (your new son-in-law) is in his 30s, which of course means that he was not a liberal in the 60s as Pogo's definition requires. Oops!
But here's the funniest part of what you wrote:
The tendency to ask for numbers and examples is a red herring. If you want numbers, look them up yourself and prove him wrong. If you want to be argumentative and obstreperous for itself, keep doing what you are doing, cause you are doing a good job at imitating a juvenile thought pattern.
Asking for numbers and examples (i.e., evidence) is a red herring? Really? When did asking for evidence become a red herring? Should we ask a law professor about the relevance of evidence in establishing truth?
Now, you suggest that I look up "numbers" to prove Pogo wrong. Apparently you are a stranger to logic. I've challenged the validity of Pogo's claim. If he wants to convince me that it has any basis in fact, the burden of proof is on him. I don't understand why you'd think it would be otherwise. For example, let's say I make the following claim:
George Bush drinks a pint of tequila every night.
Is it your position that my claim should be accepted as the truth unless you can prove it wrong?
Finally, I'm not sure what you identify as a "juvenile thought pattern" but I'm keen to learn more about it. For example, why is it that you consider the demand for supporting facts a "juvenile thought pattern?" And why is it that you associate a lack of critical thought with "adult thought patterns?"
If you come up with any contrary evidence to kill my Bush-tequila claim, be sure to let us know before the story goes to press.
Cyrus gibbered
"I call myself a liberal"
"You can call yourself whatever you like, but it doesn't make it so."
First, no one made you the arbiter of anything, least of a liberal. Your egoism certainly showed up early.
Cyrus further gibbered,
"Pogo, why do you post such garbage? For example, did it ever occur to you that many people who regard themselves as progressives weren't even alive in the 60s? Do you find it easier to simply ignore reality as you soldier on in your little black and white world?'
It didn't occur to YOU that Pogo NAILED the phenotype of the modern (un)Progessive. It scarcely matters that two generations were born after Altamont. Very little new thought has transpired since then. Pogo's description differs only in detail from the reality you, I, or anyone meet.
He nailed it. And your egoism and narcissism prevent you from seeing that.
Cyrus further bloviated,
"Your claim certainly doesn't match H.W. Brand's analysis; perhaps you can tell me why he's wrong."
First, a little etiquette:
YOU brought up Brand, apparently some
obscure Progressive historian, so it's incumbent upon YOU to summarize, AND provide links.
Pogo wrote:
Tom Hayden, head of the SDS, admits he was initially convicted with the Chicago Seven of inciting a riot at the 1968 Democratic convention.
No, no, no! Tom Hayden was NOT head of the SDS in 1968. He was president from 1962 to 1963. In fact, if you knew anything about the SDS, you would know that there was a policy that SDS leaders leave the organization after a few years to provide room for new leadership. So here again you misrepresent the SDS by false association with Hayden's activities in 1968.
SDS were proto-terrorists.
Again you make this incorrect claim based on errors in your recollection of history and faulty logic. Tom Hayden was not in a leadership position of the SDS in 1968 (a false claim by you). Weatherman was not a part of the SDS at the time of the actions you describe in an earlier post (another false claim by you). The SDS did not instigate the 1968 Chicago riots (yet another false claim made by you). Pogo, you would be well served by reading the Walker report before you accuse the SDS of terrorism.
You seem determined to link the SDS to terrorism, Pogo, and you seem willing to distort or fabricate as needed to establish the link. This leads me to believe that you have no real evidence of such a link; otherwise you would have produced it by now. Why can't you simply accept you are wrong about the SDS?
Cyrus continues to gibber...
"Please explain why your definition of a "progressive" is correct given that many of the people I know who regard themselves as "progressives" were not alive in the 60s. Are they wrong to call themselves progressives?"
Pogo NAILED the type. Almost anyone looking, acting, and behaving as such, is a Progressive, whether they like it or not.
And if they haven't sold out their personal values enough to make the mint needed to live such a lifestyle no matter: just give them a decade or so...
Cyrus put son his John Kerry mask:
"Again, can you defend this statement? On what historical evidence do you base your claim that liberals are responsible for the destruction of liberalism?"
Whom do YOU blame? Reagan?
Reagan's vision would've gone NOWHERE if it didn't address Liberalism's failings so perfectly. If they (read: you) had any decency, grasp of reality, forthrightness, perspective, and spine, they'd have updated Liberalism to account for the challenges of Stagflation, Soviet expansion, welfare's destruction of the poor, Africa's kleptocracies, Rwanda's genocide, and a host of other ills.
But they didn't. They couldn't.
You know that. And your ego prevents you from admitting it.
Cyrus Pinkerton, you are a snot.
psginfinity,
I can't find anything of intelligence to respond to in your comments. Trust me, I've looked, and there's nothing even remotely intelligent there.
However, two observations:
1. You are in no position to lecture anyone about etiquette. If you are going to claim etiquette is important to you, you should start with your own posts.
2. You wrote:
Pogo's description differs only in detail from the reality
Well, interestingly, descriptions aren't really supposed to differ in detail from reality. If descriptions differ in detail from reality, how are they useful as descriptions?
For example, how is this description useful?
A lion is a small animal, about 10 ounces, it's pink with blue spots, and it has 6 legs. It lives in caves and eats worms.
Hey, as you would say, the "description differs only in detail from the reality."
Good luck on your lion hunt, psg!
psginfinity wrote:
Cyrus Pinkerton, you are a snot.
I guess you're still working out the kinks in your personal campaign for proper etiquette, huh?
By the way, as long as you're working on self-improvement, please find yourself an introductory book on logic. This statement of yours shows that you don't understand the concepts of sets and subsets:
Pogo NAILED the type. Almost anyone looking, acting, and behaving as such, is a Progressive, whether they like it or not.
You see, assuming that you are correct that the very few people Pogo's description covers consider themselves "progressives," they would constitute a subset of all "progressives" rather that the complete set itself. And if you learn a little bit about logic, you will discover that the objects in a set are not defined by describing the elements in a subset.
So while you rant on about how Pogo "nailed it," please remember (for later, after your introduction to logic) that I was right and I told you so.
Cyrus,
Let me remind you that "differs only in detail" does NOT extend to twisting a description like a pretzel.
Your twisted description of a lion speaks glowingly of your imagination.
Pink?
Worm-eating?
Projecting?
Re: "Tom Hayden was not in a leadership position of the SDS in 1968"
Better tell CNN:
"Young peace activists had met at a camp in Lake Villa, Illinois on March 23 to plan a protest march at the convention. Anti-war leaders including David Dellinger (editor of Liberation magazine and chairman of the National Mobilization Committee to End War in Vietnam) Rennie Davis, head of the Center for Radical Research and a leader of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Vernon Grizzard, a draft resistance leader, and Tom Hayden (also a leader of the Students for a Democratic Society) coordinated efforts with over 100 anti-war groups."
Better tell NYU:
"SDS secretary Carl Davidson designates the Columbia action as the model for all campus organizing efforts by SDS in the 1968-69 academic year, while radical leader Tom Hayden describes the action as "a new tactical stage" in the development of student protest. Hayden considers the Columbia action a means of "bringing the war home," and calls on other universities to emulate the Columbia model."
And from DiscoverTheNetwork.org (because the old New Left doesn't like to admit these things):
"At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, SDS protestors, organized by Tom Hayden, created a riot in order to destroy the electoral chances of the pro-war liberal Hubert Humphrey, and thereby set the stage for a confrontation with the Nixon Administration over the Vietnam War. Hayden and his cohorts -- including Jerry Rubin, Abby Hoffman and Black Panther Bobby Seale -- were arrested and indicted for crossing state lines to incite a riot. They became known as The Chicago Seven. In a celebrated trial (whose guilty verdict was subsequently overturned on a technicality), they were given token sentences.
In 1969 SDS began imploding into factions. One of them, a group calling itself Weatherman, was elected to SDS leadership and proclaimed that the time had come to launch a race war on behalf of the Third World and against the United States. The new entity dissolved SDS and formed a terrorist cult in its place, which was given the name Weather Underground."
Either you don't understand how the SDS was actually run, or you're being dishonest. And either you don't understand how the SDS promoted violence, or you're being dishonest. Regardless, you're wrong.
Snot (N) An arrogant or conceited person
Cyrus, your attempt to tell Ann that she couldn't self-describe as a liberal gave you away. You went downhill from there, bring an obscure historian into the mix, then demanding a book's worth of proof in a blog post. Or can your lack of conscience blind you to that, too?
Not only are you a snot, if anything, I was being kind.
Now on to the more serious error: Pogo spoke of a type, arguably THE (un)Progressive archetype. Whereby if all the (un)Progressives had the means, they'd look, act, shop, and live in a similar way. Details would differ; for example, I know a Progressive who actually, willingly, sent her only child to a DC public school. Had an old Honda Accord, if memory serves.
Perspective. You get that in the real world. Keep this thread in your clippings, and talk to me again when you're pushing middle age. I'll nod sagely, and welcome you back to humanity...
The Weatherman faction of SDS was composed of radical SDS members who wanted to take the revolution to the streets.
If there was an organizational difference between them and the rest of SDS, it was not much, as they could not organize their way out of a paper bag. I know. I sat through some of their meetings, I knew some of the leaders.
I was living in Chicago at the time. I knew what they wanted to do and what kind of reaction it would create, so I left town for the duration of the convention.
Citing memoirs, which are necessarily self-serving as few people want to confess to felonies, and histories, written by former members with axes to grind and scores to settle -- the lot of them, won't help you.
I was an eyewitness. They were violent radicals.
I dunno, Ann...
Do you consider yourself a part of the 'right wing Republican noise machine?'
I think it is pretty clear that included in her description is people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and certain blogs which openly proclaim themselves as biased towards the right, i.e. Little Green Footballs and Michelle Malkin.
She never mentioned this blog, so why are you assuming that she meant you? A belief that deep down you consider yourself to be a member of the Republican noise machine, or an automatic reaponse?
I think lefty readers of this blog regard me as right wing. I don't think she thinks about me, though she says she reads blogs. I don't think she does. I assume she gets maybe a one-page summary of what's in the blogs, something she spends one minute or less a day on. But if she did read the blogs, I imagine she would read the blogs that occasionally express hatred toward me and so, if she got to that point, would view me as part of the right wing and hence the right-wing noise machine. See?
And to amplify Ann's point, I point you to the treatment Joe Lieberman received at the hands of Leftists and other (un)Progressives. Not to mention Cyrus "The Snot" Pinkerton's breezy arrogation of Ann's right to self-description.
Blue Texan: you may call yourself a liberal, you certainly don't vote like one.
Ann votes pro-choice, for homosexual marriage, for Congressional Democrats, for Clinton. The only issue she appears to disagree with "liberals" on is the war on terror.
And I don't know too many liberals who's favorite hobby is linking to one partisan attack on Democrats after another.
Well, I routinely criticize the GOP. I guess that means I'm not a conservative? I criticize my party because I expect more from them. Perhaps Ann's reasons are similar?
You look more like a Bush-voting Democrat hater than a liberal.
Hah. Please list the qualifications for being a liberal. I'm serious:
1) what measure do you use to classify people as liberal?
2) And are they allowed to voice criticism of fellow liberal Democrats? If not, why not?>
/btw, as an Austin/Dallas native, I contest you referring to yourself as a "Texan". You can call yourself whatever you like, but it doesn't make it so :)
If [liberals] had any decency, grasp of reality, forthrightness, perspective, and spine, they'd have updated Liberalism to account for the challenges of Stagflation, Soviet expansion, welfare's destruction of the poor, Africa's kleptocracies, Rwanda's genocide, and a host of other ills.
Many of them did! That's what neoconservatives are -- liberals who got a clue.
psginfinity,
Although it's very late, I'm going to make a special effort to show some patience with you even though I find your poor reading comprehension extremely frustrating.
Let's look at what I originally wrote:
You can call yourself whatever you like, but it doesn't make it so.
These are lowlights from two of your recent responses:
Cyrus, your attempt to tell Ann that she couldn't self-describe as a liberal gave you away.
Not to mention Cyrus "The Snot" Pinkerton's breezy arrogation of Ann's right to self-description.
psg, apparently you don't read well. Nowhere do I deny Ann the "right to self-description." What I indicate in my one sentence comment is that although Ann may describe herself as a liberal, her description may not be accurate.
In case it's still not clear, let me give you a hypothetical example. You may describe yourself as well-educated, but the bulk of available evidence suggests that such a "self-description" is inaccurate. I make no attempt to deny you the "right" to "self-describe" in this (hypothetical, of course) example, but I would feel obliged to acknowledge what I regard as false advertising.
Are you starting to catch on now?
psginfinity wrote:
I point you to the treatment Joe Lieberman received at the hands of Leftists
Yes, poor Joe Lieberman! What did the mean "Leftists" do to him, aside from voting for his opponent in the Democratic primary?
Speaking of meanies, you wrote this:
Not only are you a snot, if anything, I was being kind.
Ouch! I can't tell you how much that hurts me! Thank goodness you made an effort to be kind.
Okay, one more laugh from the psginfinity files ...
psginfinity wrote:
Cyrus Pinkerton, you are a snot ... Snot (N) An arrogant or conceited person
followed up by this:
Keep this thread in your clippings, and talk to me again when you're pushing middle age. I'll nod sagely, and welcome you back to humanity...
Heh.
Pogo,
Let's start by reviewing the three sources you cite:
1. CNN - The CNN identification is simply wrong. Tom Hayden was NOT in a leadership position of the SDS in 1968. This is easy to check, of course. At that time, the SDS national leadership was as follows:
National Secretary: Mike Spiegel
Education Secretary: Bob Pardun
Inter‑organizational Secretary: Carl Davidson
If you believe that Tom Hayden had a national leadership position in the SDS in 1968, please state what his leadership position was.
2. NYU - This source does NOT identify Hayden as holding a leadership position in the SDS. You're attempting to mislead here by providing a citation that mentions the SDS and "radical leader Tom Hayden" in the same sentence without suggesting a connection between the two.
3. "Discover the Network" (DTN) - Apparently you haven't noticed the contradiction between the account given by DTN and CNN regarding the Chicago riots. According to CNN, Hayden "coordinated efforts with over 100 anti-war groups." The CNN statement is reasonably accurate. According to DTN "SDS protestors, organized by Tom Hayden, created a riot." The DTN statement is inaccurate. Of course, if you read the Walker Report (this is now the third time I've mentioned it), you will learn that the primary agitators in Chicago 1968 were MOBE and the Youth International Party, NOT the SDS as you repeatedly claim. Incidentally, Tom Hayden was a leader within MOBE, and along with Rennie Davis helped to organize the Chicago demonstrations in 1968.
All of this information is readily available online. Why you continue to misrepresent the history and actions of the SDS is baffling.
One more thing... Another bit of history that you are trying to misrepresent is the connection of the SDS to Weatherman. You try to claim that SDS is responsible for the actions of Weatherman from 1969 onward, but even your own source states clearly that this is incorrect. Moreover, the SDS did NOT promote violence, as you insist. In summary, I think your conclusion applies well to your performance here:
Either you don't understand how the SDS was actually run, or you're being dishonest.
Indeed.
Cyrus,
CNN is wrong, but somehow I am supposed to believe you are correct. Why would I favor your interpretation?
You seem to fail to understand how the SDS was actually run at the time. Hayden was an early leader, to be sure, but remained a leader, and everyone who dealt with them knew that. The rotated leadership posts were nominal at best for some of their occupants. A heierarchical chart means very little in a leftist group. Given that criminal investigations by the FBI and local cops were extant against these folks, it's no surprise they had to pretend otherwise. You ought to know that.
If you still actually believe Hayden had no ongoing leadership role, or that the SDS was not a violent organization, you are irredeemably credulous.
From Democracy Now:
"Tom Hayden, former California State Senator. He lead the demonstrations at the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention. Hayden and others were charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot in the famous trial known as the trial of the "Chicago Seven."
From Students for A Democratic Society by Dana Zakrzewski:
" The SDS attempted to act as a microcosm of the ideal political system. The organization frowned upon permanent leaders, hierarchical relationships and parliamentary procedures. Local chapters acted autonomously, and were the organization's primary source of strength. They did, however, elect officers every year, but some labeled this system as "overstructured". In 1967, members abolished the posts of president and vice-president, and replaced them with a triumvirate of secretaries elected by delegates at an annual national convention.
Meetings often erupted into chaos, precluding any sort of successful decision-making. Many of SDS's internal problems arose from the lack of organzational structure.
Hayden also viewed the Columbia uprising as a harbinger for a new era in the radical movement: "from the overnight occupation of buildings to permanent occupations; from mill-ins to the creation of revolutionary committees; from symbolic civil disobedience to barricaded resistance." Columbia opened the doors for the SDS's new tactical era of direct action tinged with violence, and introduced its movement toward a more revolutionary mentality. The initial revolutionary tone is most apparent in a phrase then-popular among the radical students: "Create two, three, many Columbias," modeled after Che Guevara's phrase: " Create two, three, many Vietnams."
Pogo,
Your posts continue to be riddled with distortions of the historical record and deeply flawed logic. However, there is one simple way for you to establish your claim that the SDS was a "proto-terrorist" organization--simply cite the terrorist activities for which they were responsible.
Because you are a bit sloppy when it comes to applying logic, I'm going to set two ground rules for you to follow:
1. If you cite actions taken by Tom Hayden, establish clearly that he was acting as a representative of the SDS, on behalf of the SDS. In other words, if you cite some sort of terrorist action that you believe he took part in (and I am not aware of any), clearly establish that this was an SDS action instead of a MOBE action, for example. (This is again a reminder to you that Hayden did NOT hold a leadership position within the SDS in 1968; on the other hand, he was a leader of MOBE at that time.)
2. Actions taken by Weatherman or the Weather Underground cannot be attributed to the SDS as Weatherman was a group that specifically splintered-off from the SDS. (If you want to make the point that Weatherman was a terrorist group, then modify your original claim and I won't dispute it.)
One final point: You seem to believe that by waving your hands and repeating ad nauseam that Tom Hayden was a leader of SDS in 1968 that you are somehow relieved of providing evidence of such. Nothing could be further from the truth. Provide some evidence please, if your argument hinges on this point (and I don't see why it should).
On the other hand, it is a simple matter to establish that Hayden was a leader of MOBE in 1968, and that MOBE was one of two antiwar groups that were most influential in the Chicago demonstrations. So, faced with these facts, why do you continue to insist that Hayden represented the SDS in a leadership role in 1968 (given that there is no evidence for this) and that the SDS was responsible for violence in Chicago in 1968? This is exactly what I refer to when I say that you are distorting the historical record.
In summary, I'd like you to present a list of "terrorist" actions which can be attributed directly to the SDS. This should settle our disagreement, unless of course you continue to distort the historical record to suit your purposes.
Cyrus, since you repeatedly ignored or discounted every single citation I offered, I can only conclude you are and will continue to persist in arguing in bad faith.
Hayden was a founder of SDS and project director of "Mobe". From the NYT:
Review: The Seventies:
"The motley crew of radicals included thousands of activists organized by the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam. Led by SDS leaders such as Tom Hayden and Rennie Davis, the MOBE, as it was known, planned a series of demonstrations. These New Leftists tried to keep order among the protesters and, at least initially, to deploy them in effective demonstrations against the Democratic party and American intervention in Vietnam."
Yippies, MOBE, Weathermen, all factions of the SDS. The titular distinctions you offer are are without a difference.
And much as you refuse to acknowledge that I offer sources where you just type, I see no reason to engage your bad-faith discussion any further by offering further "proof" of SDS terrorism (you've ignored my proof already offered). I am certain you'll thus declare victory.
"...simply cite the terrorist activities for which they were responsible"
The 1968 DNC riot.
Pogo,
Well, I certainly didn't expect you to produce any evidence, so I can't say I'm surprised that you're tucking tail and scampering away. However, I'm confused as to why you accuse me of bad faith. I've asked you to list what you consider terrorist actions that are directly attributable to the SDS. You offer none. However, you continue your little dance of suggesting formal connections between other groups and the SDS, and attributing the acts of these other groups to the SDS. That's illogical at best, and grossly dishonest at worst.
For the record, MOBE and the Youth International Party were NOT factions of the SDS. The fact that you now claim this is evidence that you are grossly ignorant of the history of these groups. Weatherman was a splinter group from the SDS, as I've already indicated to you on several occasions. However, as you know, the association between Weatherman and the SDS ended prior to the "Days of Rage" that marked the beginning of Weatherman's violent activities. Again, you are either ignorant or entirely dishonest in attributing the actions of Weatherman to the SDS.
----
I now see that you have returned to list the Chicago riots of 1968 as a terrorist act attributable to the SDS. There are two factual mistakes in this assertion. The first factual mistake is your insistence that the Chicago riots constituted a terrorist act. In fact, if you'd bothered to read the Walker Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence ("Rights in Conflict") you would have learned that the report "assigned blame for the mayhem in the streets to the police force, calling the violence a 'police riot.'" Now, perhaps you disagree with the assessment in the Walker Report; in that case, I invite you to specifically address acts of violence or destruction during those riots that represent "acts of terrorism."
The second factual mistake you've made is in attributing the Chicago demonstrations to the SDS. As I've repeatedly indicated to you (and you can check other sources yourself), the two main groups protesting in Chicago in 1968 were MOBE and the Yippies (neither one a faction of the SDS!). And as you've noted, there were over 100 other antiwar protest groups taking part in the Chicago demonstrations. On that basis, your attribution of "actions of terrorism" from Chicago 1968 to the SDS is motivated by nothing more than eagerness to misrepresent the historical record.
Again, I repeat my challenge to you:
List "terrorist activities" for which the SDS is directly responsible.
I predict you'll again accuse me of arguing in bad faith before you scurry away without producing any credible evidence. Some things never change.
Re: "without producing any credible evidence"
So far you have refused to recognize the NYTimes, CNN, DiscoverTheNetwork.org, David Horowitz, and others,
You offer nothing but your own typing. I call bullshit.
"the association between Weatherman and the SDS ended prior to the "Days of Rage"
Mark Rudd himself writes
"Mark Rudd was the last National Secretary of SDS, elected in 1969. He went on to found the Weather Underground.
SDS and WU were just two names for the same beast, involving the same people. Your distinction is bullshit.
SDS splintered into violent groups. Fat Man above says he was at these meetings and recognized they were "violent radicals". The Yippies, SDS, and MOBE expected and desired a violent reaction from the Chicago police. It was their design to start a race riot, and overthrow the US government. The same techniques have been used by communists elsewhere.
Your reading of history is self-serving, juvenile, and wrong. More, your attempt to portary yourself as the learned sage is annoying bullshit.
As I said, you argue in bad faith. Repeatedly.
The Walker Report also describes only the events around Old Town area near Lincoln Park that could be called "a police riot". The report said "Were the policemen who committed it a minority? It appears certain that they were", and noted the SDS, Yippies and Mobe were "a violent dissenting group" willing to "clash head-on with those whose duty it is to enforce the law."
Milton Viorst in his book Fire in the Streets concluded that Hayden "played a crucial role" in the SDS takeover of Columbia U. in March 1968 (an example of terrorism, to be sure), and in Chicago "What people knew was that Hayden was the most celebrated student radical of his time, and the organization with which his name was asscoiated [the SDS] threatened violence."
He added "But Hayden had often said the the revolution would spill blood.""
From Volokh:
"The Walker Report also describes a torrent of abuse heaped directly at National Guardsmen in uniform in an apparent attempt to goad them into violence. According to accounts, many of the demonstrators were holding cameras, ready to take pictures of guardsmen who reacted violently. "
A September 1, 1968 Chicago Tribune account praised National Guardsmen who (unlike the police) were credited with showing extreme restraint in the face of extraordinary taunting.
“Newsmen observed that the demonstrators hurled insults at the guardsmen and some spit on them in an attempt to provoke them into action.” (p. 2)
One Guardsman is quoted describing how one male demonstrator went down the line spitting in servicemen’s faces, flicking ashes and lit cigarettes at them, and making religious slurs (Rights in Conflict, p. 213).
Pogo wrote:
So far you have refused to recognize the NYTimes, CNN, DiscoverTheNetwork.org, David Horowitz
No, this is wrong. You have quoted from several sources to try to establish the following points:
1. You assert that Tom Hayden was in a leadership position with the SDS in 1968. Only one of your many sources supports you in this assertion, and that source is wrong. You know very well that Tom Hayden had no national leadership position in the SDS in 1968. So to refer to Hayden as a leader of the SDS in 1968 is a little bit like referring to Jimmy Carter as a current leader of the United States.
As I've shown you, Hayden had moved away from the SDS by 1968 and was associated with the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam. In fact, Hayden was a leader of MOBE in 1968 and was involved in coordinating demonstrations with other antiwar groups in Chicago in 1968. Since Hayden was NOT representing the SDS in these activities, you cannot link the SDS to his actions as you have tried to do.
2. You assert that the SDS engaged in terrorist action in Chicago in 1968. This is wrong. If you read the Walker Report (I've referred you to this report FOUR times now!), you will learn that there was no finding that the SDS was engaged in any violent or destructive action. I've encouraged you to cite specific crimes or acts you believe were committed by the SDS in Chicago in 1968 and you've failed to do so. This leads me to believe that you have no such evidence.
3. You have asserted that Weatherman was a faction of the SDS. This is roughly correct but misleading. A more precise description is that Weatherman splintered away from SDS in 1969. By the time Weatherman engaged in its "Days of Rage" action (which marked the beginning of Weatherman violence), the SDS and Weatherman had split. But don't take my word for it. Read "The Way the Wind Blew" by Ron Jacobs if you want to understand how and why the Weatherman split from the SDS.
Because the Weatherman did NOT represent the SDS after the split from (and soon to follow collapse of) the SDS, your list of terrorist actions by the Weatherman is not pertinent to your claim that the SDS were "proto-terrorists." In fact, the SDS had ceased to exist during most of the time you are trying to attribute violent action to them. If you want to revise your original claim to say that Weatherman (not the SDS) were "proto-terrorists," I will agree with you.
Pogo, in summary, as I predicted, you offer no evidence of terrorism by the SDS. In the process of offering up a stream of factual inaccuracies, you've damaged your credibility.
Let's review a few of the many distortions that you've floated here so far:
Yippies, MOBE ... all factions of the SDS.
WRONG! The Youth International Party (Yippies) was established in 1966 and was completely independent of the SDS. MOBE was established in 1967 and was never a faction of the SDS.
Tom Hayden, head of the SDS ...
WRONG! Okay, you've modified this claim since making it, but it's consistent with your pattern of distorting history to fit the needs of your argument.
The SDS declared "war on Amerikkka"at its Flint War Council in 1969
WRONG! The meeting you refer to was held by Weatherman, not the SDS. Your eagerness to conflate the SDS and Weatherman leads me to question your reliability in presenting historical evidence.
The SDS, instigators of the Chicago DNC riots in 1968 (an act of terror)...
WRONG! The two leading organizations in coordinating the demonstrations in Chicago were the Youth International Party and MOBE. There is no finding in the Walker Report that the SDS was involved in any violent activities. Also the Walker Report "assigned blame for the mayhem in the streets to the police force, calling the violence a 'police riot.'"
Pogo, this is just a partial list of the distortions of the historical record you've posted here. Why do you imagine that you have credibility left after twisting the facts to suit the needs of your argument?
With your track record in mind, it's laughable that you accuse me of arguing in bad faith. Also, I don't represent myself as a "learned sage" as you imagine. The difference between the two of us is that I take care not to post inaccuracies whereas you post sloppily and with the goal of scoring a partisan point. Of course I can excuse, to a limited extent, sloppiness in the content of your comments; what I find inexcusable is the partisan blindness (or plain stubbornness) that leads you to refuse to acknowledge your many factual errors and flawed logic. This is why you now have resorted to attacking me rather than the content of my argument--at the end of the day, you feel uncomfortable critically examining what you believe and how you've come to believe it. It's clear that you prefer to walk away from this dialogue with your convictions intact, even if wrong, than to reconsider your opinion in light of facts that challenge that opinion. Of course, that's your choice, Pogo.
Pogo, in spite of your personal attacks on me, which I have to say are not typical of you, I hold no grudges. Although we frequently disagree, you are generally a gentleman and have written some very thoughtful comments in a number of Althouse threads. So although you are clearly annoyed with me (and I'm sorry if my style of posting irritates you), I wish the best for you.
Pogo,
You've taken liberties in citing the Walker Report. You cite it in this way:
The report said "Were the policemen who committed it a minority? It appears certain that they were", and noted the SDS, Yippies and Mobe were "a violent dissenting group" willing to "clash head-on with those whose duty it is to enforce the law."
In fact, the Walker Report does NOT identify the SDS, Yippies and MOBE as "a violent and dissenting group." You've inserted the names of those three groups into the citation to make it appear that Walker Report identifies the SDS as a violent group. Let's be clear about this: the Walker Report made no finding about violent activities by the SDS.
Sorry, trying to change the historical record doesn't fly here. Please don't try it again.
Pogo,
Your citation from Volokh has no relevance here (i.e., not only does it not support your position, it has no bearing on the issues we are discussing).
Cyrus,
1. As I wrote above, Viorst acknowledged that Tom Hayden was seen as having a leadership position with the SDS in 1968, something the SDS did nothing to dispel (much as he acted with them at the U Columbia in March 1968. Viorst said the "nuances" of the rift between Tom Hayden and the SDS were unknown to the rest of the US, and for all intents he had a national leadership position in the SDS in 1968, something the radicals exploited at the DNC riots.
Hayden had not in fact moved away from the SDS by 1968, since he participated with the SDS in March.
Hayden was not officially representing the SDS, but as Viorst wrote, effectively he was accurately perceived to be working with them and leading them. You are correct only on narrow technical grounds.
2. Certainly, a court convicting Hayden found specific crimes or acts. The technicality whcih threw out the conviction did not address that issue.
3. Weatherman was a faction of the SDS. To say it "splintered away" from SDS is again a distinction without a difference. Mother births son, or son 'splinters away from Mom. Whatever. SDS spawned WU.
4. Weatherman were terrorists, not "proto-terrorists". *
"After arguing that he had nothing to do with the Newark riot and that the police and National Guard were responsible for any deaths, he casually remarks: 'I had been fascinated by the simplicity and power of the Molotov cocktail during those days in Newark.' And he reveals that he provided the design sketch that the New York Review of Books made into its cover, a notorious high point in intellectual radical chic. It is hard to know what to make of this telling self-condemnation. Perhaps Hayden momentarily forgot that throwing Molotov cocktails is not an American sport.
Collier and Horowitz quote Hayden as telling them in 1970 that 'civil war' was imminent. He was stockpiling arms and reportedly trying to get the Black Panthers to shoot down a police helicopter.
Hayden claims to have been shocked when he heard Bernadine Dohrn, a leader of the Weathermen faction, exalt the Manson cult's murders of actress Sharon Tate and others as an example of what must be done to bourgeois society right down to pushing a fork into a victim's stomach. Collier and Horowitz point out that this famous incident actually occurred at the 'Michigan War Council', the meeting at which the Weathermen prepared themselves for going underground to begin 'military action'. And Hayden gave a rousing speech."
Cyrus,
Pray tell, what other violent dissenting groups were at the DNC that the Walker report might be referring to?
Are you joking?
The citation from Volokh has relevance in proving that the SDS/MOBE/Yippie groups were fomenting violence.
Re: "Also the Walker Report "assigned blame for the mayhem in the streets to the police force, calling the violence a 'police riot.'""
Nope.
"How did it start? With the emergence long before convention week of three factors which figured significantly in the outbreak of violence. These were: threats to the city; the city's response; and the conditioning of Chicago police to expect that violence against demonstrators, as against rioters, would be condoned by city officials.
...the reported plan to contaminate the city's water supply with LSD.
Despite the presence of some revolutionaries...[i.e. the SDS/MOBE/Yippies ...and pleaser, who ELSE would they have been referring to?]
It was the clearing of the demonstrators from Lincoln Park that led directly to the violence" It was THAT event the report called "police riot", not the whole DNC debacle.
Pogo,
You're guilty of gross illogic here. Let me give you one example and I'll get back to each of your other posts a bit later (as work permits).
Okay, example number 1 of illogic...
You wrote:
The citation from Volokh has relevance in proving that the SDS/MOBE/Yippie groups were fomenting violence.
No, this is incorrect. There was violence in the Chicago demonstrations. And yes, there was violence on the part of demonstrators. But your illogical leap is in attributing that violence to the SDS, MOBE or the Yippies. As you know, there were over 100 antiwar groups in Chicago. Can you specifically prove that the SDS engaged in violence?
The answer to this is NO. You've presented NO evidence that the SDS engaged in violent acts in Chicago.
You would be better served by sticking strictly to the facts and interpreting them critically but neutrally rather than first establishing a point of view and then trying to manipulate the facts to fit your beliefs.
From Viorst, discussing violence arising from the demonstrators:
"That kind of leadership always seemed to be seized by some unidentified figure, from the SDS or a biker's gang or the Mobe or from none of them.
...
These faceless people, not the better known figures of the radical movement, provided the leadership for the chaos around Lincoln park, by surging to the front ranks and locking themselves angrily in combat." p. 455
So the SDS and Mobe members were, in fact violent at the DNC riots. Just not the leaders, who remained safely behind.
On April 23, 1968, the Columbia University chapter of SDS sponsored a rally on campus to protest the university’s relation to the Institute for Defense Analysis, the school’s allegedly ‘racist’ policies in relation to the surrounding Harlem area, and disciplinary probation in effect against some of the SDS leaders.
The rally escalated into an invasion of a university building where three school officials were taken hostage for 24 hours.*
Terrorism by the SDS.
"Virtually all accounts of the convention week agree that some protest organizers - such as SDS veterans Tom Hayden and Rennie Davis - were looking forward to a violent confrontation.
Horowitz says that's exactly why Chicago was picked by organizers such as Hayden and Davis. "They knew that Daley could be provoked. The object was to produce a riot that would discredit the Hubert Humphrey wing of the Democratic Party, and it was successful."
It was an "institutionalized" response, says New York Post columnist Jack Newfield, who covered the convention for the Village Voice. "I know some of the demonstrators were coming to provoke that kind of violence"
Yet, while elite observers on both the left and the right regarded the disruption as a "police riot" - as the Walker Report, an investigation conducted for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, would refer to it - polls showed that an overwhelming majority of the American people sided with the police. Bell says it was as if everyone in America felt forced to make a choice between the police and the students. The choice they made proved predictive of their later political choices for years, he says."
Cyrus, you are wrong.
Pogo,
I see you are busy distorting the historical record again. It really is unacceptable that you are presenting quotes out of context in a way that completely misrepresents the intent of the author.
Let me give you an example of what I consider absolutely unacceptable practice:
You write this, as a citation from the Walker Report:
...the reported plan to contaminate the city's water supply with LSD.
You are suggesting that this was a serious "terrorist" plot by Chicago demonstrators. But here's the citation from the Walker Report, in full:
Some of this information was absurd, like the reported plan to contaminate the city's water supply with LSD.
So Pogo, why did you leave out the leading phrase in this citation? Is it because the realization that the "information was absurd" doesn't suit your argument, and therefore you're concealing it to alter the meaning of the statement from the Walker Report?
This is more than a little naughty Pogo. It's what you might call "malpractice" in your profession.
Now, to correct a couple more errors on your part. First, a logical error...
You wrote:
Despite the presence of some revolutionaries...[i.e. the SDS/MOBE/Yippies ...and pleaser, who ELSE would they have been referring to?]
Well, Pogo, the Walker Report provides a list of specifically who they were referring to:
The crowd included Yippies come to "do their thing," youngsters working for a political candidate, professional people with dissenting political views, anarchists and determined revolutionaries, motorcycle gangs, black activists, young thugs, police and secret service undercover agents. There were demonstrators waving the Viet Cong flag and the red flag of revolution and there were the simply curious who came to watch and, in many cases, became willing or unwilling participants.
So Pogo, although you are eager to lay blame for violence on the SDS, you've presented no evidence that the SDS engaged in violent behavior. In fact, given the list of participants from the Walker Report, an honest reader might be inclined to suspect that the "anarchists and determined revolutionaries, motorcycle gangs, black activists [and] young thugs" were more likely to be involved in violence than those described as
"people with dissenting political views." You continue to insert "the SDS" into every mention of rioting in Chicago without any factual basis for doing so. Again, this is unacceptable practice.
Then you also misrepresent the Walker Report findings when you wrote this:
It was the clearing of the demonstrators from Lincoln Park that led directly to the violence" It was THAT event the report called "police riot", not the whole DNC debacle.
You misrepresent the clearing of the park by describing it as "an event." Here is the quote from the Walker report in entirety:
To read dispassionately the hundreds of statements describing at firsthand the events of Sunday and Monday nights is to become convinced of the presence of what can only be called a police riot.
First, note the phrase I have highlighted ... "the events of Sunday and Monday nights..." Clearly the "police riot" does not refer to a single "event" as you suggest, nor does it refer to a single point in time. In fact, here is the section of the Walker Report you've cited in part that gives a better idea of what the "clearing of the park" entailed:
It was the clearing of the demonstrators from Lincoln Park that led directly to the violence: symbolically, it expressed the city's opposition to the protesters; literally, it forced the protesters into confrontation with police in Old Town and the adjacent neighborhoods.
The Old Town area near Lincoln Park was a scene of police ferocity exceeding that shown on television on Wednesday night. From Sunday night through Tuesday night, incidents of intense and indiscriminate violence occurred in the streets after police had swept the park clear of demonstrators.
Clearly the "police ferocity" occurred in many places over the course of many days. To suggest otherwise is not an accurate representation of the findings of the Walker Report.
Pogo wrote:
So the SDS and Mobe members were, in fact violent at the DNC riots. Just not the leaders, who remained safely behind.
Nope. This isn't evidence of violence by the SDS.
Given your unreliability in citations, I'll have to locate a copy of the Viorst book.
Some of this information was absurd
Why did YOU leave out the rest?
Some of this information was absurd, like the reported plan to contaminate the city's water supply with LSD. But some were serious: and both were strengthened by the authorities' lack of any mechanism for distinguishing one from the other.
That is, in RETROSPECT, the threat was absurd, Daley didn't know it was absurd AT THE TIME. How should he have responded? Why did the commissio wouldn think it was absurd? Why 'patently'? I call bullshit there.
FIRE IN THE STREETS
Nope. This isn't evidence of violence by the SDS.
Bad faith.
Viorst wrote for WaPo, NYPost, NYTimes Magazine, , Esquire, and more. You, I don't trust as an arbiter of evidence.
The Walker report is iffy. I read alot of it. I don't agree with their conclusions, and your interpretations of the report differ from mine and others. For example, they had no access to what was later learned from Hayden, Horowitz, Ruben and others about their actions and intent. It was a bit of bullshit, really.
You prefer to see the SDS as free of violent action. Fine; I shan't convince you otherwise. Few others think that, however, and instead see the direct line from the Old Left to the New Left to the Radical Left to the terrorist cults like Weather Underground and SLA as a constant and inevitably violent lineage.
Nixon's election was the first proof of that. The Left's inability to admit their past errors is part of why few people trust them with adult things like defense.
P.S. You have not refuted the 1968 Columbia hostage-taking by SDS.
Violence.
Terrorism.
Pogo wrote:
You prefer to see the SDS as free of violent action.
No. I prefer to see EVIDENCE of violent action rather than making the assumption, as you have, that it must be so. However, unlike you, I haven't prejudged the situation. If you provide evidence of SDS violence, I'm happy to modify my opinion.
Sadly, no lack of evidence will convince you to change your mind. I suppose that's because your opinion isn't based on facts. Oh well.
Cyrus,
I have been reading this thread for two days now and I have a question.
Why does it seem like you are trying to portray SDS as non-violent?
You have indicated that you are too young to have lived through the time period. What is your fascination with the detail of the riots at the convention?
Do you think that Tom Hayden was just a non-violent organiser?
I am seriously curious.
evidence of SDS violence
On April 23, 1968, the SDS and the Student Afro-American Society organized a hostile student takeover of five university buildings, taking undergraduate dean Henry Coleman and 2 other school officials as a hostage. Shouting "Up against the wall, motherfucker!" the whites battered down the door of Low Library with a bench.
Violence.
Terrorism.
Evidence.
Pogo wrote:
You have not refuted the 1968 Columbia hostage-taking by SDS.
Violence.
Terrorism.
Dear Pogo,
I think I indicated previously that I'm working today. Perhaps you are retired and can give your full attention to commenting at Althouse. I cannot.
On the topic of the Columbia protests, the record of "hostage taking" is unclear. Here are statements of Columbia protest witnesses:
Ed Kent (UTS BD 1959, Columbia PhD 1965, currently professor of moral / political / legal philosophy at Brooklyn College, CUNY):
I made sure that I put on a coat and tie -- it was about 1 a.m. and I had been alerted by a colleague at Hunter who had heard the bust was imminent. I then joined the cop assigned to the gate who was entirely sympathetic to the students and we watched with horror as the cops beat up kids that had come out of their dorms to find out what all the ruckus was about (Those occupying buildings had been taken out through the tunnels earlier.). I will never forget one small sized student being chased by a group of cops with clubs intent on beating him up -- he finally took refuge on top of a car where he tried to avoid their swings. They finally knocked him off and pounced with their clubs. The next day many faculty and students were treated for head and other injuries -- all of them innocent of any connection with the actual building occupations. Incidentally at the Cox hearings I heard the dean [Henry Coleman] who had supposedly been imprisoned by the students in Hamilton admit in response to a question by Anthony Amsterdam that he had in fact been ordered by the President to remain in his office and had been treated with entire courtesy by the students throughout and could have unlocked his office door (and relocked it to protect student records) and left at any time.
Robert Auerbach:
Some say that he [Coleman] could have left any time that he wished. He wanted to stay and be a martyr. He stayed one night, I recall. Nobody was physically restraining him. On the other hand, I have heard it said that he couldn’t leave and that the students were holding him hostage until the 26th
precinct freed the people that they arrested earlier in the day. I’m inclined to believe the former scenario. You have to understand that this must have been as exciting for the Dean as it was for the students. It was certainly a break from a college Dean’s everyday routine! I don’t believe that at that early stage in the protest, that he was really handcuffed and tied to a chair and prevented from leaving. I’m
inclined to believe that throughout the night there was some really
robust debate of the issues with the dean. These were not terrorists. These were just Columbia students from the top of their high school classes. I think that Dean Coleman stayed on his own
volition.
Now, I have to say, I'm skeptical of several aspects of these accounts, although I'd certainly like to see the Cox hearings report. I can certainly believe that Coleman was ordered to remain in his office. The most believable brief account I've read of the Columbia protests is here. I've included (below) the section of this account relating to "hostage taking" in case that's all you are interested in:
Returning to campus, the demonstrators next stormed ivy-covered Hamilton Hall, headquarters for undergraduate Columbia College. Inside they stationed themselves in front of the office of Acting Dean Henry S. Coleman. After telling his visitors that he had "no intention of meeting any demands under a situation such as this," Coleman went into his office with two other school officials. Blocking Coleman's door, the demonstrators pasted up photos of Lenin and Che Guevara, and chanted "Racist gym must go." As night came, the demonstrators were still there—and Coleman and his friends casually played cards.
But student power soon came up against black power. Arguing that the white SDS insurgents in front of Coleman's office were not sufficiently militant, a group of 60-odd black students concluded that the whites should leave —and at 6 o'clock the next morning they did. Left in control of the building, the Negroes eventually released their three hostages—26 hours after they were first taken captive.
Obviously we can agree that this type of action is inexcusable, but it hardly qualifies as "terrorism," at least as it relates to the normal definition of "terrorism."
Also, there is no evidence of SDS violence in any reports I've seen. Again, I don't think this qualifies as terrorism. However, it certainly qualifies as unacceptable coercive action.
lee david,
I've yet to see evidence of SDS violence. Until I do, I have no reason to believe they engaged in violent activity.
Now, having said that, if someone steps forward and produces such evidence, I'll certainly revise my opinion. You say that you've been following this exchange for two days now. Does it surprise you that no one has yet produced evidence of SDS violence? If the SDS engaged in violent activity, why hasn't someone simply cited this activity and resolved the issue?
In the meantime, I'll stick to the facts that I've seen and make sure that everyone, whatever view they may have of this, honestly presents the evidence they find.
I have no stake in this. If someone produces evidence of SDS violence, I'll modify my view in light of the new evidence. But I certainly don't intend to be misled by unreliable reporting of those who are trying to push a point of view regardless of what the historical record shows.
Regarding Tom Hayden, I don't have any evidence of violence on his part. Do you?
Finally, you say that you're curious. Does your curiousity extend to Pogo's obsession with distorting the facts to fit his POV? Or is your curiousity limited to why someone my age is interested in history, debate and learning?
Pogo wrote:
evidence of SDS violence
On April 23, 1968, the SDS and the Student Afro-American Society organized a hostile student takeover of five university buildings, taking undergraduate dean Henry Coleman and 2 other school officials as a hostage. Shouting "Up against the wall, motherfucker!" the whites battered down the door of Low Library with a bench.
Violence.
Terrorism.
Evidence.
Where is the evidence of violence? Surely you don't consider hitting a door with a bench "violence." That seems a stretch to me. I'd refer to that as "property damage," not violence. Moreover battering a door with a bench doesn't qualify as "terrorism" in my book.
You'd be much closer to violence and "terrorism" in my opinion if you were talking about the practice that Bush defended at Yale of red-hot coat hanger "branding" of fraternity pledges.
BTW, I assume you realize that "Up Against the Wall MF" was a political slogan and not given as an order. I'm not sure why you felt it important to include this in your summary of "violence" but I'll assume it's because you felt it added more drama to the account you quote (but do not source).
Pogo wrote:
That is, in RETROSPECT, the threat was absurd.
Pogo, as a doctor, you must know that that particular threat was always absurd.
Pogo wrote:
The Walker report is iffy. I read alot of it. I don't agree with their conclusions ... It was a bit of bullshit, really.
Do you have a better source of information? And if so, on what basis do you judge it better?
BTW, I don't have access to "Fire in the Streets" currently, so any comments on it will have to wait.
Cyrus,
More to the point, why this particular little corner of history. You seem to have read a lot of material on the subject. What would you say is the place of SDS in the violence and upheaval of the time and what were their objectives?
Where is the evidence of violence?
If you don't consider taking 3 hostages violent per se, then we cannot agree on anything.
you must know that that particular threat was always absurd
Given the limited knowledge about LSD as of 1968, including limits to volume of manufacture, and the even more limited knowledge about the new Yippies, and the murderous race riots of the then-recent past, no, I don't think it was unreasonable to be worried, and even investigate it. Why Walker considered it implausible to poison a water system is not clear, especially by groups chanting "death to the pigs" and "death to the US".
"Up Against the Wall MF" was a political slogan and not given as an order.
And you know this exactly how?
Following his 1965 trip to Vietnam, Tom Hayden remarked about the possibilities of "an American form of Guerrilla warfare based in the slums" which he wrote about further in
"Rebellion in Newark: Official violence and Ghetto Response, published in 1967 after the violent riots in Newark, included the following:
"The role of organized violence is now being carefully considered. During a riot, for instance, a conscious guerrilla can participate in pulling police away from the path of people engaged in attacking stores. He can create disorder in new areas the police think are secure. He can carry the torch, if not all the people, to white neighborhoods and downtown business districts. If necessary, he can successfully shoot to kill.
The guerrilla can employ violence effectively during times of apparent "peace," too. He can attack, in the suburbs or slums, with paint or bullets, symbols of racial oppression. He can get away with it. If he can force the oppressive power to be passive and defensive at the point where it is administered -- by the caseworker, landlord, storeowner, or policeman -- he can build people's confidence in their ability to demand change.
Persistent, accurately-aimed attacks, which need not be on human life to be effective, might disrupt the administration of the ghetto to a crisis point where a new system would have to be considered.
These tactics of disorder will be defined by the authorities as criminal anarchy. But it may be that disruption will create possibilities of meaningful change. This depends on whether the leaders of ghetto struggles can be more successful in building strong organization than they have been so far. violence can contribute to shattering the status quo, but only politics and organization can transform it...."
In a December 17, 1967 NYT article about the December 15, 1967 meeting in New York City at which Hayden "made an impassioned defense of rioters in the Newark racial outbursts last summer and of those who advocate revolutionary action in the peace movement." Hayden further stated "a case can be made for violence in the peace movement", adding "It's not as if violence in the slums and in Vietnam appeared in a vaccuum [sic]. It came only after the failure of democratic methods. When I participate in violence it was (sic] out of that failure not as an expression of psychological self-hatred."
What a guy, Hayden.
What a nonviolent organization, the SDS.
lee david,
I don't mind answering your questions, but perhaps you should try to answer some of mine in return.
Based on what I've read (relatively little, I'd say), I see no evidence that the SDS was involved in any significant violence, and nothing that I would identify as terrorism. Clearly, responsibility for the type of terrorist actions that Pogo is referring to lies with groups like Weatherman, not the SDS.
As for the SDS objectives, you may want to read the Port Huron statement and other such materials that are available online.
And as for why this little corner of history, ask Pogo. He's the commenter who initiated the topic. I'm simply playing the part of cleaning up his distortions of historical events. I have no idea why he has an emotional stake in this argument (or so it seems to me). I'm happy to honestly and critically evaluate the evidence. What concerns me is his attempt to misrepresent evidence. How do you feel about that?
Pogo wrote:
What a guy, Hayden.
What a nonviolent organization, the SDS.
I'm sure that you feel Hayden's written opinions establish him as a terrorist. That doesn't meet my standard of terrorism, however.
At this point you need to establish two points if you are going use Tom Hayden to try to convince me that the SDS engaged in terrorist activities:
1. You need to show that Tom Hayden directly engaged in violence.
2. You need to show that in these acts, Hayden was acting as an agent or representative of the SDS.
A simpler path to convincing me is this:
1. Show that the SDS engaged in violence that is consistent with accepted notions of "terrorist action" (e.g., battering a door would not qualify as a terrorist action).
If you find evidence, please share it with me.
"I'm happy to honestly and critically evaluate the evidence."
...and happily, honestly and critically dismissing the forcible takeover of campus buildings and then the taking of 3 hostages as "nonviolent" or "nonterrorist", a novel understanding no one else would employ.
...happily, honestly and critically dismissing as evidence of violence by SDS members during the 1968 DNC as documented in Viorst's book noted above, and in The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America by Richard J. Ellis ("a lifelong Democrat, a member of the ACLU"), Chapter 4: The Illiberal Turn, Tom Hayden, SDS, and the New Left.
"At the Democratic convention in Chicago, the following summer, Hayden went from justifying the guerrilla violence of others to orchestrating guerrilla violence of his own." p. 144
But dismissive only because he hasn't read these books.
If you were indeed arguing in good faith, or open to debate, I would expect a remark like, "Gosh, I have never heard of those books. I wonder if they might be true?" Nope.
You won't even accept Hayden telling you in his own words that he condoned and promoted violence because he doesn't give specifics (when, where), as if anyone would do so. Hell, the Russian communists murdered 30 million of their own people, and there's not a single document to "prove" Stalin was responsible. So maybe it was just something they ate.
Pogo wrote:
If you don't consider taking 3 hostages violent per se, then we cannot agree on anything.
I've read numerous accounts of the specific incident, provided you with two Columbia witness accounts and linked you to a Time magazine story about the case. My conclusion, based on a critical assessment of all accounts that I've read is that the SDS was involved in coercion, but not violence, in detaining the three administrators. If a threat of violence had been used, I would regard the incident as terrorism. In this instance, the administrators apparently did not feel threatened; as such, they were not "terrorized."
And no, coercion or restraint does not imply violence. A prisoner held in a cell is not being subject to violence nor is he held by threat of violence.
Given the limited knowledge about LSD as of 1968...
Pogo, come on! Do you realize how much LSD would be required to contaminate the Chicago water supply? The notion is absolutely absurd.
Cyrus: "Up Against the Wall MF" was a political slogan and not given as an order.
Pogo: And you know this exactly how?
It's from a poem by Amiri Baraka. It was a revolutionary slogan. If you read the poem Black People! you'll understand the reference.
Pogo,
You still haven't given me any specific incidents of violence (except for the battering of a door, which I'm discounting as violence, for reasons I've stated earlier).
Indeed, I haven't read either of the books you've mentioned, but I will track them down and look at them when I have time. I see no point in commenting on the content of the books until I've read them.
As I've told you twice now, I have work responsibilities today, so based on my assumption that you either work or have worked in the past, you'll understand that I can't give responding to your comments my full and undivided attention at the moment.
Having said that, I still wonder why you haven't cited a single incident of violence (against people, not doors) attributed to the SDS. And you have yet to attribute violence to Tom Hayden. Perhaps the two books you reference will have an incident of violent action that you can cite.
Finally, you apparently don't like my definition of "terrorism." By definition, terrorism involves the use of terror. Can you cite an incident in which the SDS employed terror?
Re: "the SDS was involved in coercion, but not violence, in detaining the three administrators."
Forcible entry, refusal to leave, and unlawful occupation of university buildings followed by forced hostage-taking. And you call that non-violent.
If a man drags a woman into his car and drives away, it's a violent crime, even if he does not otherwise harm her (being a hostage is to have been victimized by psychological violence and physical force even absent injury). You appear to believe otherwise. Odd.
"Do you realize how much LSD would be required to contaminate the Chicago water supply? "
More important, prove to me the city of Chicago knew this data in 1968. Moreover, for terrorism to work, it need not contaminate but one source; fear will do the rest (as this is precisely how terrorism works). Indeed, even the mere threat of a contaminated water supply is an act of terror. In retrospect, a foolish belief. But at the time, in the context of a violent year, I understand their fear of these freaks.
"It's from a poem by Amiri Baraka. "
No kidding. Ends in This
is a stickup'. Le Roi Jones. About robbing white people because they are white.
"We must make our own World, man, our own world, and we cannot do this unless the white man is dead. Let's get together and kill him my man,...let's make a world we want black children to grow and learn in" (Baraka Reader, 224)
All nonviolent, of course.
"you haven't cited a single incident of violence (against people"
Except from books you discount because you have not read them. Because you have not read them, the appropriate thing to do is withhold judgment, and incorporate that it might not be false, but you ignore it.
Except you don't count hostage-taking as violent.
Except you don't count crime against property as violent.
Except Hayden saying in Chicago "make sure that if blood flows, it flows all over the city" was really nonviolent, or a metaphor, or something.
The openly violent Weathermen were the inevitable end-product of the New Left, which began by rejecting violence, then embracing it.
But anyway, here's a new one from The Times (London)
August 31, 1989:
"Occasionally, Hayden is just too clumsy. After arguing that he had nothing to do with the Newark riot and that the police and National Guard were responsible for any deaths, he casually remarks: 'I had been fascinated by the simplicity and power of the Molotov cocktail during those days in Newark.' And he reveals that he provided the design sketch that the New York Review of Books made into its cover, a notorious high point in intellectual radical chic. It is hard to know what to make of this telling self-condemnation. Perhaps Hayden momentarily forgot that throwing Molotov cocktails is not an American sport.
...Collier and Horowitz quote Hayden as telling them in 1970 that 'civil war' was imminent. He was stockpiling arms and reportedly trying to get the Black Panthers to shoot down a police helicopter."
SDS and Hayden: Nonviolent.
Pogo,
I have to give you credit for persistence; unfortunately your post is again riddled with logical mistakes, factual errors and several misreadings (or nonreadings) of my previous posts to you.
Here are my corrections to your assertions:
1. You wrote:
Forcible entry, refusal to leave, and unlawful occupation of university buildings followed by forced hostage-taking. And you call that non-violent.
"Refusal to leave" does not qualify as violence unless excessive force is used to resist. For example, passive resistance (e.g., relying on body weight, holding on to or strapping oneself to fixed objects, etc...) is universally regarded as nonviolent. Occupation of buildings does not qualify as violence in any sense. "Forced hostage-taking" qualifies as violence if excessive force is employed. For example, detention of suspects by the police is not regarded as violence simply because the police apply reasonable force to hold someone. That is, violence implies force (or the threat of force) that will result in injury or worse. Forcible entry does not imply violence, either, although this is context dependent. For example, someone who enters your home by picking a lock is guilty of forcible entry, but it would be silly to refer to this act as "violent." If, in gaining entry, excessive force is used to cause significant damage, then this could qualify as violence against property.
To be fair, I haven't referred to behavior at Columbia by protestors as "nonviolent." Clearly some of the behavior was criminal. But there is no indication of violence by SDS protestors against university staff, and there is no indication that significant property damage resulted. If your claim that the SDS were "proto-terrorists" rests on the battering of a door, I think you are on very shaky ground.
2. You wrote:
If a man drags a woman into his car and drives away, it's a violent crime, even if he does not otherwise harm her (being a hostage is to have been victimized by psychological violence and physical force even absent injury). You appear to believe otherwise. Odd.
Actually I don't believe otherwise. What is "odd" is that, after reading what I wrote, you reasoned that you could correctly attribute that position to me. Not only is that odd and incorrect, it's irresponsible.
What you describe is a kidnapping, with the victim taken by force. That is not analagous to the hostage situation at Columbia in which the Dean was confined to his office. (Incidentally, psychological harm is evidence of injury; you are wrong to suggest otherwise.)
3. Regarding the threat of contamination of the Chicago water supply, you wrote:
More important, prove to me the city of Chicago knew this data in 1968.
Yes, of course the city of Chicago could and should have known this at the time. The Chicago water supply is not held in pint jars. The amount of water to be contaminated is enormous. This is the simplest of chemistry problems--dilution. The Chicago demonstrators would have needed to empty many many dump truckloads of LSD into the Chicago water supply to effectively contaminate it. The threat was at all times completely absurd.
4. Regarding the poem Black People! by Amiri Baraka, you wrote:
All nonviolent, of course.
Yes. I don't regard writing as an act of violence. The poem has violent imagery, but assuming you've read the poem, it isn't a statement of violence. More to the point, just as the director of a movie with violent scenes (e.g., "Saving Private Ryan") is not guilty of committing a violent act, the poet who uses violent imagery has also not committed a violent act.
5. About two books you've referenced, you wrote this:
Except from books you discount because you have not read them. Because you have not read them, the appropriate thing to do is withhold judgment, and incorporate that it might not be false, but you ignore it.
This is a dishonest assessment of my position. You should know better. This is what I've written to you about these sources:
Indeed, I haven't read either of the books you've mentioned, but I will track them down and look at them when I have time. I see no point in commenting on the content of the books until I've read them.
Let's see now... I don't discount the books, it's clear that I'm withholding judgment, and I don't ignore the existence of the books or your citations from them. So that makes your assertions, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Hey, you hit the trifecta!
6. You wrote:
Except you don't count hostage-taking as violent.
Wrong! In cases in which hostages are taken without application of force, I regard the actions as criminal but not violent. Holding someone against their will is not violence per se. For example, prisoners are not victims of violence simply by virtue of being detained. Whether the act of detaining someone is illegal is not determinant of violence. It is the use or threat of force that determines if an act is violent.
In the case of Columbia, Henry Coleman was detained, but not by application or threat of force against him. The circumstances of Coleman's treatment by his captors are described in his obituary from Columbia Magazine:
Then the acting dean of the College, Coleman hardly embodied the authoritarianism the students said they were fighting against. “He voluntarily came in to talk to us,” one protester told the New York Times on April 24, 1968.“[Students] are being very careful of his safety. ”When released, Coleman “strode out calmly and briskly, showing no signs that he had been unsettled by the experience,” reported the Times. And in a few minutes, he was back in the thick of things, helping to control a confrontation between leftist demonstrators and an antidemonstration group in front of Hamilton. He would later write letters of reference for several of his captors.
On this basis, I'm disinclined to classify the detention of Coleman as violent.
7. You wrote:
Except you don't count crime against property as violent.
That's not an accurate restatement of my position. Crime against property is not violent in the absence of violence. Embezzlement is a crime against property--do you consider embezzlement violence?
I'll ask you again--do you really want to make the battering of a door by SDS members the basis of your claim that they were "proto-terrorists?"
8. You wrote:
Except Hayden saying in Chicago "make sure that if blood flows, it flows all over the city" was really nonviolent, or a metaphor, or something.
This is not an act of violence. Moreover you again make the logical mistake of conflating the words of Tom Hayden with the beliefs of the SDS. You have to stop repeating this logical error.
9. You wrote:
The openly violent Weathermen were the inevitable end-product of the New Left, which began by rejecting violence, then embracing it.
"An inevitable end-product of the New Left?" That's your opinion, of course, but it strikes me as a fairly goofy position. You certainly have no evidence to support this notion.
We've previously discussed Weatherman, and I have to assume you mention it again because you have nothing else to offer. Let's be clear about this--when Weatherman initiated violent acts with the "Days of Rage," the SDS had collapsed and was nonexistent during the years of violent crime by Weatherman. Applying logic to these facts means you cannot accuse the SDS of violence committed by Weatherman. Sorry Pogo, but this line of argument leads to an entirely unproductive dead end for you.
10. You wrote:
But anyway, here's a new one from The Times (London)...
Except the link you provide leads not to the Times but to a website called VDARE.com. Now, perhaps the article at VDARE.com appeared in the Times, but I'm disinclined to believe things posted on websites that carry the writings of white nationalists. Is this a website you regularly visit?
In any case, the opinion expressed in the review you quote from has no relevance to our debate. You should realize that the editorial opinion of a sponsor of white nationalist writing will carry little weight with reasonable people.
11. You conclude:
SDS and Hayden: Nonviolent.
Well, you still haven't produced any evidence of violent acts by either Hayden or the SDS. If your claim that the SDS were "proto-terrorists" is so obvious, why are you unable to produce clear evidence of terrorist acts?
Pogo, considering the number of words I've dedicated to correcting the factual and logical errors in your last post, would you consider trying to present a tighter, more focused, fact-based argument? While I doubt anyone else is reading our exchange at this point, I simply don't have enough free time to constantly correct your errors.
Also, perhaps we should move onto another forum until I've read the books you've referenced and you've discovered some real evidence to support your claim.
No need to continue. If you really believe that "Holding someone against their will is not violence per se" then we cannot have a fruitful discussion.
Thanks, it was enlightening into a leftist view of the world.
P.S. "considering the number of words I've dedicated to correcting
What pedantic twittery. We disagree on the facts. You aren't my teacher here to correct my errors. What arrogance.
Pogo wrote:
If you really believe that "Holding someone against their will is not violence per se" then we cannot have a fruitful discussion.
I've given you one excellent example of such a case, but I'll give you another. When I was a senior in college, I was out very late one night and I had a car problem. I wasn't far from home (about 3 miles), so I started walking. After walking for 20 minutes a patrol car pulled over to the curb and the officer confronted me and directed me into the back of his vehicle. I was detained for a little over 30 minutes while being questioned and having my ID checked. Eventually I was released.
Clearly I was being detained as a suspect. Although I cooperated with the officers, I was held against my will (i.e., I would have preferred not to be held in the back of the car).
Now, according to your way of thinking, I was a victim of police violence. I don't see it that way. Moreover the determination of whether or not violence occurred does not and cannot depend on the legality of the detention. This is a point that seems to confuse you.
Violence is not the equivalent of illegal action. You've spoken several times of "violence against property," so let me give you another example. If I take a baseball bat to your television set, my action is both violent and illegal (destruction of your property). However, if I do the same to my own television set, the action is clearly not illegal but it remains a violent act.
Detaining someone against their will is a criminal act unless done so by law enforcement officials. That does not necessarily make it violence as you insist. If I put a dog in a crate, am I committing a violent act? When I locked my friend in the portajohn at the baseball field for five minutes, was that five minutes of violence?
You should spend some time reflecting on your questionable understanding of what constitutes violence.
Thanks, it was enlightening into a leftist view of the world.
I'm not a "leftist." I think it says something very interesting about your thought patterns that you've reached such a conclusion.
What pedantic twittery. We disagree on the facts. You aren't my teacher here to correct my errors. What arrogance.
No dear Pogo, we disagree not on the facts, but on what constitutes a fact and how to reason from it. The reason I've spent so much time correcting your factual and logical errors is because you continue to repeat them. That is your fault, not mine.
It's also interesting to me that you seem to have some resentment towards teachers and learning. I consider everyone who comments at Althouse a teacher of one sort or another from whom I can learn. I've certainly learned things I didn't know from your comments, either in content or style. Although you and I rarely agree, Althouse would be a poorer forum without your contributions.
Again, Pogo, I hold no grudges. If you don't enjoy or benefit from our exchanges, please discourage them. I have no intention of torturing you and will respect your desire to be left alone if that's what you prefer. Best wishes.
I thought you were a vortex?
Post a Comment