, but also reckless about the effects on other people on the left. I am not a pacifist, and understand that sometimes violence is legitimate if there is a prospect of it preventing something much worse; the idea that a campaign of violence by a small group of leftists could have contributed to ending the Vietnam War seems as fantastic to me. My own political formation took place much later (I’m younger even than Obama), but none of my friends who were politically active on the far left in the 60’s and remain active today have a good opinion of Weather, and their views of the matter lead me to suspect that had I been around then my disposition to them would be more actively hostile than it, in fact, is.
But during the campaign I was struck, and rather impressed, by the discipline with which Ayers refrained from taking advantage of the moment for his own ends.
I assumed that it was because, like the rest of us, he did not want to cause trouble for his favoured candidate, even though his politics are very different from the candidate’s (when my daughter suggested that I get a “Socialists for Obama” button, I tried to explain why that was probably not a good idea, but couldn’t quite get it across). This is not the reason he gives to Terry Gross, but then I guess it would be a bit self-defeating, even after the fact, to give that reason if it were your reason.
Otherwise, I’m curious what people make of the interview. His attitude toward the activities of the Weather Underground still seems somewhat cavalier. For example, he says that they planted bombs only to go off when there was a very small chance that anyone would be around, and gave plenty of warning, and that they withdrew from bombing when they suspected the the bomb that killed Diana Oughton had been made to take lives, not just to destroy property (maybe I’m not quoting him exactly, I haven’t gone back to listen; it seems obvious that it was made to take lives). They were young, I suppose, but it seems both naive and arrogant to suppose that once you start making bombs none among your number will seek to take life; and reckless to suppose that just because you give plenty of warning no-one will be killed. If you place a high value on not killing innocents, you do not set bombs anywhere; if you just place a pretty high value on not killing innocents you remain physically present until the bomb detonates. It was moral luck, and not good judgment, that they did not kill anyone, and I wish that Terry Gross had pushed him harder on that. She did push him on whether he was willing to apologize for his actions in the 60’s and he, all but categorically, refuses to apologise, arguing, implicitly (and rightly), that there is a lot more to apologise for than what he did, and suggesting that he would apologise only in the context of a generalised process of truth and reconciliation. (I know people who I am certain did much worse things than Ayers did, and who will never apologise because they believe that they have nothing at all to apologise for in any context). Still, I’d have liked her to push him on what he would apologise for if he were apologising. What, exactly, is at stake in refusing to answer that question? I’d also like an entirely separate interview with him on school reform, and request that, if she does so, she refrain entirely from mentioning his involvement in the 1960’s.
I may have had my own bit of moral luck during that period. In any case, I understand reasonably well where Ayers was coming from.
I don’t think that the criticisms of the Weatherpeople was primarily because of their violence. One criticism was their advocacy of youth revolution, which is sort of a doomed strategy. Another was the fact that they were somewhat of a media creation and a lot of their strategy involved attempts to get media coverage. (Not unique to them, of course.) And then, they were mostly Ivy League types. And IIRC the internal organization of their group was initially rather hierarchal and authoritarian, though also, again IIRC, it tended to splinter into autonomous regional groups.
In actual fact, there really were no legitimate ways of effectively opposing the Vietnam War while it was happening. Before 1968 it was a bipartisan Democratic War which most Republicans supported. Attempts to work within the Democratic Party came to nothing, in part because of Bobby Kennedy’s assassination. Neither Johnson nor Nixon needed actual positive support for the war; as long as people worked and paid taxes, and as long as it was possible to find soldiers somehow, the war could proceed in the face of widespread opposition and doubt. So basically the war was going to continue 1968-1972, regardless.
People at the time perceived that by 1972 the Vietnam War would have lasted 7 years by any count, which is already a long war. The feeling was that the choices were resigned acceptance, personal-conscience dissociation from what was happening, or some kind of escalation of opposition by committed anti-war people, who were demographically a not very large minority.
Pragmatically it can be argued either that a.) a less violent, less nihilistic anti-war movement would have gained more popular support and would have been more effective, or that b.) at a certain point the domestic chaos caused some leadership group to decide that the war wasn’t worth it.
“A” just seems wrong to me. Nixon didn’t need active support, he just needed acquiescence. “B” doesn’t necessarily seem right either: from 1965 (escalation) to 1973 (US withdrawal) is eight years, a nice long war. I tend toward Chomsky’s opinion, c.) by devastating SE Asia with bombs the US intimidated the rest of the world and pretty much won. There was really no “Two, three, many Vietnams”.
My argument would be different with someone who felt that the Vietnam War was justified or at least tolerable.
I wish I could claim responsibility.
All hail Rotwang.
There was a documentary on the 60s™ that included an interview with a very thoughtful man with an extremely kind face. At least, that was the impression that came to me through the images on the screen. That seemingly gentle man turned out to be Karleton Armstrong who was convicted and served a prison term for the Sterling Hall bombing at the University of WI which killed Robert Fassnacht.
Having lived through that time and a period of martial law during riot season, I knew there were gentle and thoughtful people who considered extreme violence against property and did their best to make sure that there were no human casualties. Of course, it didn’t work out that way but I know that even bombers can be compassionate.
I am thankful that my political activity runs to organizing community gardens, farmers’ markets, and solar barnraisings. I do take the opportunity to question directly some of the media and political bigwigs who appear at Harvard and MIT but they are usually so skilled at BS that my poor attempts at pointedness are easily rebuffed.
Bill Ayers has already faced more public oppobrium than the Bush/Cheney Junta of torturers will ever receive.
Ayers was as hedgy on his answers to some of Gross’ questions as any politician. I was not necessarily unsympathetic to him before hearing the interview, but I came away from it actively disliking the man, not for his youthful mistakes, but for the manner in which he deals with them (or rather, doesn’t deal with them) today.
This seems to be a weird (to me) view of ‘apologize’. You apologize for the things you do. The fact that Stalin really ought to have apoligized to the Russians, or that Pinochet should have apologized to Chileans doesn’t really impact that fact that I should apologize to my sister for pulling her hair.
The fact that Kissinger existed and exists has almost nothing to do with the innocent people that Ayer’s put in harm’s way by blowing up statues in Chicago (Kissinger not present), Molotov cocktails endangering the family of a judge in his home, random people living near them in Greenwich village, random low level police officers in New York city, or women (none high ranking as yet) going to the bathroom at the Pentagon.
And frankly the ‘notifications’ excuse is garbage. You are notifying organizations which you believe are either corrupt or incompetent or both, and then relying on these corrupt or incompetent organizations to keep innocents out of harm’s way.
Can that claim be squared with your non-pacifism Harry? Do you mean to say that it is impossible to go to war while placing a high value on not killing innocents?
Can’t speak for Harry, of course, but yeah, if you go to war, you pretty much guarantee that innocents will get killed.
Of course, of course. But that is not necessarily inconsistent with placing a high (though clearly not absolute) value on avoiding or minimising such casualties.
Sebastian — yes, I meant that he was right that there was a lot to apologise for, not that that observation yielded the implict conclusion that he has no obligation to apologise for anything absent others apologising. There is an interesting issue about to whom he should apologise.
DC — I meant it as an immanent criticism. He says very clearly that they went to great lengths to avoiod killing innocents, implying that they placed a very high value on not taking innocent life. It seems to me, in fact, that they did not go to the pertinent lengths.
Me, I place a very high value on not killing, and also on saving