” it would always be 1968″
Kudos to Gerard Vanderleun for his fine essay Radical Roots and the Conquest of the Democratic Party.
Vanderleun downplays the personal price he’s paid for his political maturity, but that passage is especially poignant:
And they and we all grew older. We survived and thrived. Some even grew up, but only a few. For most of us — no matter what was our lot in later life — it would always be 1968.
Although I was of and among many of the groups above, none of them are among my friends any longer. I have, alas, far fewer friends. Indeed, as my strange political odyssey saying “Goodbye to all that” continues, old friends seem to melt away like the highland mist at high noon in the desert. It is sad, but still, with friends like those….
Read the entire essay.
Austin Thank you for your kind words and for that particular insight. It was a surprise and honor to see this on your page. Gerard
Comment by Vanderleun — 2/20/2006 @ 3:46 pm
You know, Austin, I read your blog because you are obviously very intelligent and a good writer. That is why it saddens and frustrates me so when you link to garbage like this. The “American Left” he talks about, which seems to be a bunch of college radicals in Berkeley smoking pot whose numbers have been thinning for decades, does not control the Democratic Party; the Green Party maybe. The activist base of the Democratic Party come from legitimate political groups, from the ACLU to the Sierra Club to the AFL-CIO and yes even Moveon, many of which have been around a long time and, as far as I can tell, have not yet destroyed America. You accuse them of radicalism even though they are probably more conservative than they’ve been in decades because of the rightward shift of the country’s politics. That is the organized “activist” base of the party, and while you may disagree with them, they are not a fifth column of communist infiltrators who want to destroy the United States. Such an assertion is absurd, insulting, and frightening, and the fact that a popular and seemingly “mainstream conservative” blogger such as yourself has just accused me of being an enemy of the state is mind-blowing. I don’t understand why you link to such writing, to a repentant former leftist radical who soothes his guilt by adopting rightist radicalism that recklessly and irresponsibly paints half the country as traitors, as enemies of the state, as allies of terrorists. Do you understand how dangerous and insane this rhetoric sounds to Democrats? You could understand why we are starting to think some right-wingers are more interested in fighting liberals than terrorists, and with rhetoric like this, may not have a problem using violence against their fellow citizens because of their political beliefs. I must say, in my mind the right has been infected by this radicalism. I suggest you read Andrew Bacevich’s “The New American Militarism,” which argues that the right has been dominated by a radical militarism with its roots in the 60s, and who argues much more convincingly than this hack you link to. I hope you understand that the militarism and the aggressive foreign policy that you promote and that is so dominant on the right is not only seen as radical by liberals, but by traditional conservatives who fit the classic definition of that term. I still have hope for you Austin, you are clearly a very intelligent individual, but with writing like this, I think I’d want to be carrying a gun for protection if we ever came face-to-face. ED NOTE: Vanderleun writes an honest essay, one exhibiting deep reflection, pain, regret, and guilt. He tackles personal change and social/historical change–and he isn’t afraid to be angry with himself. Your comment reduces his essay to this equation: ” repentant former leftist radical who soothes his guilt by adopting rightist radicalism…” That’s harsh, and I think wildly inaccurate. Venderleun looks to me like a man who wants to recover traditional liberal values. I suggest you reconsider his essay, in this light. We agree that the essay has a bitter personal and rhetorical edge– however, you seem to take its edge as more insult than exploration and confession. In the last 15 years I’ve had many people approach me with statements that echo Vanderleun’s essay. These are heavy duty words for cocktail party chatter, or a church function, or after a speech– and often from people I’d never met before and will likely never see again. (Ive’ received a few emails like this as well.) These comments are rarely more than four or five sentences in length, with the core of the comment being “My views have changed since the Sixties, and I’ve changed.” The regret is evident. Several times they tell me they admire the fact I served in the military in the 1970s– few folks they knew did that, they say. Military service was “so uncool” — and note Venderleun decries the “culture of cool.” I believe the reason these people approach me is they’ve read my columns over a period of time and they feel they know me at a certain level. Vanderleun offers a longer and more eloquent statement, if at times much more aggressive…By the way, if we meet you don’t need a gun, just a nice smile, a friendly handshake, and an open mind.
Comment by bbq wings — 2/21/2006 @ 1:28 am
Vanderleun has written a great article. A cry from the heart Gerard thanks for your honesty. There are new friends out there . And as I always say many of them have inkstained fingers. Welcome to the right side of the battle for peace and the future.
Comment by Rob — 2/21/2006 @ 10:58 pm
Again I am in Austin’s debt for stating my case much more accurately and succinctly than I was able to. To begin with, if I may address Mr. Wings ( a man who seems more comfortable with anonymity than I am), it is simply not the case that the American Left “does not control the Democratic Party; the Green Party maybe. ” The student leftists and radicals of the 60s are a large group and almost all of them are still within the party. And they have money and position. Indeed, if memory serves, this group was one of the keys to electing a President that was the very mirror of them (in an acceptable guise) twice in the 1990s. That alone should be clue enough even for those who refuse to buy a clue at half-off. To then assert that “The activist base of the Democratic Party come from legitimate political groups, from the ACLU to the Sierra Club to the AFL-CIO and yes even Moveon, many of which have been around a long time and, as far as I can tell, have not yet destroyed America.” and to imply by this that these groups do not encompass and represent the American Left today is, frankly, absurd. Indeed, it is more than absurd, it is willfully malicious. It’s the kind of “Who? Us?-ism” that reveals a party in the deepest denial I’ve witnessed in my six decades., five and a half of which I spent as a Democrat. But this does not mean I do not believe the eloquent Mr. Wings. I do believe him. I believe that the self-deception and self-aggrandizement of this political point of view has gone on so long and has become so insular that those that hold it cannot do otherwise; it has become their own universe. And it is an exclusive universe of strange privilege that cannot even see its own privilege, but instead dwells on the obsession that, despite defeat after defeat, it is “the people,” hypnotized by the evil Bush-Rove and his minions, that are wrong, and that the Party is right. He is correct, however, when he states that the members of the American Left today are not Communists of the old school. I don’t think I said they were. No, Mr. Wings, “they are not a fifth column of communist infiltrators who want to destroy the United States.” They are worse than that, They are themselves. They are the spoiled brats of my generation and there are a lot of the. And they are out only for themselves and the twisted whacked out ideology of their wasted youths; an ideology they’ve be cobbling together out of a hodge-podge of flim-flam concepts that always seem to “mean well” but destroy families, individuals, businesses, and — in fact — hope itself as they compulsively pursue the ragtag utopias of the 60s. As beat poet and green Gary Snyder has written, “Once a bear gets hooked on garbage, there’s no cure.” Whole colleges, schools, organizations, professions, and “programs” are now in place that employ legions of these folks as a life’s work. They’re not going away. They’re too entrenched. But don’t try and sell me the line they don’t know what they’re doing to the country. They do and they like it since many of them are well insulated from the effects of their policies and ideologies as they work themselves out in the real world. You can see their paper-mache monuments all about you from Harvard Yard to the Inner Cities. And all will be well in their happy world until the day we find we can no longer afford their carping or their funding. That day when play politics becomes realpolitick. And that day is on the way. I know it and you know. Your anger convicts you of this. Only people who are losing all the time try to tell you that their hate is nothing but a love whose name they cannot speak. ED NOTE: Mr. Vanderleun–your comment about “Wings’” anger is more apt than you know. He has responded with at least one comment that amounts to little more than angry personal insults. My reply to him was generous and sincere. His response to me was angry and adolescent– very immature. In fact his wild, unfounded allegations (in essence he accused me of being a war criminal) violate the posting rules for this site. “Wings” should take a tip from the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz and get a human pump with four warm and working chambers– and since we’re discussing a designer heart, all the better if he obtains a generous heart. I’m glad for this discussion continue –it is an important one– but charges of personal crimes, mayhem, etc will not be allowed. (Unless you can produce a legal indictment. Produce one of those and I’ll let you pull a j’accuse.) Mr Vanderleun you cannot call Wings a traitor– we’ve no evidence he is. He cannot call you a racist, imperialist warmonger or whatever. Anger? You can make that accusation, because his comments exhibit anger– and your essay did as well. Also, if “Wings” wants to continue he will have to identify himself by full name, his hometown, and state. One of the best things about your essay is its openness and honesty– and it has your name on it. If “Wings” wants to have a personal discussion, he must drop his facade. Until he does “barbecued wings” is…toast? And another note: Remember– the moderation routine on this site does “blast” some legitimate comments. We know this. Two or three legtimiate comments a day fail to appear. The suspected reason: The comments accidentally contained spam words. Most of the heavy duty curse words are also on the list. There are also several web addresses the sys op and I’ve blocked (spam generators). I simply don’t have time to moderate all comments, and given the episode of identity theft we experienced last year, I’m not going to get rid of the filters and moderation routine. This site has comments because I like having them. If they become too time consuming I’ll shut them off.
Comment by Vanderleun — 2/22/2006 @ 12:56 am
I look forward to continue with Mr. Wings under more civil circumstances. But I do understand his ire. It comes, from my experience, from two sources. The first is from the frustration that the world is no longer as Leftist/Liberals would wish. There are more voices and more doubters than ever before and they are being heard. The second source is more insidious. It is the ability to be anonymous if one wishes on these boards. Anonymity confers upon the user a lot of power and a lot of freedom to vent in ways in which one would not if one did the manly thing and signed what he had to say with his real name. The Chinese ideogram for truth shows the figure of a man standing by a box with stylized birds flying out of the top: translation, a man standing by his word. I’m no angel when it comes to online flaming, but I have adopted a default position of always using my real name in posts and in comments. I find it reigns in the darker angels of my nature. Makes for longer and more interesting discussions than “You’re an idiot.” “No, you’re an idiot and an a**hole.” “Oh, yeah, f**khead!?” “Yeah.” “”Well, your momma….”" ED NOTE: A fine reply, Gerard. I’m not so sure anonymity has given “Wings” any useful power, at least in this discussion.
Comment by vanderleun — 2/22/2006 @ 1:54 pm