Tag Archives: Youth

‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’ – Some Art Requires Time

Still Hard to See Clearly:

Roger Ebert’s Review from 1975

Milos Forman’s “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” is a film so good in so many of its parts that there’s a temptation to forgive it when it goes wrong. But it does go wrong, insisting on making larger points than its story really should carry, so that at the end, the human qualities of the characters get lost in the significance of it all. And yet there are those moments of brilliance.

If Forman was preaching a parable, the audience seemed in total agreement with it, and I found that a little depressing: It’s a lot easier to make noble points about fighting the establishment, about refusing to surrender yourself to the system, than it is to closely observe the ways real people behave when they’re placed in an environment like a mental institution.

That sort of observation, when it’s allowed to happen, is what’s best about “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” We meet a classic outsider — R.P. McMurphy, a quintessentially sane convict sent to the institution as a punishment for troublemaking — whose charisma and gall allow him to break through to a group of patients who’ve mostly fallen into a drugged lethargy. Their passive existence is reinforced by the unsmiling, domineering Nurse Ratched, who lines them up for compulsory tranquilizers and then leads them through group therapy in a stupor.

McMurphy has no insights into the nature of mental illness, which is his blessing. He’s an extroverted, life-loving force of nature who sees his fellow patients as teammates, and defines the game as the systematic defiance of Nurse Ratched and the system she personifies. In many of the best scenes in the film, this defiance takes the shape of spontaneous and even innocent little rebellions: During exercise period, the patients mill around aimlessly on a basketball court until McMurphy hilariously tries to get a game going.

He also makes bets and outrageous dares, and does some rudimentary political organizing. He needs the votes of ten patients, out of a possible eighteen, to get the ward schedule changed so they can all watch the World Series — and his victory is in overcoming the indifference the others feel not only toward the Series but toward existence itself. McMurphy is the life force, the will to prevail, set down in the midst of a community of the defeated. And he’s personified and made totally credible by Jack Nicholson, in another of the remarkable performances that have made him the most interesting actor to emerge in the last two decades. Nicholson, manically trying to teach basketball to an Indian (Will Sampson) who hasn’t even spoken in twelve years, sometimes succeeds in translating the meaning of the movie and Ken Kesey’s novel into a series of direct, physical demonstrations.

That’s when the movie works, and what it’s best at. If Forman had stayed at that level — introducing his characters and making them real, and then seeing how they changed as they bounced off one another — “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” might have been a great film. It’s a good one as it is, but we can see the machinery working.

Take, for example, the all-night orgy that finally hands McMurphy over to his doom. He’s smuggled booze and broads into the ward, and everyone gets drunk, and then the hapless Billy (Brad Dourif) is cheerfully bundled into a bedroom with a willing girl. Billy stutters so badly he can hardly talk, but he’s engaging and intelligent, and we suspect his problems are not incurable. The next morning, as Nurse Ratched surveys the damage, Billy at first defies her (speaking without a stutter, which is too obvious) and then caves in when she threatens to tell his mother what he’s done. Nurse Ratched and Billy’s mother are old friends, you see (again, too obvious, pinning the rap on Freud and Mom). Billy commits suicide, and we’re invited to stand around his pitiful corpse and see the injustice of it all — when all we’ve really seen is the plot forcing an implausible development out of unwilling subject matter.

Another scene that just doesn’t work, because it’s too heavily burdened with its purpose, occurs when McMurphy escapes, commandeers a school bus, and takes all the inmates of the ward on a fishing trip in a stolen boat. The scene causes an almost embarrassing break in the movie — it’s Forman’s first serious misstep — because it’s an idealized fantasy in the midst of realism. By now, we’ve met the characters, we know them in the context of hospital politics, and when they’re set down on the boat deck, they just don’t belong there. The ward is the arena in which they’ll win or lose, and it’s not playing fair — to them, as characters — to give them a fishing trip.

Even as I’m making these observations, though, I can’t get out of my mind the tumultuous response that “Cuckoo’s Nest” received from its original audiences. Even the most obvious, necessary, and sobering scenes — as when McMurphy tries to strangle Nurse Ratched to death — were received, not seriously, but with sophomoric cheers and applause. Maybe that’s the way to get the most out of the movie — see it as a simple-minded antiestablishment parable — but I hope not. I think there are long stretches of a very good film to be found in the midst of Forman’s ultimate failure, and I hope they don’t get drowned in the applause for the bad stuff that plays to the galleries.

AND Ebert’s Review from 2003

There is a curiously extended closeup of Jack Nicholson about four-fifths of the way through “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” We notice it because it lingers noticeably. It shows his character, R.P. McMurphy, lost in thought. It comes at the balancing point between the pranks and laughter of the earlier parts of the film, and the final descent into tragedy. What is he thinking? Is he planning new defiance, or realizing that all is lost?

The mystery of what McMurphy is thinking is the mystery of the movie. It all leads up to a late scene where he is found asleep on the floor next to an open window. By deciding not to escape, he has more or less chosen his own fate. Has his life force run out at last? After his uprising against the mental institution, after the inmates’ rebellion that he led, after his life-affirming transformations of Billy and the Chief, after his comeback from an initial dose of shock therapy, has he come at last to the end of his hope?

“One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” (1975) is on every list of favorite films. It was the first film since “It Happened One Night” (1934) to win all five of the top Academy Awards, for best picture, actor (Nicholson), actress (Louise Fletcher), director (Milos Forman) and screenplay (Lawrence Hauben and Bo Goldman). It could for that matter have won, too, for cinematography (Haskell Wexler) and editing (Richard Chew). I was present at its world premiere, at the 1975 Chicago Film Festival, in the 3,000-seat Uptown Theatre, and have never heard a more tumultuous reception for a film (no, not even during “E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial” at Cannes). After the screening, the young first-time co-producer, Michael Douglas, wandered the lobby in a daze.

But what did the audience, which loved the film so intensely, think it was about? The film is remembered as a comedy about the inmate revolt led by McMurphy, and the fishing trip, the all-night orgy, and his defiance of Nurse Ratched (Fletcher)–but in fact it is about McMurphy’s defeat. One can call it a moral victory, and rejoice in the Chief’s escape, but that is small consolation for McMurphy.

The film is based on Ken Kesey’s 1962 best-selling novel, which Pauline Kael observed “contained the prophetic essence of the whole Vietnam period of revolutionary politics going psychedelic.” Toned down for the 1970s into a parable about society’s enforcement of conformism, it almost willfully overlooked the realities of mental illness in order to turn the patients into a group of cuddly characters ripe for McMurphy’s cheerleading. We discover that the Chief is not really mute, Billy need not stutter, and others need not be paralyzed by shyness or fear. They will be cured not by Nurse Ratched’s pills, Muzak and discussion groups, but by McMurphy liberating them to be guys–to watch the World Series on TV, go fishing, play pick-up basketball, get drunk, get laid. The message for these wretched inmates is: Be like Jack.

The movie’s simplistic approach to mental illness is not really a fault of the movie, because it has no interest in being about insanity. It is about a free spirit in a closed system. Nurse Ratched, who is so inflexible, so unseeing, so blandly sure she is right, represents Momism at its radical extreme, and McMurphy is the Huck Finn who wants to break loose from her version of civilization. The movie is among other things profoundly fearful of women; the only two portrayed positively are McMurphy’s hooker friends Candy and Rose. I mean this as an observation, not a criticism.

McMurphy’s past is hinted at early in the film; he was sentenced to a prison farm for criminal assault against an underage girl (“she told me she was 18”), and has been sent to the mental institution for “evaluation.” He is 38 years old, obviously a hell-raiser, and yet deeply democratic: He takes the patients at face value, treats their illnesses as choices that can be reversed, and tries by sheer force of will to bust them loose into a taste of freedom. The movie sees the patients in the same way. The photography and editing supply reaction shots that almost always have the same message: A given patient’s fixed expression is misinterpreted because of the new context supplied by McMurphy. Consider the scene where McMurphy has stolen the boat and has his friends on board. When he is questioned, he introduces them all as doctors, and there are quick cuts to closeups of each one looking doctorly on cue. This has nothing to do with mental illness but everything to do with comedy.

Nicholson’s performance is one of the high points in a long career of enviable rebels. Jack is a beloved American presence, a superb actor who even more crucially is a superb male sprite. The joke lurking beneath the surface of most of his performances is that he gets away with things because he knows how to, wants to, and has the nerve to. His characters stand for freedom, anarchy, self-gratification and bucking the system, and often they also stand for generous friendship and a kind of careworn nobility. The key to the success of his work in “About Schmidt” is that he conceals these qualities–he becomes one of the patients, instead of the liberating McMurphy.

If his performance is justly celebrated, Louise Fletcher’s, despite the Oscar, is not enough appreciated. This may be because her Nurse Ratched is so thoroughly contemptible, and because she embodies so completely the qualities we all (men and women) have been taught to fear in a certain kind of female authority figure–a woman who has subsumed sexuality and humanity into duty and righteousness. Dressed in her quasi-military nurse’s costume, with its little hat and its Civil War-style cape, she is dominatrix and warden, followed everywhere by the small, unspeaking nurse who is her acolyte.

Because we respond so strongly to her we hardly see Fletcher’s performance. But watch her preternatural calm, her impassive “fairness,” her inflexible adherence to the rules, as in the scene where she demands McMurphy get a majority vote in order to turn on the World Series on TV–this despite the fact that a majority of the patients don’t understand what they are voting on. At the end, when McMurphy’s final fate is decided upon, note how the male administrator tentatively suggests he be sent back to the prison farm, but Ratched firmly contradicts him: “We must not pass our responsibilities on to someone else.”

Is “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” not a great film because it is manipulative, or is it great because it is so superbly manipulative? I can see it through either filter. It remains enduringly popular as an anti-establishment parable, but achieves its success by deliberately choosing to use the mental patients as comic caricatures. This decision leads to the fishing trip, which is at once the most popular, and the most false, scene in the movie. It is McMurphy’s great joyous thumb in the eye to Ratched and her kind, but the energy of the sequence cannot disguise the unease and confusion of men who, in many cases, have no idea where they are, or why.

Consider by comparison the quiet, late-night speech by the Chief (Will Sampson), who speaks of his father. This is a window into a real character with real problems, who has chosen to be considered deaf and mute rather than talk about them. McMurphy’s treatment works for him, and leads up to the sad perfection of the very final scenes–during which, if he could see them, McMurphy would be proud of his star pupil.

Milos Forman, born in Czechoslovakia in 1932, has become one of the great interpreters of American manners and mores. A leader of the Czech New Wave, his early films like “Loves of a Blonde” (1965) and “The Firemen’s Ball” (1968) won worldwide audiences their use of paradoxical humor. (In what was seen as a parable of life under communism, the firemen arrive too late to save a barn, but when the farmer complains of the cold, they helpfully move him closer to the flames).

After the “Prague spring” came the Soviet crackdown, and Forman fled to America, where he has had extraordinary success (his “Amadeus” in 1984, produced by “Cuckoo” co-producer Saul Zaentz, won seven Oscars, including best picture and director). Look at the quintessentially American topics of his films: The runaway young people and conventional parents of “Taking Off” (1971), the anti-war musical “Hair” (1979), the New York historical romance “Ragtime” (1981), the defense of a rabble-rouser in “The People vs. Larry Flynt” (1996), the portrait of the McMurphy-like prankster Andy Kaufman in “Man on the Moon” (1999). He sees his adopted land in terms of its best nonconformist and outsider traditions, at a time when conformity is the new creed. His McMurphy succeeds and prevails as a character, despite the imperfections of the film, because he represents that cleansing spirit that comes along now and again to renew us.

‘The White Negro’ by Norman Mailer (1957)

THE WHITE NEGRO
Superficial Reflections on the Hipster
Norman Mailer
Our search for the rebels of the generation led us to the hipster. The hipster is an enfant terrible turned inside out.
In character with his time, he is trying to get back at the conformists by lying low … You can’t interview a hipster because his main goal is to keep out of a society which, he thinks, is trying to make everyone over in its own image. He takes marijuana because it supplies him with experiences that can’t be shared with “squares.” He may affect a broad-brimmed hat or a zoot suit, but usually he prefers to skulk unmarked. The hipster may be a jazz musician; he is rarely an artist, almost never a writer. He may earn his living as a petty criminal, a hobo, a carnival roustabout or a free-lance moving man in Greenwich Village, but some hipsters have found a safe refuge in the upper income brackets as television comics or movie actors. (The late James Dean, for one, was a hipster hero.) … It is tempting to describe the hipster in psychiatric terms as infantile, but the style of his infantilism is a sign of the times. He does not try to enforce his will on others, Napoleon-fashion, but contents himself with a magical omnipotence never disproved because never tested.
… As the only extreme nonconformist of his generation, he exercises a powerful if underground appeal for conformists,
through newspaper accounts of his delinquencies, his structureless jazz, and his emotive grunt words. Probably, we will never he able to determine the psychic havoc of the concentration camps and the atom bomb upon the unconscious
mind of almost everyone alive in these years. for the first time in civilized history, perhaps for the first time in all of history, we
have been forced to live with the suppressed knowledge that the smallest facets of our personality or the most minor projection of our ideas, or indeed the absence of ideas and the absence of personality could mean equally well that we might still be doomed to die as a cipher in some vast statistical operation in which our teeth would be counted, and our hair would be saved, but our death itself would be unknown, unhonored, and unremarked, a death which could not follow with dignity as a possible consequence to serious actions we had chosen, but rather a death by deus ex mach,itna in a gas chamber or a radioactive city; and so if in the midst of civilization—that civilization founded upon the Faustian urge to dominate nature by mastering time, mastering the links of social cause and effect—in the middle of an economic
civilization founded upon the confidence that time could indeed be subjected to our will, our psyche was subjected itself to the intolerable anxiety that death being causeless, life was causeless as well, and time deprived of cause and effect had come to a stop.
The Second World War presented a mirror to the human condition which blinded anyone who looked into it. For if tens of millions were killed in concentration camps out of the inexorable agonies and contractions of super-states founded upon the always insoluble contradictions of injustice, one was then obliged also to see that no matter how crippled and perverted an image of man was the society he had created, it was nonetheless his creation, his collective creation (at least his collective creation from the past) and if society was so murderous, then who could ignore the most hideous of questions about his own
nature?

Worse. One could hardly maintain the courage to be individual, to speak with one’s own voice, for the years in which one could complacently accept oneself as part of an elite by being a radical were forever gone. A man knew that when he dissented, he gave a note upon his life which could be called in any year of overt crisis. No wonder then that these have been the years of conformity and depression. A stench of fear has come out of every pore of American life, and we
suffer from a collective failure of nerve. The only courage, with rare exceptions, that we have been witness to, has been the isolated courage of isolated people.

It is on this bleak scene that a phenomenon has appeared: the American existentialist—the hipster, the man who knows that if our collective condition is to live with instant death by atomic war, relatively quick death by the State as l’univers concentrationnaire, or with a slow death by conformity with every creative and rebellious instinct stifled (at what damage to the mind and the heart and the liver and the nerves no research foundation for cancer will discover in a hurry) , if the fate of twentieth century man is to live with death from adolescence to premature senescence, why then the only life-giving
answer is to accept the terms of death, to live with death as immediate danger, to divorce oneself from society, to exist without roots, to set out on that uncharted journey into the rebellious imperatives of the self. In short, whether the life is criminal or not, the decision is to encourage the psychopath in oneself, to explore that domain of experience where security is boredom and therefore sickness, and one exists in the present, in that enormous present which is without past or future,
memory or planned intention, the life where a man must go until he is beat, where he must gamble with his energies through all those small or large crises of courage and unforeseen situations which beset his day, where he must be with it or doomed not to swing. The unstated essence of Hip, its psychopathic brilliance, quivers with the knowledge that new kinds of victories increase one’s power for new kinds of perception; and defeats, the wrong kind of defeats, attack the body and imprison one’s energy until one is jailed in the prison air of other people’s habits, other people’s defeats, boredom, quiet desperation, and muted icy self-destroying rage.

One is Hip or one is Square (the alternative which each new generation coming into American life is beginning to feel) , one is a rebel or one conforms, one is a frontiersman in the Wild West of American night life, or else a Square cell, trapped in the totalitarian tissues of American society, doomed willy-nilly to conform if one is to succeed. A totalitarian society makes enormous demands on the courage of men, and a partially totalitarian society makes even greater demands for the general anxiety is greater. Indeed if one is to be a man, almost any kind of unconventional action often takes disproportionate
courage. So it is no accident that the source of Hip is the Negro for he has been living on the margin between totalitarianism and democracy for two centuries. But the presence of Hip as a working philosophy in the sub-worlds of American life is probably due to jazz, and its knife-like entrance into culture, its subtle but so penetrating influence on an avant-garde generation—that post-war generation of adventurers who (some consciously, some by osmosis) had absorbed the lessons of disillusionment and disgust of the Twenties, the Depression, and the War. Sharing a collective disbelief in the words of men who had too much money and controlled too many things, they knew almost as powerful a disbelief in the socially monolithic ideas of the single mate, the solid family and the respectable love life. If the intellectual antecedents of this generation can be traced to such separate influences as D. H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, and Wilhelm Reich, the viable philosophy of Hemingway fits most of their facts: in a bad world, as he was to say over and over again (while taking time out from his parvenu snobbery and dedicated gourmandise) , in a had world there is no love nor mercy nor charity nor justice unless a man can keep his courage, and this indeed fitted some of the facts. What fitted the need of the adventurer even more precisely was Hemingway’s categorical imperative that what made him feel good became therefore The Good.
So no wonder that in certain cities of America, in New York of course, and New Orleans, in Chicago and San Francisco and Los Angeles, in such American cities as Paris and Mexico, D.F., this particular part of a generation was attracted to what the Negro had to offer. In such places as Greenwich Village, a menage-a-trois was completed—the bohemian and the juvenile delinquent came face-to-face with the Negro, and the hipster was a fact in American life. If marijuana was the wedding ring, the child was the language of Hip for its argot gave expression to abstract states of feeling which all could share; at least all who were Hip. And in this wedding of the white and the black it was the Negro who brought the cultural down. Any Negro who wishes to live must live with danger from his first day, and no experience can ever be casual to him, no Negro can saunter down a street with any real certainty that violence will not visit him on his walk. The cameos of security for the average white: mother and the home, job and the family, are not even a mockery to millions of Negroes; they are impossible. The Negro has the simplest of alternatives: live a life of constant humility or ever-threatening danger. In such a pass where paranoia is as vital to survival as blood, the Negro had stayed alive and begun to grow by following the need of his body where he could. Knowing in the cells of his existence that life was war, nothing but war, the Negro (all exceptions admitted) could rarely afford the sophisticated inhibitions of civilization, and so he kept for his survival the art of the primitive, he lived in the enormous present, he subsisted for his Saturday night kicks, relinquishing the pleasures of the mind for the more obligatory pleasures
of the body, and in his music he gave voice to the character and quality of his existence, to his rage and the infinite variations of joy, lust, languor, growl, cramp, pinch, scream and despair of his orgasm. For jazz is orgasm, it is the music of orgasm, good orgasm and bad, and so it spoke across a nation, it had the communication of art even where it was watered, perverted, corrupted, and almost killed, it spoke in no matter what laundered popular way of instantaneous existential states
to which some whites could respond, it was indeed a communication by art because it said, “I feel this, and now you do too.”
So there was a new breed of adventurers, urban adventurers who drifted out at night looking for action with a black man’s code to fit their facts. The hipster had absorbed the existentialist synapses of the Negro, and for practical purposes could be considered a white Negro. To be an existentialist, one must be able to feel oneself—one must know one’s desires, one’s rages, one’s anguish, one must be aware of the character of one’s frustration and know what would satisfy it. The
over-civilized man can be an existentialist only if it is chic, and deserts it quickly for the next chic. To be a real existentialist (Sartre admittedly to the contrary) one must be religious, one must have one’s sense of the “purpose”—whatever the purpose may be—but a life which is directed by one’s faith in the necessity of action is a life committed to the notion that the substratum of existence is the search, the end meaningful but mysterious; it is impossible to live such a life unless one’s emotions provide their profound conviction. Only the French, alienated beyond alienation from their unconscious could welcome an existential philosophy without ever feeling it at all; indeed only a Frenchman by declaring that the unconscious did not exist could then proceed to explore the delicate involutions of consciousness, the microscopically sensuous and all but ineffable frissons of mental becoming, in order finally to create the theology of atheism and so submit that in a world of absurdities the existential absurdity is most coherent…

It may be fruitful to consider the hipster a philosophical psychopath, a man interested not only in the dangerous imperatives of his psychopathy but in codifying, at least for himself, the suppositions on which his inner universe is constructed. By this premise the hipster is a psychopath, and yet not a psychopath but the negation of the psychopath for he possesses the narcissistic detachment of the philosopher, that absorption in the recessive nuances of one’s own motive which is so
alien to the unreasoning drive of the psychopath. In this country where new millions of psychopaths are developed each year, stamped with the mint of our contradictory popular culture (where sex is sin and yet sex is paradise) , it is as if there has been room already for the development of the antithetical psychopath who extrapolates from his own condition, from the inner certainty that his rebellion is just, a radical vision of the universe which thus separates him from the general
ignorance, reactionary prejudice, and self-doubt of the more conventional psychopath… For Hip is the sophistication of the wise primitive in a giant jungle, and so its appeal is still beyond the civilized man.

If there are ten million Americans who are more or less psychopathic (and the figure is most modest) , there are probably not more than one hundred thousand men and women who consciously see themselves as hipsters, but their importance is that they are an elite with the potential ruthlessness of an elite, and a language most adolescents can understand instinctively for the hipster’s intense view of existence matches their experience and their desire to rebel.

The late Robert Lindner, one of the few experts on the subject, in his book Rebel Without A Cause—The Hypnoanalysis of a Criminal Psychopath presented part of his definition in this way:… the psychopath is a rebel without a cause, an agitator without a slogan, a revolutionary without a program: in other words, his rebelliousness is aimed to achieve goals satisfactory to himself alone; he is incapable of exertions for the sake of others.
Yet even Lindner who was the most imaginative and most sympathetic of the psychoanalysts who have studied the psychopathic personality was not ready to project himself into the essential sympathy— which is that the psychopath may indeed be the perverted and dangerous front-runner of a new kind of personality which could become the central expression of human nature before the twentieth century is over. For the psychopath is better adapted to dominate those mutually contradictory inhibitions upon violence and love which civilization has exacted of us, and if it be remembered that not every psychopath is an extreme case, and that the condition of psychopathy is present in a host of people including many politicians, professional soldiers, newspaper columnists, entertainers, artists, jazz musicians, call-girls, promiscuous
homosexuals and half the executives of Hollywood, television, and advertising, it can be seen that there are aspects of psychopathy which already exert considerable cultural influence…
The psychopath murders—if he has the courage—out of the necessity to purge his violence, for if he cannot empty his hatred then he cannot love, his being is frozen with implacable self-hatred for his cowardice. (It can of course be
suggested that it takes little courage for two strong eighteen-year old hoodlums, let us say, to beat in the brains of a candy-store keeper, and indeed the act—even by the logic of the psychopath—is not likely to prove very therapeutic for the victim is not an immediate equal. Still, courage of a sort is necessary, for one murders not only a weak fiftyyear
old man but an institution as well, one violates private property, one enters into a new relation with the police and introduces a dangerous element into one’s life.
At bottom, the drama of the psychopath is that he seeks love. Not love as the search for a mate, but love as the search for an orgasm more apocalyptic than the one which preceded it. Orgasm is his therapy— he knows at the seed of his being that good orgasm opens his possibilities and bad orgasm imprisons him. But in this search, the psychopath becomes an embodiment of the extreme contradictions of the society which formed his character, and the apocalyptic orgasm often remains as remote as the Holy Grail, for there are clusters and nests and ambushes of violence in his own necessities and in the imperatives and retaliations of the men and women among whom he lives his life, so that even as he drains his hatred in one act or another, so the conditions of his life create it anew in him until the drama of his movements bears a sardonic resemblance to the frog who climbed a few feet in the well only to drop back again.
Yet there is this to be said for the search after the good orgasm: when one lives in a civilized world, and still can enjoy none of the cultural nectar of such a world because the paradoxes on which civilization is built demands that there remain a cultureless and alienated bottom of exploitable human material, then the logic of becoming a sexual outlaw (if one’s psychological roots are bedded in the bottom) is that one has at least a running competitive chance to be physically
healthy so long as one stays alive. It is therefore no accident that psychopathy is most prevalent with the Negro. Hated from outside and therefore hating himself, the Negro was forced into the position of exploring all those moral wildernesses of civilized life which the Square automatically condemns as delinquent or evil or immature or morbid or self-destructive or corrupt. (Actually the terms have equal weight. Depending on the telescope of the cultural clique from which the Square
surveys the universe, “evil” or “immature” are equally strong terms of condemnation.) But the Negro, not being privileged to gratify his selfesteem with the heady satisfactions of categorical condemnation, chose to move instead in that other direction where all situations are equally valid, and in the worst of perversion, promiscuity, pimpery, drug addiction, rape, razor-slash, bottle-break, what-have-you, the Negro discovered and elaborated a morality of the bottom, an ethical differentiation
between the good and the bad in every human activity from the go-getter pimp (as opposed to the lazy one) to the relatively dependable pusher or prostitute. Add to this, the cunning of their language, the abstract ambiguous alternatives in which from the danger of their oppression they learned to speak (“Well, now, man, like I’m looking for a cat to turn me on…”), add even more the profound sensitivity of the Negro jazzman who was the cultural mentor of a people, and it is not too difficult to believe that the language of Hip which evolved was an artful language, tested and shaped by an intense experience and
therefore different in kind from white slang, as different as the special obscenity of the soldier which in its emphasis upon “ass” as the soul and “shit” as circumstance, was able to express the existential states
of the enlisted man.

What makes Hip a special language is that it cannot really be taught—if one shares none of the experiences of elation
and exhaustion which it is equipped to describe, then it seems merely arch or vulgar or irritating…  For example, there is real difficulty in trying to find a Hip substitute for “stubborn.” The best possibility I can come up with is: “That cat will never come off his groove, dad.” But groove implies movement, narrow movement but motion nonetheless. There is really
no way to describe someone who does not move at all. Even a creep does move—if at a pace exasperatingly more slow than the pace of the cool cats.

Like children, hispters are fighting for the sweet, and their language is a set of subtle indications of their success or failure in the competition for pleasure. Unstated but obvious is the social sense that there is not nearly enough sweet for everyone. And so the sweet goes only to the victor, the best, the most, the man who knows the most about how to find his energy and how not to lose it. The emphasis is on energy because the psychopath and the hipster are nothing without it since they do not have the protection of a position or a class to rely on when they have overextended themselves. So the language of Hip
is a language of energy, how it is found, how it is lost.

But let us see. I have jotted down perhaps a dozen words, the Hip perhaps most in use and most likely to last with the minimum of variation. The words are man, go, put down, make, beat, cool, swing, with it, crazy, dig, flip, creep, hip, square. They serve a variety of purposes, and the nuance of the voice uses the nuance of the situation to convey the subtle contextual difference.

Whereas if you goof (the ugliest word in Hip) , if you lapse back into being a frightened stupid child, or if you flip, if you lose your control, reveal the buried weaker more feminine part of your nature, then it is more difficult to swing the next time, your ear is less alive, your bad and energy-wasting habits are further confirmed, you are farther away from being with it. But to be ‘with it’, you are then nearer to that God which every hipster believes is located in the senses of his body, that trapped, mutilated and nonetheless megalomaniacal God who is It, who is energy, life, sex, force, the Yoga’s prana, Lawrence’s “blood,” Hemingway’s “good,” the Shavian life-force; “It”; God; not the God of the churches but the unachievable whisper of
mystery within the sex, the paradise of limitless energy and perception just beyond the next wave of the next orgasm.
To which a cool cat might reply, “Crazy, man!”
Because, after all, what I have offered above is an hypothesis, no more, and there is not the hipster alive who is not absorbed in his own tumultuous hypotheses. Mine is interesting, mine is way out (on the avenue of the mystery along the road to “It”) but still I am just one cat in a world of cool cats, and everything interesting is crazy, or at least so the Squares who do not know how to swing would say. (And yet crazy is also the self-protective irony of the hipster. Living with questions and not with answers, he is so different in his isolation and in the far reach of his imagination from almost everyone with whom he deals in the outer world of the Square.
If, however, you agree with my hypothesis, if you as a cat are way out too, and we are in the same groove (the universe now being glimpsed as a series of ever-extending radii from the center) why then you say simply, “I dig,” because neither knowledge nor imagination comes easily, it is buried in the pain of one’s forgotten experience, and so one must work to find it, one must occasionally exhaust oneself by digging into the self in order to perceive the outside. And indeed it is
essential to dig the most, for if you do not dig you lose your superiority over the Square, and so you are less likely to be cool (to be in control of a situation because you have swung where the Square has not ).

To be cool is to be equipped, and if you are equipped it is more difficult for the next cat who comes along to put you down. And of course one can hardly afford to be put down too often, or one is beat, one has lost one’s confidence, one has lost one’s will, one is impotent in the world of action and so closer to the demeaning flip of becoming a
queer, or indeed closer to dying, and therefore it is even more difficult to recover enough energy to try to make it again, because once a cat is beat he has nothing to give, and no one is interested any longer in making it with him. This is the terror of the hipster—to be beat— because once the sweet of sex has deserted him, he still cannot give up the search. It is not granted to the hipster to grow old gracefully—he has been captured too early by the oldest dream of power, the gold fountain of Ponce de Leon, the fountain of youth where the gold is in the orgasm…

The only Hip morality (but of course it is an ever-present morality) is to do what one feels whenever and wherever it is possible, and—this is how the war of the Hip and the Square begins—to be engaged in one primal
battle: to open the limits of the possible for oneself, for oneself alone because that is one’s need… Which is exactly what separates Hip from the authoritarian philosophies which now appeal to the conservative and liberal temper—what haunts
the middle of the Twentieth Century is that faith in man has been lost, and the appeal of authority has been that it would restrain us from ourselves. Hip, which would return us to ourselves, at no matter what price in individual violence, is the affirmation of the barbarian for it requires a primitive passion about human nature to believe that individual acts of violence are always to be preferred to the collective violence of the State; it takes literal faith in the creative possibilities
of the human being to envisage acts of violence as the catharsis which prepares growth… And
in being so controlled, denied, and starved into the attrition of conformity, indeed the hipster may come to see that his condition is no more than an exaggeration of the human condition, and if he would be free, then everyone must be free. …
It is obviously not very possible to speculate with sharp focus on the future of the hipster. Certain possibilities must be evident, however, and the most central is that the organic growth of Hip depends on whether the Negro emerges as a dominating force in American life. Since the Negro knows more about the ugliness and danger of life than the White, it is probable that if the Negro can win his equality, he will possess a potential superiority, a superiority so feared that the fear
itself has become the underground drama of domestic politics. Like all conservative political fear it is the fear of unforeseeable consequences, for the Negro’s equality would tear a profound shift into the psychology, the sexuality, and the moral imagination of every White alive.
With this possible emergence of the Negro, Hip may erupt as a psychically armed rebellion whose sexual impetus may rebound against the anti-sexual foundation of every organized power in America, and bring into the air such animosities, antipathies, and new conflicts of interest that the mean empty hypocrisies of mass conformity will no longer work. A time of violence, new hysteria, confusion and rebellion will then be likely to replace the time of conformity. At that time, if the liberal should prove realistic in his belief that there is peaceful room for every tendency in American life, then Hip would end by
being absorbed as a colorful figure in the tapestry.

No matter what its horrors the Twentieth Century is a vastly exciting century for its tendency is to reduce all of life to its ultimate alternatives. One can well wonder if the last war of them all will be between the blacks and the whites, or between the women and the men, or between the beautiful and ugly, the pillagers and managers, or the rebels and the regulators. …

Radicalization in 1960s Madison, Wisconsin: One Participant’s Reflection

By Patrick Quinn

The three most radicalized university campuses during the late 1960s were Columbia University, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the University of California at Berkeley. What follows is an account of the radicalization in Madison during the years 1962 to 1971 based on the perspective of one participant.

I

graduated from high school in a small town in southeastern Wisconsin in 1960. I came from a working-class family consisting of myself, my grandparents and my bachelor uncle. My grandfather was a plumber and my uncle was a letter carrier. My grandfather died in 1957 and my uncle in 1959, leaving just my grandmother and me. I began working as a letter carrier at the U.S. Post Office in 1959 and continued to do so during the summers and school vacations until 1966. In 1960 I entered the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, where I was won to socialism by political science professor James T. Flynn, who had been a member of the Young Peoples Socialist League (YPSL) at the University of Chicago in the 1950s, along with the future U.S. Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, and a future leader of the International Socialist Organization, Joel Geier, among others. At the UW-Whitewater I joined the newly-formed Peace Studies Club (a ban-the-bomb group) and was the co-founder of the Socialist Club.

In 1962, I transferred to the University of Wisconsin-Madison where I quickly became aware of the “Left” on campus. The “Left” was small and primarily a social and cultural, as well as political, milieu. Most of the students in the Left were Jewish, from New York City, and were “red diaper babies,” i.e. they came from families which had been connected in some manner or another with the Communist Party. On Friday and Saturday nights I went (uninvited) to parties in apartments in the wooden buildings in the student “ghetto” just south of the University campus. To me, the apartments seemed virtually identical. All were filled with paperback books housed in wooden orange crates. Candles burned in empty straw-encased Chianti wine bottles. Burlap was hung on walls adjacent to prints of paintings by Picasso, Matisse, Renoir, Cezanne, Monet and Manet. The music emanating from record players was Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Pete Seeger and the Weavers. Discussions at these parties rarely concerned political issues; rather, they were focused primarily on “foreign” films directed by Ingmar Bergman (1918-2007), Akira Kurosawa (1910-1998), and Federico Fellini (1920-1993), among others. Everyone seemed to know everyone else, and as I listened to them, I learned that many had attended the same high schools—Midwood and Erasmus Hall in Brooklyn, Bronx Science and Music and Art, and Stuyvesant in Manhattan—and had attended the same “progressive” summer camps in the Catskills. I felt very uncomfortable and out of place. I was a fish out of water. I was, in fact, one of the very few “goys” in this Left milieu. As I glanced at the books and journals in the orange-crate bookcases, I saw some books by Marx and Engels, but none by Trotsky or Lenin or Stalin. Many students appeared to read the journal Studies on the Left or books by C. Wright Mills. Copies of the National Guardian were strewn about everywhere.

In the fall of 1962, I joined the Socialist Club at the University. It was comprised mainly of Jewish students from New York. In my naiveté, it was only later that I learned that many of the members of the Socialist Club were clandestinely affiliated with or sympathetic to the Young Communist League or the Communist Party. Between 1962 and the summer of 1964, not much happened on the Left in Madison, but in 1964 the Civil Rights Movement in the South was heating up, especially after the murders of three Civil Rights workers—James Chaney (1943-1964), Andrew Goodman (1943-1964), and Mickey Schwerner (1939-1964)—near Philadelphia, Mississippi during the “Freedom Summer” voter registration campaign. I joined the Madison chapter of the Friends of SNCC, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, a Civil Rights organization based in the South. Friends of SNCC organized small rallies in Madison and held forums on Civil Rights topics at the First Congregational Church in Madison. Many members of the Socialist Club were also members of the Friends of SNCC. In June 1964 I graduated from the University of Wisconsin and enrolled in the UW graduate school.

In 1964 I also joined SDS (the Students for a Democratic Society), which had been founded in Port Huron, Michigan, two years earlier. At the time I joined the Madison chapter of SDS, it was probably to the right of the UW Young Democrats, who were based at the liberal Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship on campus, but the SDS chapter soon moved more to the left by sponsoring an important event. We called the Communist Party in Chicago and asked them to send a speaker to Madison. Our intention was to break the ban on Communists speaking at the University. The CP sent to Madison one of its leaders, Claude Lightfoot, an African-American, to speak at a forum that we organized. We publicized Lightfoot’s speech widely, and on the night of Lightfoot’s speech, Tripp Commons in the Student Union was filled to capacity. Just as Lightfoot began to speak, State Senator Gordon Roseleip (1912-1989, Republican, Darlington) and a number of other right-wing state legislators, very drunk, burst into the room and began trying to shout Lightfoot down, screaming that he was a “Nigger” and a “Commie.” Roseleip and the other legislators were roundly booed by the audience and they left the room. After Lightfoot spoke, those of us in SDS who had arranged his speech were elated that we had succeeded in breaking the ban on Communist speakers at the University which had been in place since Senator Joe McCarthy had begun his anti-Communist ravings a decade and a half earlier. A few days later, a radical student, Jim H., climbed to the top of the stairs in front of the Student Union and shouted loudly to the small audience of students gathered below that they should “violently overthrow the government.” He was not arrested by the campus cops. The right of “Free Speech” had prevailed at the University of Wisconsin.

In the early 1960s, students on the Left in Madison looked to three professors for leadership. One was Hans Gerth (1908-78), a German-born professor of Sociology who had been the mentor of C. Wright Mills at the University of Wisconsin in the 1940s; another was the famed professor of American history William Appleman Williams (1921-90), the author of the influential book, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy; and the third was professor of history George Mosse (1918-99), a refugee from Nazi Germany who was a liberal, and decidedly not a socialist. The legendary Marxist history professor Harvey Goldberg (1922-87), a brilliant, spell-binding lecturer, did not arrive at the University until the fall of 1963.

In February 1965 the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam precipitated the beginning in Madison and elsewhere of what became the movement against the war in Vietnam. About twelve of us held a vigil against the Vietnam War at the southwest corner of the Capitol Square on a Friday evening. The ground was deeply covered by snow and the brutally cold temperature was well below zero. High-school-age Madison youth in cars drove around the Capitol Square and threw full cans of beer at us. Shortly thereafter the Madison Committee Against the War in Vietnam (MCEWV), of which I was a founding member, was organized.

Many of the students who founded the MCEWV—including a student who later became a professor at the UW School for Workers, Frank Emspak (1943- )—came from Communist Party backgrounds, although several of the founders were Trotskyists. A chapter of the Young Socialist Alliance, the youth group of the (Trotskyist) Socialist Workers Party, had existed at the University since 1962. In September 1962 I had bought my first copy of the Militant, the weekly newspaper of the SWP, from Gerry Foley, who sold it every Friday afternoon in front of the University Library, and I had begun reading it regularly. Weekly vigils against the War in Vietnam were held at the Capitol Square on Friday nights during the remainder of the frozen winter of 1965, one of the coldest winters in memory. As the weather improved in the late spring, anti-war activities increased substantially and demonstrations against the war were held outside the Truax Air Force Base (today the Madison airport) and at the Badger Ordnance powder works northwest of Madison near Baraboo, Wisconsin, which made much of the gun powder for the U.S. troops in Vietnam. “Teach-ins” during which University faculty spoke against the war were held in buildings near the campus. The MCEWV began distributing thousands of copies of its weekly newsletter, The Crisis, which I helped to produce.

In

early March 1965, Civil Rights protesters in Selma, Alabama, were brutally attacked by the police. I dropped out of graduate school, took a bus to Montgomery, Alabama, and became involved in the Civil Rights movement in Selma. After the mass March on Montgomery, Alabama, in March 1965, I moved to New York City, where I participated in rather small anti-war and peace demonstrations. The pacifists who controlled the anti-nuclear bomb movement in New York strongly opposed us carrying signs specifically opposing the war in Vietnam at the demonstrations or marches that they sponsored.

I returned to Madison to find a letter waiting for me from my draft board instructing me to report for induction into the Army. I immediately returned to my old job as a letter carrier at the Post Office in my home town and on the day that I was supposed to board the bus to Milwaukee to be inducted into the Army, I instead went to work at the Post Office. That evening in a bar, a high school classmate who had gone on the bus to Milwaukee to be inducted into the Army, but had been rejected for physical reasons, told me that the County Sheriff had a warrant out for my arrest. The next morning I told this to my boss, the Postmaster, who called the head of the local draft board and informed him that postal employees, by law, were “essential to the National Defense,” and therefore could not be drafted. For the moment I was safe from the clutches of the draft.

I got married at the end of August 1965. Because school teachers were still exempted from the draft, I taught English and History at Racine Park High School in 1965-1966. The anti-war movement in Madison grew very slowly during that year, but I was, nonetheless, active in it on weekends. Several major events occurred. U.S. Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon spoke against the War in Vietnam at Madison West High School. Morse (1900-74) was a native of Wisconsin who had graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and was one of only two U.S. Senators opposed to the war in Vietnam. The other was Senator Ernest Gruening (1887-1974) of Alaska. The Young Socialist Alliance distributed leaflets at the Morse event criticizing the timidity of Senator Morse’s anti-war stand. He called only for “negotiations.” The Young Socialist Alliance and the Socialist Workers Party called for “immediate withdrawal” of all U.S. troops from Vietnam. The Communist Party supporters who then controlled the Committee Against the War in Vietnam called the police on the Young Socialist Alliance. Their actions prompted an emergency meeting of the CEWV the next day at the University YMCA. An intense debate was held at the meeting about the police being called. At the end of the meeting a new election of CEWV officers was held, and all of the Communist Party supporters were swept out of office and Robin David of the Young Socialist Alliance was elected chair of the CEWV. The debate convinced me of the correctness of the Young Socialist Alliance’s position on the war, and I became a supporter of the YSA, although I did not join it immediately.


Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) organize a protest against the draft May 14, 1966

Inn the spring of 1966 the U.S. government removed the 2-S provision of the military draft code that exempted students from the draft. On the UW campus, this development prompted the seizure and occupation of the A.W. Peterson Administration Building on Murray Street. One of the central leaders of the occupation, a young student from New York, Lowell Bergman (1945- ), later became a well-known journalist and television producer for ABC, CBS, and PBS. As the building occupation continued, the socialist history professor William Appleman Williams arrived to speak to the students occupying the building and admonished them to stop their “silly occupation” and leave the building. The students ignored Williams. He lost his credibility as an icon of the Left on campus and was shortly replaced by Professor Harvey Goldberg, whose popular history courses had a fiercely anti-war content. Williams soon left Wisconsin for the University of Oregon. The occupation of the Peterson building in May 1966 was personally significant for me because during the occupation my older daughter Abra was born on May 21 in the University Hospital a few blocks away.

A short time later, Senator Edward Kennedy, who supported the war, came to the University to speak at the large stock pavilion on the University’s agricultural campus. As he began to speak, hecklers in the audience shouted against Kennedy’s pro-war position. Kennedy finally invited Robin David, chair of the CEWV, to the podium to debate the war with him. He asked Robin how he would end the war and Robin, to a standing ovation, said simply that he would load all the U.S. troops on boats and sail away from Vietnam. This event was captured in “The War at Home,“ the documentary made about the anti-war movement at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

I became a member of the Steering Committee of the CEWV and worked closely with members of the YSA on the Steering Committee. The YSA then had only about 6 or 8 members, primarily Jewish students from New York City, but it exercised an influence on campus far beyond its numbers. During the balance of 1966, the anti-war movement in Madison did not grow appreciably. At the beginning of 1967, members of the CEWV spent their time building a contingent from Madison to go to the national anti-war demonstration in New York City on April 18th. By the middle of April we had filled 13 buses bound for the New York demonstration, including quite a few high school students. The demonstration was held at the UN building. Construction workers pelted anti-war marchers with iron bolts that they threw down on them from the tops of buildings under construction. The April 18th demonstration in New York City marked the real beginning of the mass anti-war movement nationally. The Madison CEWV’s activities accordingly accelerated. On the Fourth of July, the CEWV distributed anti-war leaflets in all of Madison’s parks. Several CEWV leafleters were beaten up. Members of the CEWV spent the early fall of 1967 building for the next mass national anti-war demonstration, scheduled for the Pentagon on October 18, 1967, but just prior to the departure of the Madison buses for the Pentagon demonstration, a major event occurred in Madison that would have a profound effect upon the growth both of the anti-war movement and of the Left in Madison.


Chancellor Sewell calls in police who use tear gas to clear protestors against the Dow Chemical Co. from the Commerce Building on October 18

The Dow Chemical Company of Midland, Michigan, which made the napalm that was being dropped on the people of Vietnam, was coming to the UW campus to recruit management employees. Dow was scheduled to interview potential employees in the School of Commerce building. A day before the Dow recruiters were to arrive, the Madison Committee to End the War in Vietnam held a mass meeting in the Social Science building to decide what to do about Dow’s recruitment on campus. At the meeting a fierce debate occurred over whether to stage a sit-in against Dow in the Commerce building. The Young Socialist Alliance was opposed to holding a sit-in because it was convinced that the cops would attack it. At the close of the debate, a vote was taken on whether to hold a sit-in. By a show of hands, the sit-in was narrowly defeated. But one of the supporters of the sit-in made a motion for a re-vote and a division of the house. When the house was divided, the sit-in won by one vote.

The sit-in began the following morning. Just before noon hundreds of cops, mainly Dane County Sheriff’s deputies, appeared on the scene clad in riot uniforms and helmets with visors. The deputies began wading into the students conducting the sit-in in the Commerce Building and viciously clubbing them with their riot clubs. Among the many students who were clubbed and bleeding was future Madison mayor Paul Soglin (1945- ). Many students were arrested. No one participating in the sit-in or any of those observing the police attack on the students had ever seen such an expression of police brutality, except perhaps the police attacks on Civil Rights protestors in the South which had been shown on television. The vicious police attack on students sitting in to protest Dow Chemical galvanized the UW campus and immediately prompted a quantitative increase in the size of the anti-war movement and the Left in Madison.

The next day, as hundreds of us boarded buses to go to the anti-war demonstration in Washington at the Pentagon, the YSA was resolved to do everything that it could do to build and broaden the antiwar movement upon our return to Madison. Those of us who supported the Young Socialist Alliance knew that it was imperative that we reach out, build and extend the anti-war movement beyond the University’s campus. We knew that if we were ever going to convince a majority of Madisonians to oppose the war in Vietnam, we had to win the working class in Madison to an anti-war position. Such an opportunity to do so shortly presented itself. The Madison Firefighters Union went on strike and the entire mass media in Madison, including the three TV stations and the two daily newspapers, came down on the firefighters like a ton of bricks, accusing them of placing the lives of Madison citizens in danger with their strike. At a meeting of the Madison Committee to End the War in Vietnam, Jack Barasonzi of the International Socialists and I proposed that the CEWV set up a Labor Solidarity subcommittee to support the firefighters. (Jack had joined the Socialist Workers Party in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1951, and, as a result, had been expelled from the University of Minnesota.) After a short debate the CEWV voted to set up a labor support subcommittee. Members of the CEWV bought pizzas and six-packs of beer and took them to every fire station in Madison where we shared them with the firefighters, walked with them on their picket lines, and discussed the war with them. When the strike was over, Ed Durkin, the head of the firefighters union, came out publically against the war. He was the first major union leader in Madison to do so. My union, Local # 1 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSME) became the first union in Madison to pass a resolutions opposing the war. Later, when the postal workers went on strike, the CEWV supported their strike and won many postal workers to an anti-war position. In another effort to reach the working class, members of the CEWV spent every Saturday distributing anti-war leaflets to busloads of National Guardsmen who stopped at the Wisconsin Union for lunch on their way to Camp (now Fort) McCoy 100 miles northwest of Madison.

At the close of 1967, Professor Maurice Zeitlin of the UW Sociology department, Lawrence Weinstein, who owned a liquor distributing company in Madison, and Gil Rosenberg, the owner of a real estate firm in Madison, among others, took the initiative to organize an effort to get a referendum on the war on the April 1968 ballot. (Weinstein and Rosenberg had been supporters of the Young Communist League at the University of Wisconsin in the 1930s). The Young Socialist Alliance threw itself into the effort. In 1938 Leon Trotsky had made the demand to “let the people vote on war,” one of the central demands of his ”Transitional Program.” The winter of 1967-68 was once again a brutally cold winter. Anti-war activists in Madison spent a considerable amount of time gathering the thousands of signatures necessary to place the anti-war referendum on the April 1968 ballot. Several of those collecting signatures on the Capitol Square were beaten up by pro-war youthful town hooligans.

hooligans.


The Wisconsin Student Association, United Front, and Madison Area Peace Action Council sponsor an indoor anti-war rally at the Camp Randall Memorial Building (the Shell), 1971

1968, 1969, and 1970 were the key years of the youth radicalization in Madison as well as across the country. 1968 would prove to be an especially electric year for the rapidly growing Left in Madison. During the months of January, February and March, anti-war activists distributed thousands of leaflets throughout the city calling upon citizens to vote “Yes” for the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam on the referendum on the April ballot. Committees were set up to distribute “Vote Yes” leaflets in every Madison ward. Although the referendum’s wording called for a “ceasefire and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam,” it did not call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops, which was a drawback that the Young Socialist Alliance criticized, but none-the-less worked assiduously in support of the referendum effort. The primaries election period saw the emergence of U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy (Dem. Minnesota) as a leading contender for nomination as the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s support for re-nomination steadily declined because of his ardent support for and fervent prosecution of the war. As the April primary election in Wisconsin approached, LBJ announced that he would not stand for re-nomination as a presidential candidate. On the night of the April election, many of us who had worked in support of a “Yes” vote on the anti-war referendum gathered at the Madison City-County building to watch the election returns. As the final returns were reported we were elated to learn that 33% of the voters in Madison had voted “Yes” for withdrawal from Vietnam. This was a much higher percentage than we had hoped for. The national NBC correspondent, John Chancellor, who was in Madison to report on the election, cynically told us that the results of the election were irrelevant and would have no impact whatsoever on the war, but we knew better. We knew that our task now was to win at least 17% more of the Madison voters to an anti-war position.

The Young Socialist Alliance’s headquarters was in the first floor apartment in a wooden building at 202 Marion Street, just southeast of the campus. Three YSA comrades lived in the apartment. The YSA “local” (as the “chapter” was then called) had grown to about 17 members. We studied and discussed Leon Trotsky’s “History of the Russian Revolution” during the summer of 1967 in addition to doing anti-war work, selling the Militant, and staffing Left literature tables at the Student Union, among numerous other activities.

On Sunday as we sat in the living room of the YSA headquarters prior to a meeting of the YSA local, brainstorming ideas for activities of the Madison Committee to End the War in Vietnam, one of us (probably me) came up with the idea of inviting the heavyweight boxing champion, Mohammed Ali, to come to Madison to speak. We knew he was living in Atlanta, Georgia, and one of us called directory assistance in Atlanta and was pleasantly surprised to learn that Ali had a listed phone number. We called the number and were amazed when he answered the phone. We asked him to come to Madison to speak and he readily agreed to do so. Ali had been stripped of his heavyweight championship because of his outspoken anti-Vietnam war views. When he had been asked why he opposed the war, he famously replied, “No Viet Cong ever called me a Nigger.”

In the spring of 1969, I stood in front of the Wisconsin Student Union waiting for Ali to arrive from the airport. A limousine rolled up in front of the Union and Ali emerged from it. I shook his hand and introduced myself. I was shocked to see that he was shorter than I was. He spoke later that day to a capacity audience at the Stock Pavilion on the University’s agriculture campus. The CEWV charged only a small amount for admittance to Ali’s speech, but we made a considerable amount of money. Immediately after the event, however, the Black Students Association approached us and demanded that they be given all of the proceeds (even though they had done nothing to build the event). After some hard negotiations that I had with the head of the Black Students Association, we agreed to split the proceeds with them 50-50. With our share of the proceeds (about $300), we immediately bought a brand new automatic mimeograph machine to replace the old hand-cranked one that the CEWV had used since 1965. With the efficient new machine, we churned out hundreds of thousands of leaflets and flyers over the next five years. In 1974 we smuggled the faithful mimeograph machine across the Rio Grande River and donated it to the PRT (Revolutionary Workers Party), the Mexican section of the Fourth International.

As the summer of 1969 approached, the Young Socialist Alliance made a major decision. We rented the first floor and basement of a building at 202 West Gilman Street, just east of the University campus. We transformed the large basement into a hall for meetings, forums, the showing of films and a bookstore. We painted the basement, spruced it up, and purchased a large number of used folding chairs. Paul Hass painted a beautiful large (4’ x 6’) wooden sign, deep bright red with, in black, “The Che Guevara Bookstore and Movement Center,” an image of Ernesto “Che” Guevara and of a chain being broken. Beneath the chain were the words, “If you know, teach. If you don’t know, learn.” We immediately began holding public forums on timely topics every Friday evening. The bookstore in the Che Guevara Movement Center became Madison’s leading source of radical books. The Che Guevara Bookstore and Movement Center served as the YSA’s headquarters and a center of Left politics in Madison until the end of the summer of 1971.

At the beginning of the 1969-1970 academic year, we held our usual “Join the YSA” meeting in the Wisconsin Union. To our amazement over 250 people came to the meeting and over 100 signed up to join the YSA. They were from home towns throughout Wisconsin. We now knew what a mass radicalization was all about. The YSA local quickly grew to 39 members. As a result of our “trail-blazing” trips to college campuses throughout Wisconsin, we soon had YSA “locals” established in Milwaukee, Oshkosh, Beloit, Kenosha, Eau Claire, Superior and La Crosse.

With our new headquarters in the Che Guevara Bookstore and Movement Center and our new members, the YSA was able to greatly expand its activities and arenas of political work. Although we continued to focus on building the anti-war movement, we also organized a women’s liberation organization—the Women’s Action Movement (WAM), which launched a city-wide campaign for free 24-hour childcare centers; and we greatly expanded our trade union work. Soon 23 of our 39 members were very active in Madison trade unions, including numerous AFSCME unions and the Madison (now South-central Wisconsin) Federation of Labor.

Among the speakers that we brought to Madison to speak at the Che Guevera Bookstore and Movement Center and on the University of Wisconsin campus were many well-known Marxists, including Fred Halstead (1927-1988), Paul Boutelle (born 1934, who changed his name to Kwame M. A. Somburu in 1979), George Novack (1905-1992), Ernest Mandel (1923-1995), Peter Camejo (1939-2008), Hedda Garza (1929-1995), Harry Ring (1918-2007), and Mike Garza, Charlie Scheer, and Fred Ferguson, among others.

During this period the Madison chapter of the SDS—which on occasion drew thousands of students to its meetings in the Great Hall of the Memorial Union—was preoccupied with the internal fights raging within National SDS, and a Maoist political tendency began to gain considerable influence in the Madison chapter. When YSA members entered SDS meetings, the Maoists initiated the chant “ice pick, ice pick,” a reference to the ice axe which the Spanish Stalinist Ramon Mercader (1913-1978) had used to murder Leon Trotsky in Mexico City in 1940. SDS continued to be the largest and most influential organization on the Left in Madison, but was becoming increasingly “ultraleft” in its tactics, which included rampages on campus and the “trashing” of Madison stores. Another Left organization, the Wisconsin Alliance—which had been formed at the initiative of three Madison radicals, Dick Krooth, Lester Radke, and Adam Schesch—opened a headquarters on Williamson Street in Madison’s working class eastside neighborhood. The Wisconsin Alliance quickly became the second largest and most influential organization on the Left in Madison. Among its key supporters was Paul Buhle, the editor of the journal, Radical America.

In 1969, the YSA national leadership insisted that we transform the Madison Committee to End the War in Vietnam into a Student Mobilization Committee (SMC) Against the War chapter, which we dutifully did. However, by that time the MCEWV/SMC had largely become a hollow shell. It was accused (especially by the Maoists in SDS) of being merely a “Trot front.” So, following a discussion in the YSA local, we took the initiative to form a new city-wide anti-war organization, the Madison Area Peace Action Council (MAPAC). MAPAC (I borrowed the name from the Cleveland Area Peace Action Council) immediately became much broader and much more representative than the old Madison Committee to End the War in Vietnam had been. The first activity that MAPAC did was to build what it hoped would be a massive rally and anti-war march on “Moratorium Day,” October 15, 1969. Indeed, a huge anti-war rally was held in the UW Field House and, following the rally, 25,000 people, led by the Veterans for Peace contingent, marched to the State Capitol. MAPAC followed up the Moratorium Day rally and march by sending 25 busloads of anti-war protesters to the momentous march against the war in Washington, D.C. in November.

Several other activities warrant mention. During the summer, the Madison police had attacked a block party in “Miffland,” the student “ghetto” located along Mifflin and adjacent streets near the Mifflin Street Co-op grocery store. The YSA organized a fightback/defense against the cops, erected a barricade across Broom Street, and repulsed the police’s charge with a barrage of stones, in emulation of a Revolutionary War military tactic.

On the campus right-wing students organized the “Hayakawa” group (named after S. I. Hayakawa, the rightwing president of San Francisco State University, 1968-1973; and later a U.S. Senator from California, 1977-1983). Members wore white armbands with a blue “H” emblazoned on them. Among its members were white players on the UW football team. The “Hayakawas” began ambushing Black students, especially Black women students, at night, on campus and beating them up. I met with the head of the Black Students Association and we organized teams of YSAers and BSA’s who positioned themselves along the route where the “Hayakawas” were beating up Black students. When we encountered “Hayakawas” beating up Black students, we beat the shit out of the “Hayakawas” and their attacks quickly stopped.

In 1969, I co-led with Fred Hampton, the legendary head of the Black Panthers in Chicago, an anti-racist march from the University campus to the state capital. Shortly thereafter Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were brutally murdered by cops in Chicago. On January 25, 1970, my second daughter, Rachel, was born. The year 1970 turned out to be the zenith of the radicalization of the 1960s. The YSA took the initiative in founding two other anti-war organizations, Public Employees for Peace and the Madison Library Committee Against the War, and was active in Labor Voice for Peace, but its major area of concentration remained working to build MAPAC.


Riots erupt following the Kent State killings

At the beginning of May 1970, the U.S. began bombing Cambodia. At an anti-war demonstration at Kent State University in Ohio, the Ohio National Guard fired on the demonstrators, killing four students. On campuses throughout the country, including the University of Wisconsin campus, pent-up anti-war rage exploded. Hundreds of campuses were shut down by student and faculty strikes. In Madison, a virtual rebellion occurred. At night fires were set in the streets all across central Madison and barricades were erected, blocking the streets. The Che Guevara Bookstore and Movement Center was used as a medical refuge where students injured by the police were treated. “Affinity Groups” of students roamed the streets causing havoc. The events of May 1970 constituted the greatest single uprising of the 1960s radicalization.


Riots erupt following the Kent State killings

Because 1970 was an election year, the YSA decided to place on the Wisconsin ballot a full slate of Socialist Workers Party candidates. We spent most of the weekends in June petitioning in the Black community in Milwaukee in order to gather the 60,000 signatures necessary to get on the ballot. We ran Sam Hunt, a Vietnam-era vet for Governor, Peter Kohlenberg for Lieutenant Governor, Martha Quinn for U.S. Senator, Peter Manti for a State Assembly seat in Milwaukee, and me for a State Assembly seat in central Madison. The UW student newspaper, the Daily Cardinal, endorsed my candidacy.

During the summer of 1970, however, a momentous, tragic event happened. Four ultra-lefts, who called themselves “The New Years Gang,” placed a van loaded with explosives next to Sterling Hall, the UW physics building, and blew it up, killing a researcher inside the building. They had intended to blow up the U.S. Army Mathematics Research Center located adjacent to Sterling Hall. The blowing up of Sterling Hall cast a pall over the entire radical movement in Madison from which, arguably, it never fully recovered.

Radicalization in 1960s Madison, Wisconsin: One Participant’s Reflection

The three most radicalized university campuses during the late 1960s were Columbia University, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the University of California at Berkeley. What follows is an account of the radicalization in Madison during the years 1962 to 1971 based on the perspective of one participant.


Anti-war rally in Madison

I graduated from high school in a small town in southeastern Wisconsin in 1960. I came from a working-class family consisting of myself, my grandparents and my bachelor uncle. My grandfather was a plumber and my uncle was a letter carrier. My grandfather died in 1957 and my uncle in 1959, leaving just my grandmother and me. I began working as a letter carrier at the U.S. Post Office in 1959 and continued to do so during the summers and school vacations until 1966. In 1960 I entered the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, where I was won to socialism by political science professor James T. Flynn, who had been a member of the Young Peoples Socialist League (YPSL) at the University of Chicago in the 1950s, along with the future U.S. Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, and a future leader of the International Socialist Organization, Joel Geier, among others. At the UW-Whitewater I joined the newly-formed Peace Studies Club (a ban-the-bomb group) and was the co-founder of the Socialist Club.

In 1962, I transferred to the University of Wisconsin-Madison where I quickly became aware of the “Left” on campus. The “Left” was small and primarily a social and cultural, as well as political, milieu. Most of the students in the Left were Jewish, from New York City, and were “red diaper babies,” i.e. they came from families which had been connected in some manner or another with the Communist Party. On Friday and Saturday nights I went (uninvited) to parties in apartments in the wooden buildings in the student “ghetto” just south of the University campus. To me, the apartments seemed virtually identical. All were filled with paperback books housed in wooden orange crates. Candles burned in empty straw-encased Chianti wine bottles. Burlap was hung on walls adjacent to prints of paintings by Picasso, Matisse, Renoir, Cezanne, Monet and Manet. The music emanating from record players was Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Pete Seeger and the Weavers. Discussions at these parties rarely concerned political issues; rather, they were focused primarily on “foreign” films directed by Ingmar Bergman (1918-2007), Akira Kurosawa (1910-1998), and Federico Fellini (1920-1993), among others. Everyone seemed to know everyone else, and as I listened to them, I learned that many had attended the same high schools—Midwood and Erasmus Hall in Brooklyn, Bronx Science and Music and Art, and Stuyvesant in Manhattan—and had attended the same “progressive” summer camps in the Catskills. I felt very uncomfortable and out of place. I was a fish out of water. I was, in fact, one of the very few “goys” in this Left milieu. As I glanced at the books and journals in the orange-crate bookcases, I saw some books by Marx and Engels, but none by Trotsky or Lenin or Stalin. Many students appeared to read the journal Studies on the Left or books by C. Wright Mills. Copies of the National Guardian were strewn about everywhere.


University students depart for the 1963 “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom” from the Memorial Union

In the fall of 1962, I joined the Socialist Club at the University. It was comprised mainly of Jewish students from New York. In my naiveté, it was only later that I learned that many of the members of the Socialist Club were clandestinely affiliated with or sympathetic to the Young Communist League or the Communist Party. Between 1962 and the summer of 1964, not much happened on the Left in Madison, but in 1964 the Civil Rights Movement in the South was heating up, especially after the murders of three Civil Rights workers—James Chaney (1943-1964), Andrew Goodman (1943-1964), and Mickey Schwerner (1939-1964)—near Philadelphia, Mississippi during the “Freedom Summer” voter registration campaign. I joined the Madison chapter of the Friends of SNCC, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, a Civil Rights organization based in the South. Friends of SNCC organized small rallies in Madison and held forums on Civil Rights topics at the First Congregational Church in Madison. Many members of the Socialist Club were also members of the Friends of SNCC. In June 1964 I graduated from the University of Wisconsin and enrolled in the UW graduate school.

In 1964 I also joined SDS (the Students for a Democratic Society), which had been founded in Port Huron, Michigan, two years earlier. At the time I joined the Madison chapter of SDS, it was probably to the right of the UW Young Democrats, who were based at the liberal Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship on campus, but the SDS chapter soon moved more to the left by sponsoring an important event. We called the Communist Party in Chicago and asked them to send a speaker to Madison. Our intention was to break the ban on Communists speaking at the University. The CP sent to Madison one of its leaders, Claude Lightfoot, an African-American, to speak at a forum that we organized. We publicized Lightfoot’s speech widely, and on the night of Lightfoot’s speech, Tripp Commons in the Student Union was filled to capacity. Just as Lightfoot began to speak, State Senator Gordon Roseleip (1912-1989, Republican, Darlington) and a number of other right-wing state legislators, very drunk, burst into the room and began trying to shout Lightfoot down, screaming that he was a “Nigger” and a “Commie.” Roseleip and the other legislators were roundly booed by the audience and they left the room. After Lightfoot spoke, those of us in SDS who had arranged his speech were elated that we had succeeded in breaking the ban on Communist speakers at the University which had been in place since Senator Joe McCarthy had begun his anti-Communist ravings a decade and a half earlier. A few days later, a radical student, Jim H., climbed to the top of the stairs in front of the Student Union and shouted loudly to the small audience of students gathered below that they should “violently overthrow the government.” He was not arrested by the campus cops. The right of “Free Speech” had prevailed at the University of Wisconsin.

In the early 1960s, students on the Left in Madison looked to three professors for leadership. One was Hans Gerth (1908-78), a German-born professor of Sociology who had been the mentor of C. Wright Mills at the University of Wisconsin in the 1940s; another was the famed professor of American history William Appleman Williams (1921-90), the author of the influential book, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy; and the third was professor of history George Mosse (1918-99), a refugee from Nazi Germany who was a liberal, and decidedly not a socialist. The legendary Marxist history professor Harvey Goldberg (1922-87), a brilliant, spell-binding lecturer, did not arrive at the University until the fall of 1963.

In February 1965 the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam precipitated the beginning in Madison and elsewhere of what became the movement against the war in Vietnam. About twelve of us held a vigil against the Vietnam War at the southwest corner of the Capitol Square on a Friday evening. The ground was deeply covered by snow and the brutally cold temperature was well below zero. High-school-age Madison youth in cars drove around the Capitol Square and threw full cans of beer at us. Shortly thereafter the Madison Committee Against the War in Vietnam (MCEWV), of which I was a founding member, was organized.

Many of the students who founded the MCEWV—including a student who later became a professor at the UW School for Workers, Frank Emspak (1943- )—came from Communist Party backgrounds, although several of the founders were Trotskyists. A chapter of the Young Socialist Alliance, the youth group of the (Trotskyist) Socialist Workers Party, had existed at the University since 1962. In September 1962 I had bought my first copy of the Militant, the weekly newspaper of the SWP, from Gerry Foley, who sold it every Friday afternoon in front of the University Library, and I had begun reading it regularly. Weekly vigils against the War in Vietnam were held at the Capitol Square on Friday nights during the remainder of the frozen winter of 1965, one of the coldest winters in memory. As the weather improved in the late spring, anti-war activities increased substantially and demonstrations against the war were held outside the Truax Air Force Base (today the Madison airport) and at the Badger Ordnance powder works northwest of Madison near Baraboo, Wisconsin, which made much of the gun powder for the U.S. troops in Vietnam. “Teach-ins” during which University faculty spoke against the war were held in buildings near the campus. The MCEWV began distributing thousands of copies of its weekly newsletter, The Crisis, which I helped to produce.

In early March 1965, Civil Rights protesters in Selma, Alabama, were brutally attacked by the police. I dropped out of graduate school, took a bus to Montgomery, Alabama, and became involved in the Civil Rights movement in Selma. After the mass March on Montgomery, Alabama, in March 1965, I moved to New York City, where I participated in rather small anti-war and peace demonstrations. The pacifists who controlled the anti-nuclear bomb movement in New York strongly opposed us carrying signs specifically opposing the war in Vietnam at the demonstrations or marches that they sponsored.

I returned to Madison to find a letter waiting for me from my draft board instructing me to report for induction into the Army. I immediately returned to my old job as a letter carrier at the Post Office in my home town and on the day that I was supposed to board the bus to Milwaukee to be inducted into the Army, I instead went to work at the Post Office. That evening in a bar, a high school classmate who had gone on the bus to Milwaukee to be inducted into the Army, but had been rejected for physical reasons, told me that the County Sheriff had a warrant out for my arrest. The next morning I told this to my boss, the Postmaster, who called the head of the local draft board and informed him that postal employees, by law, were “essential to the National Defense,” and therefore could not be drafted. For the moment I was safe from the clutches of the draft.

I got married at the end of August 1965. Because school teachers were still exempted from the draft, I taught English and History at Racine Park High School in 1965-1966. The anti-war movement in Madison grew very slowly during that year, but I was, nonetheless, active in it on weekends. Several major events occurred. U.S. Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon spoke against the War in Vietnam at Madison West High School. Morse (1900-74) was a native of Wisconsin who had graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and was one of only two U.S. Senators opposed to the war in Vietnam. The other was Senator Ernest Gruening (1887-1974) of Alaska. The Young Socialist Alliance distributed leaflets at the Morse event criticizing the timidity of Senator Morse’s anti-war stand. He called only for “negotiations.” The Young Socialist Alliance and the Socialist Workers Party called for “immediate withdrawal” of all U.S. troops from Vietnam. The Communist Party supporters who then controlled the Committee Against the War in Vietnam called the police on the Young Socialist Alliance. Their actions prompted an emergency meeting of the CEWV the next day at the University YMCA. An intense debate was held at the meeting about the police being called. At the end of the meeting a new election of CEWV officers was held, and all of the Communist Party supporters were swept out of office and Robin David of the Young Socialist Alliance was elected chair of the CEWV. The debate convinced me of the correctness of the Young Socialist Alliance’s position on the war, and I became a supporter of the YSA, although I did not join it immediately.


Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) organize a protest against the draft May 14, 1966

In the spring of 1966 the U.S. government removed the 2-S provision of the military draft code that exempted students from the draft. On the UW campus, this development prompted the seizure and occupation of the A.W. Peterson Administration Building on Murray Street. One of the central leaders of the occupation, a young student from New York, Lowell Bergman (1945- ), later became a well-known journalist and television producer for ABC, CBS, and PBS. As the building occupation continued, the socialist history professor William Appleman Williams arrived to speak to the students occupying the building and admonished them to stop their “silly occupation” and leave the building. The students ignored Williams. He lost his credibility as an icon of the Left on campus and was shortly replaced by Professor Harvey Goldberg, whose popular history courses had a fiercely anti-war content. Williams soon left Wisconsin for the University of Oregon. The occupation of the Peterson building in May 1966 was personally significant for me because during the occupation my older daughter Abra was born on May 21 in the University Hospital a few blocks away.

A short time later, Senator Edward Kennedy, who supported the war, came to the University to speak at the large stock pavilion on the University’s agricultural campus. As he began to speak, hecklers in the audience shouted against Kennedy’s pro-war position. Kennedy finally invited Robin David, chair of the CEWV, to the podium to debate the war with him. He asked Robin how he would end the war and Robin, to a standing ovation, said simply that he would load all the U.S. troops on boats and sail away from Vietnam. This event was captured in “The War at Home,“ the documentary made about the anti-war movement at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

I became a member of the Steering Committee of the CEWV and worked closely with members of the YSA on the Steering Committee. The YSA then had only about 6 or 8 members, primarily Jewish students from New York City, but it exercised an influence on campus far beyond its numbers. During the balance of 1966, the anti-war movement in Madison did not grow appreciably. At the beginning of 1967, members of the CEWV spent their time building a contingent from Madison to go to the national anti-war demonstration in New York City on April 18th. By the middle of April we had filled 13 buses bound for the New York demonstration, including quite a few high school students. The demonstration was held at the UN building. Construction workers pelted anti-war marchers with iron bolts that they threw down on them from the tops of buildings under construction. The April 18th demonstration in New York City marked the real beginning of the mass anti-war movement nationally. The Madison CEWV’s activities accordingly accelerated. On the Fourth of July, the CEWV distributed anti-war leaflets in all of Madison’s parks. Several CEWV leafleters were beaten up. Members of the CEWV spent the early fall of 1967 building for the next mass national anti-war demonstration, scheduled for the Pentagon on October 18, 1967, but just prior to the departure of the Madison buses for the Pentagon demonstration, a major event occurred in Madison that would have a profound effect upon the growth both of the anti-war movement and of the Left in Madison.


Chancellor Sewell calls in police who use tear gas to clear protestors against the Dow Chemical Co. from the Commerce Building on October 18

The Dow Chemical Company of Midland, Michigan, which made the napalm that was being dropped on the people of Vietnam, was coming to the UW campus to recruit management employees. Dow was scheduled to interview potential employees in the School of Commerce building. A day before the Dow recruiters were to arrive, the Madison Committee to End the War in Vietnam held a mass meeting in the Social Science building to decide what to do about Dow’s recruitment on campus. At the meeting a fierce debate occurred over whether to stage a sit-in against Dow in the Commerce building. The Young Socialist Alliance was opposed to holding a sit-in because it was convinced that the cops would attack it. At the close of the debate, a vote was taken on whether to hold a sit-in. By a show of hands, the sit-in was narrowly defeated. But one of the supporters of the sit-in made a motion for a re-vote and a division of the house. When the house was divided, the sit-in won by one vote.

The sit-in began the following morning. Just before noon hundreds of cops, mainly Dane County Sheriff’s deputies, appeared on the scene clad in riot uniforms and helmets with visors. The deputies began wading into the students conducting the sit-in in the Commerce Building and viciously clubbing them with their riot clubs. Among the many students who were clubbed and bleeding was future Madison mayor Paul Soglin (1945- ). Many students were arrested. No one participating in the sit-in or any of those observing the police attack on the students had ever seen such an expression of police brutality, except perhaps the police attacks on Civil Rights protestors in the South which had been shown on television. The vicious police attack on students sitting in to protest Dow Chemical galvanized the UW campus and immediately prompted a quantitative increase in the size of the anti-war movement and the Left in Madison.

The next day, as hundreds of us boarded buses to go to the anti-war demonstration in Washington at the Pentagon, the YSA was resolved to do everything that it could do to build and broaden the antiwar movement upon our return to Madison. Those of us who supported the Young Socialist Alliance knew that it was imperative that we reach out, build and extend the anti-war movement beyond the University’s campus. We knew that if we were ever going to convince a majority of Madisonians to oppose the war in Vietnam, we had to win the working class in Madison to an anti-war position. Such an opportunity to do so shortly presented itself. The Madison Firefighters Union went on strike and the entire mass media in Madison, including the three TV stations and the two daily newspapers, came down on the firefighters like a ton of bricks, accusing them of placing the lives of Madison citizens in danger with their strike. At a meeting of the Madison Committee to End the War in Vietnam, Jack Barasonzi of the International Socialists and I proposed that the CEWV set up a Labor Solidarity subcommittee to support the firefighters. (Jack had joined the Socialist Workers Party in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1951, and, as a result, had been expelled from the University of Minnesota.) After a short debate the CEWV voted to set up a labor support subcommittee. Members of the CEWV bought pizzas and six-packs of beer and took them to every fire station in Madison where we shared them with the firefighters, walked with them on their picket lines, and discussed the war with them. When the strike was over, Ed Durkin, the head of the firefighters union, came out publically against the war. He was the first major union leader in Madison to do so. My union, Local # 1 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSME) became the first union in Madison to pass a resolutions opposing the war. Later, when the postal workers went on strike, the CEWV supported their strike and won many postal workers to an anti-war position. In another effort to reach the working class, members of the CEWV spent every Saturday distributing anti-war leaflets to busloads of National Guardsmen who stopped at the Wisconsin Union for lunch on their way to Camp (now Fort) McCoy 100 miles northwest of Madison.

At the close of 1967, Professor Maurice Zeitlin of the UW Sociology department, Lawrence Weinstein, who owned a liquor distributing company in Madison, and Gil Rosenberg, the owner of a real estate firm in Madison, among others, took the initiative to organize an effort to get a referendum on the war on the April 1968 ballot. (Weinstein and Rosenberg had been supporters of the Young Communist League at the University of Wisconsin in the 1930s). The Young Socialist Alliance threw itself into the effort. In 1938 Leon Trotsky had made the demand to “let the people vote on war,” one of the central demands of his ”Transitional Program.” The winter of 1967-68 was once again a brutally cold winter. Anti-war activists in Madison spent a considerable amount of time gathering the thousands of signatures necessary to place the anti-war referendum on the April 1968 ballot. Several of those collecting signatures on the Capitol Square were beaten up by pro-war youthful town hooligans.


The Wisconsin Student Association, United Front, and Madison Area Peace Action Council sponsor an indoor anti-war rally at the Camp Randall Memorial Building (the Shell), 1971

1968, 1969, and 1970 were the key years of the youth radicalization in Madison as well as across the country. 1968 would prove to be an especially electric year for the rapidly growing Left in Madison. During the months of January, February and March, anti-war activists distributed thousands of leaflets throughout the city calling upon citizens to vote “Yes” for the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam on the referendum on the April ballot. Committees were set up to distribute “Vote Yes” leaflets in every Madison ward. Although the referendum’s wording called for a “ceasefire and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam,” it did not call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops, which was a drawback that the Young Socialist Alliance criticized, but none-the-less worked assiduously in support of the referendum effort. The primaries election period saw the emergence of U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy (Dem. Minnesota) as a leading contender for nomination as the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s support for re-nomination steadily declined because of his ardent support for and fervent prosecution of the war. As the April primary election in Wisconsin approached, LBJ announced that he would not stand for re-nomination as a presidential candidate. On the night of the April election, many of us who had worked in support of a “Yes” vote on the anti-war referendum gathered at the Madison City-County building to watch the election returns. As the final returns were reported we were elated to learn that 33% of the voters in Madison had voted “Yes” for withdrawal from Vietnam. This was a much higher percentage than we had hoped for. The national NBC correspondent, John Chancellor, who was in Madison to report on the election, cynically told us that the results of the election were irrelevant and would have no impact whatsoever on the war, but we knew better. We knew that our task now was to win at least 17% more of the Madison voters to an anti-war position.

The Young Socialist Alliance’s headquarters was in the first floor apartment in a wooden building at 202 Marion Street, just southeast of the campus. Three YSA comrades lived in the apartment. The YSA “local” (as the “chapter” was then called) had grown to about 17 members. We studied and discussed Leon Trotsky’s “History of the Russian Revolution” during the summer of 1967 in addition to doing anti-war work, selling the Militant, and staffing Left literature tables at the Student Union, among numerous other activities.

On Sunday as we sat in the living room of the YSA headquarters prior to a meeting of the YSA local, brainstorming ideas for activities of the Madison Committee to End the War in Vietnam, one of us (probably me) came up with the idea of inviting the heavyweight boxing champion, Mohammed Ali, to come to Madison to speak. We knew he was living in Atlanta, Georgia, and one of us called directory assistance in Atlanta and was pleasantly surprised to learn that Ali had a listed phone number. We called the number and were amazed when he answered the phone. We asked him to come to Madison to speak and he readily agreed to do so. Ali had been stripped of his heavyweight championship because of his outspoken anti-Vietnam war views. When he had been asked why he opposed the war, he famously replied, “No Viet Cong ever called me a Nigger.”

In the spring of 1969, I stood in front of the Wisconsin Student Union waiting for Ali to arrive from the airport. A limousine rolled up in front of the Union and Ali emerged from it. I shook his hand and introduced myself. I was shocked to see that he was shorter than I was. He spoke later that day to a capacity audience at the Stock Pavilion on the University’s agriculture campus. The CEWV charged only a small amount for admittance to Ali’s speech, but we made a considerable amount of money. Immediately after the event, however, the Black Students Association approached us and demanded that they be given all of the proceeds (even though they had done nothing to build the event). After some hard negotiations that I had with the head of the Black Students Association, we agreed to split the proceeds with them 50-50. With our share of the proceeds (about $300), we immediately bought a brand new automatic mimeograph machine to replace the old hand-cranked one that the CEWV had used since 1965. With the efficient new machine, we churned out hundreds of thousands of leaflets and flyers over the next five years. In 1974 we smuggled the faithful mimeograph machine across the Rio Grande River and donated it to the PRT (Revolutionary Workers Party), the Mexican section of the Fourth International.

As the summer of 1969 approached, the Young Socialist Alliance made a major decision. We rented the first floor and basement of a building at 202 West Gilman Street, just east of the University campus. We transformed the large basement into a hall for meetings, forums, the showing of films and a bookstore. We painted the basement, spruced it up, and purchased a large number of used folding chairs. Paul Hass painted a beautiful large (4’ x 6’) wooden sign, deep bright red with, in black, “The Che Guevara Bookstore and Movement Center,” an image of Ernesto “Che” Guevara and of a chain being broken. Beneath the chain were the words, “If you know, teach. If you don’t know, learn.” We immediately began holding public forums on timely topics every Friday evening. The bookstore in the Che Guevara Movement Center became Madison’s leading source of radical books. The Che Guevara Bookstore and Movement Center served as the YSA’s headquarters and a center of Left politics in Madison until the end of the summer of 1971.

At the beginning of the 1969-1970 academic year, we held our usual “Join the YSA” meeting in the Wisconsin Union. To our amazement over 250 people came to the meeting and over 100 signed up to join the YSA. They were from home towns throughout Wisconsin. We now knew what a mass radicalization was all about. The YSA local quickly grew to 39 members. As a result of our “trail-blazing” trips to college campuses throughout Wisconsin, we soon had YSA “locals” established in Milwaukee, Oshkosh, Beloit, Kenosha, Eau Claire, Superior and La Crosse.

With our new headquarters in the Che Guevara Bookstore and Movement Center and our new members, the YSA was able to greatly expand its activities and arenas of political work. Although we continued to focus on building the anti-war movement, we also organized a women’s liberation organization—the Women’s Action Movement (WAM), which launched a city-wide campaign for free 24-hour childcare centers; and we greatly expanded our trade union work. Soon 23 of our 39 members were very active in Madison trade unions, including numerous AFSCME unions and the Madison (now South-central Wisconsin) Federation of Labor.


Among the speakers that we brought to Madison to speak at the Che Guevera Bookstore and Movement Center and on the University of Wisconsin campus were many well-known Marxists, including Fred Halstead (1927-1988), Paul Boutelle (born 1934, who changed his name to Kwame M. A. Somburu in 1979), George Novack (1905-1992), Ernest Mandel (1923-1995), Peter Camejo (1939-2008), Hedda Garza (1929-1995), Harry Ring (1918-2007), and Mike Garza, Charlie Scheer, and Fred Ferguson, among others.

During this period the Madison chapter of the SDS—which on occasion drew thousands of students to its meetings in the Great Hall of the Memorial Union—was preoccupied with the internal fights raging within National SDS, and a Maoist political tendency began to gain considerable influence in the Madison chapter. When YSA members entered SDS meetings, the Maoists initiated the chant “ice pick, ice pick,” a reference to the ice axe which the Spanish Stalinist Ramon Mercader (1913-1978) had used to murder Leon Trotsky in Mexico City in 1940. SDS continued to be the largest and most influential organization on the Left in Madison, but was becoming increasingly “ultraleft” in its tactics, which included rampages on campus and the “trashing” of Madison stores. Another Left organization, the Wisconsin Alliance—which had been formed at the initiative of three Madison radicals, Dick Krooth, Lester Radke, and Adam Schesch—opened a headquarters on Williamson Street in Madison’s working class eastside neighborhood. The Wisconsin Alliance quickly became the second largest and most influential organization on the Left in Madison. Among its key supporters was Paul Buhle, the editor of the journal, Radical America.

In 1969, the YSA national leadership insisted that we transform the Madison Committee to End the War in Vietnam into a Student Mobilization Committee (SMC) Against the War chapter, which we dutifully did. However, by that time the MCEWV/SMC had largely become a hollow shell. It was accused (especially by the Maoists in SDS) of being merely a “Trot front.” So, following a discussion in the YSA local, we took the initiative to form a new city-wide anti-war organization, the Madison Area Peace Action Council (MAPAC). MAPAC (I borrowed the name from the Cleveland Area Peace Action Council) immediately became much broader and much more representative than the old Madison Committee to End the War in Vietnam had been. The first activity that MAPAC did was to build what it hoped would be a massive rally and anti-war march on “Moratorium Day,” October 15, 1969. Indeed, a huge anti-war rally was held in the UW Field House and, following the rally, 25,000 people, led by the Veterans for Peace contingent, marched to the State Capitol. MAPAC followed up the Moratorium Day rally and march by sending 25 busloads of anti-war protesters to the momentous march against the war in Washington, D.C. in November.

Several other activities warrant mention. During the summer, the Madison police had attacked a block party in “Miffland,” the student “ghetto” located along Mifflin and adjacent streets near the Mifflin Street Co-op grocery store. The YSA organized a fightback/defense against the cops, erected a barricade across Broom Street, and repulsed the police’s charge with a barrage of stones, in emulation of a Revolutionary War military tactic.

On the campus right-wing students organized the “Hayakawa” group (named after S. I. Hayakawa, the rightwing president of San Francisco State University, 1968-1973; and later a U.S. Senator from California, 1977-1983). Members wore white armbands with a blue “H” emblazoned on them. Among its members were white players on the UW football team. The “Hayakawas” began ambushing Black students, especially Black women students, at night, on campus and beating them up. I met with the head of the Black Students Association and we organized teams of YSAers and BSA’s who positioned themselves along the route where the “Hayakawas” were beating up Black students. When we encountered “Hayakawas” beating up Black students, we beat the shit out of the “Hayakawas” and their attacks quickly stopped.

In 1969, I co-led with Fred Hampton, the legendary head of the Black Panthers in Chicago, an anti-racist march from the University campus to the state capital. Shortly thereafter Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were brutally murdered by cops in Chicago. On January 25, 1970, my second daughter, Rachel, was born. The year 1970 turned out to be the zenith of the radicalization of the 1960s. The YSA took the initiative in founding two other anti-war organizations, Public Employees for Peace and the Madison Library Committee Against the War, and was active in Labor Voice for Peace, but its major area of concentration remained working to build MAPAC.


Riots erupt following the Kent State killings

At the beginning of May 1970, the U.S. began bombing Cambodia. At an anti-war demonstration at Kent State University in Ohio, the Ohio National Guard fired on the demonstrators, killing four students. On campuses throughout the country, including the University of Wisconsin campus, pent-up anti-war rage exploded. Hundreds of campuses were shut down by student and faculty strikes. In Madison, a virtual rebellion occurred. At night fires were set in the streets all across central Madison and barricades were erected, blocking the streets. The Che Guevara Bookstore and Movement Center was used as a medical refuge where students injured by the police were treated. “Affinity Groups” of students roamed the streets causing havoc. The events of May 1970 constituted the greatest single uprising of the 1960s radicalization.


Riots erupt following the Kent State killings

Because 1970 was an election year, the YSA decided to place on the Wisconsin ballot a full slate of Socialist Workers Party candidates. We spent most of the weekends in June petitioning in the Black community in Milwaukee in order to gather the 60,000 signatures necessary to get on the ballot. We ran Sam Hunt, a Vietnam-era vet for Governor, Peter Kohlenberg for Lieutenant Governor, Martha Quinn for U.S. Senator, Peter Manti for a State Assembly seat in Milwaukee, and me for a State Assembly seat in central Madison. The UW student newspaper, the Daily Cardinal, endorsed my candidacy.

During the summer of 1970, however, a momentous, tragic event happened. Four ultra-lefts, who called themselves “The New Years Gang,” placed a van loaded with explosives next to Sterling Hall, the UW physics building, and blew it up, killing a researcher inside the building. They had intended to blow up the U.S. Army Mathematics Research Center located adjacent to Sterling Hall. The blowing up of Sterling Hall cast a pall over the entire radical movement in Madison from which, arguably, it never fully recovered.


Sterling Hall bombing

The YSA spent the fall of 1970 doing election campaigning throughout the state. When the November election occurred, we did not, of course, win, but were nonetheless quite satisfied with the excellent campaigns that we had run. As 1971 began, the YSA decided that it was time to place another referendum against the war on the April ballot. Accordingly, we organized the Madison Citizens for Immediate Withdrawal, which secured an office on University Avenue across the street from the campus and we began raising funds and organizing support in the Madison wards for a ”Yes” vote on immediate withdrawal from Vietnam. The Madison City Council had placed the referendum on the ballot without requiring us to gather thousands of signatures. We worked very hard during the months of January, February, and March distributing anti-war literature in every Madison ward. On the evening of the April election, we gathered at the Madison City-County building to watch the posting of election returns. Shortly before midnight, as the final returns were reported, we saw that 66% of the Madison voters had voted for immediate withdrawal from Vietnam. We knew that our efforts over the past six years had not been in vain.

In the fall of 1971, the Madison YSA, which had overwhelmingly supported the losing side in an internal Socialist Workers Party dispute, was compelled by the national YSA to close the Che Guevara Bookstore and Movement Center. The halcyon days of the Madison YSA were over—as were the halcyon days of the Left in Madison. The 1960s youth radicalization was on the wane. The political atmosphere in Madison in the fall of 1971 was like being in a morgue. The electricity that had filled the air in 1968, 1969, and 1970 had dissipated. The fall of 1971 marked the beginning of a long decline of the Left in Madison and elsewhere that would last for the next 40 years until the explosive fight back of the working people of Wisconsin against Governor Scott Walker at the State Capital in the late winter and early spring of 2011. Probably only a few of them were aware that there had been a radicalization of youth in Madison and throughout much of the U.S. in the 1960s. The above account of one participant in that radicalization is intended to salvage it from the mists of history.

The Free Speech Movement: Berkeley in the SIxties

Watch First:

Watch the below vid in three segments:

  1. start to 39:30
  2. 39:30to 1:12:40
  3. 1:12:40 to end

Reflections on the UC Berkeley Free Speech Movement (FSM) 50 Years Later by Richard Hertzberg  (25 April 2015)

I lived in Berkeley from 1963 to 1971 while an undergraduate and graduate student, and also as a teacher at an alternative public school in Oakland. I’d been relatively sheltered and privileged until then, growing up in the Pacific Palisades section of Los Angeles and saddled with a myopia Berkeley soon fractured in a variety of ways. It’s amazing how quickly one’s prism can be inflected by sitting in a lecture hall with 800, 1,000, 1,500 other students hailing from their own respective “best and brightest” clubs. As we tried to adjust to college life, the world around us seemed to be tearing itself apart: the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, resulting in the deaths of four young girls, on September 15, 1963; the Hells Angels riding up and down Telegraph Avenue, which led directly to the main campus entrance, in an unrestrained display of rebellion; a contentious speech by Madame Nhu (Ngo Dinh Nhu), the infamous and politically connected “Dragon Lady” of South Vietnam, on October 29, 1963, at Harmon Gym on the Berkeley campus defending American support for the South Vietnamese government. And then of course, the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, with the subsequent murder of his alleged killer, Lee Harvey Oswald. UC Berkeley closed early for the winter holiday; I watched the president’s funeral procession on a black-and-white television sitting next to my mother, each one of us crying, while my father stood stiffly in the background saying not to let our emotions get out of hand…

Closure

Wednesday, October 1, 2014 — 50 years after the police car sit-down — was blazingly hot thanks to California’s severe drought. Some FSM vets sought whatever shade there was to make it through a commemorative rally. The man in the police car — Jack Weinberg — was there and spoke, as did Bettina Aptheker, Jackie Goldberg, and Lynne Hollander Savio, all FSM arrestees from the December 2–3 Sproul Hall sit-in. The venerable Dolores Huerta of the United Farm Workers, who was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom, also addressed the crowd, which received an infusion of youth by the arrival of a clapping, chanting contingent from the Cal Progressive Coalition led into Sproul Plaza by FSM vet Mike Smith. There were banners and placards about lots of causes and issues. Very appropriate, since the Coalition is the contemporary manifestation of the UCB activist tradition. Mario Savio was present also with a recording of his December 2, 1964 speech from the steps that now carry his name.

The rally took place as student-led, pro-democracy demonstrations were rocking Hong Kong, and some of the speakers emphasized the historical connection to FSM. Others talked about how movements for political, social, and cultural change can be personally transformative as well. Challenging powerlessness by being involved with a community of the committed was another theme. The letters “F, S, M” were hung from the front of Sproul Hall as had been done when Savio spoke and Joan Baez sang 50 years ago.

After the rally I met up with old friends who were fellow students with me at UC Berkeley, some of whom I had not seen in many, many years. We spent a very pleasant and satisfying afternoon talking and reconnecting. The next day I flew home, knowing that while we all would go our separate ways, we also were united in having a common, core experience whose strong and lasting influence bound us together.

As young students, Berkeley — the city and the campus — was an exciting, huge new world full of possibilities for us — changing and redefining reality. Now, 50 years later, well on into middle age, Berkeley seemed oddly small, still important, but not the encompassing, comprehensive framework of meaning it once was. That, it seems to me, is the way it should be.

¤

My First Quarter at Berkeley’

‘Nova Express’ by William Burroughs (1964)

“Don’t listen to Hassan i Sabbah,” they will tell you. “He wants to take your body and all the pleasures of the body away from  you. Listen to us. We are serving The Garden of Delights Immortality Cosmic Consciousness The Best Ever In Drug Kicks. And love love love in slop buckets. How does that sound to you boys? Better than Hassan i Sabbah and his cold windy bodiless rock? Right?”

At the immediate risk of finding myself the most unpopular character of all fiction — and history is fiction — I must say this:

“Bring together state of news — Inquire onward from state to doer — Who monopolized Immortality? Who monopolized Cosmic Consciousness? Who monopolized Love Sex and Dream? Who monopolized Life Time and FOrtune? Who took from you what is yours? Now they will give it all back? Did they ever give anything away for nothing? Did they ever give any more than they had to give? Did they not always take back what they gave when possible and it always was? Listen: Their Garden Of Delights is a terminal sewer — I have been at some pains to map this area of terminal sewage in the so-called pornographic sections of Naked Lunch and The Soft Machine — Their Immortality Cosmic Consciousness and Love is second-run grade-B shit — Their drugs are poison designed to beam in Orgasm Death and Nova Ovens — Stay out of the Garden Of Delights — It is a man-eating trap that ends in green goo — Throw back their ersatz Immortality — It will fall apart before you can get out of The Big Store — Flush their drug kicks down the drain — They are poisoning and monopolizing the hallucinogen drugs — learn to make it without and chemical corn — All that they offer is a screen to cover retreat from the colony they have so disgracefully mismanaged. To cover travel arrangements so they will never have to pay the constituents they have betrayed and sold out. Once these arrangements are complete they will blow the place up behind them.

And what does my program of total austerity and total resistance offer you? I offer you nothing. I am not a politician. These are conditions of total emergency. And these are my instructions for total emergency if carried out now could avert the total disaster now on tracks:   “Peoples of the earth, you have been poisoned. Convert all available stocks of morphine to apomorphine. Chemists, work round the clock on variation and synthesis of the apomorphine formulae. Apomorphine is the only agent that can disintoxicate you and cut the enemy beam off your line. Apomorphine and silence. I order total resistence directed against this conspiracy to pay off peoples of the earth in ersatz bullshit. I order total resistence directed against The Nova Conspiracy and all those engaged in it.”

The purpose of my writing is to expose and arrest Nova Criminals. In Naked Lunch The Soft Machine and Nova Express I show who they are and what they are doing and what they will do if they are not arrested. Minutes to go. Souls rotten from their orgasm drugs, flesh shuddering from their nova ovens, prisoners of the earth to come out. With your help we can occupy The Reality Studio and retake their universe of Fear Death and Monopoly —

(signed) INSPECTOR J. LEE, NOVA POLICE

Post Script of the Regulator:  I would like to sound a word of warning — To speak is to lie — To live is to collaborate — Anybody is a coward when faced by the nova ovens — There are degrees of lying collaboration and cowardice — That is to say degrees of intoxication — It is precisely a question of regulation — The enemy is not man is not woman — The enemy exists only where no life is and moves always to push life into extreme untenable positions — You can cut the enemy off your line by the judicious use of apomorshine and silence — Use the sanity drug apomorphine.

‘Eros and Civilization’ by Herbert Marcuse (1966)

The following excerpt is from the 1966 preface of H. Marcuse’s book which became a theoretical strut for the New Left and counter-cultural movement of the 1960s.

cult-marcuse-web

Revolt against the false fathers, teachers, and heroes — solidarity with the wretched of the earth: is there and “organic” connection between the two facets of the protest? There seems to be an all but instinctual solidarity. The revolt at home against home seems largely impulsive, its targets hard to define: nausea caused by the “way of life,” revolt as a matter of physical and mental hygiene. The body against “the machine” — not against the mechanism constructed to make life safer and milder, to attenuate the cruelty of nature, but against the machine which has taken over the mechanism: the political machine, the corporate machine, the cultural and educational machine which has welded blessing and curse into one rational whole. The body against the machine: men, women, and children fighting, with the most primitive tools, the most brutal and destructive machines of all times and keeping it in check — does guerilla warfare define the revolution of our time?

Historical backwardness may against become the historical chance of turning the wheel of progress to another direction. Technical and scientific overdevelopment statnds refuted when the radar-equipped bombers, the chemicals, and the “special forces” of the affluent society are let loose on the poorest of the earth, on their shakes, hospitals, and rice fields. The “accidents” reveal the substance: they tear teh technological veil behind which the real powers are hiding. The capability to overkill and to overburn, and the mental behavior that goes with it are by-products of the development of the productive forces within a system of exploitation and repression; they seem to become more productive the more comfortable the system becomes to its privileged subjects. The affluent society has now demonstrated that it is a society at war; if its citizens have not noticed it, its victims certainly have….

Whereas previous revolutions brought about a larger and more rational development of the productive forces, in the overdeveloped societies of today, revolution would mean reversal of this trend: elimination of overdevelopment, and of its repressive rationality… As the production of wasteful and destructive goods is discontinued (a stage that would mean the end of capitalism in all its forms) — to somatic and mental mutilations inflicted on man by this production may be undone. In other words, the shaping of the environment, the transformation of nature, may be propelled by the liberated rather than the repressed Life Instincts, and aggression woul dbe subjected to their demands.

‘The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test’ by Tom Wolfe

They took a test run up into Northern California and right away the wild-looking people  was great for stirring up consternation and vague befuddling resentment among the citizens. The Pranksters were now out among them, and it was exhilarating — look at the mothers staring! — and there was going to be holy terror in the land. But there would also be people who would look up out of their poor work-a-daddy lives in some town, some old guy, somebody’s stenographer, and see this bus and register… delight, or just pure open-invitation wonder. Either way, the Intrepid Travelers figured, there was hope for these people. They weren’t totally turned off. The bus also had great possibilities for altering the usual order of things. For example, there were the cops.

One afternoon the Pranksters were on a test run in the bus going through the woods up north and a forest fire had started. There was smoke beginning to pour out of the woods and everything. Everybody on the bus had taken  acid and they were zonked. The acid was in some orange juice in the refrigerator and you drank a paper cup full of it and you were zonked. Cassady was driving  and barreling through the burning woods wrenching the steering wheel this way and that way to his inner-wired beat, with a siren wailing and sailing through the rhythm.

A siren? It’s a highway patrolman, which immediately  seems like the funniest thing in the history of the world. Smoke is pouring out of the woods and they are all sailing through leaf explosions in the sky, but the cop is bugged about this freaking bus…. And the cop, all he can see is a bunch of crazies in screaming orange and green costums, masks, boys and girls, men and women, twelve or fourteen of them, lying in the grass and making hideously crazy sounds — christ almighty, why the hell does he have to contend with… So he wheels around and says, “What are you, uh — show people?”

“That’s right, officer,” Kesey says, “We’re show people. It’s been a long row to hoe, I can tell you, and it’s gonna be a long row to hoe, but that’s the business.”

“Well,” says the cop, “you fix up those things and…” He starts backing off towards his car, cutting one last look at the crazies. “… And watch it next time…” And he guns on off.

That was it! How can you give a traffic ticket to a bunch of people rolling in the brown grass wearing Day-glo masks, practically Greek masques, only with Rat phosphorescent elan, gigling, keening in their costumes and private world while the god Speed sizzles like a short-order French fry int he gut of some guy who doesn’t even stop talking to breathe. A traffic ticket? The Pranksters felt more immune than ever. They could go through the face of America muddling people’s minds, but it’s a momentary high, and the bus would be gone, and all the Fab foam in their heads would settle back down into their brain pans. (pp.68-70)

… They gave a party up at the apartment at Madison and 90th [New York City] and Kerouac and Ginsberg were there. Kesey and Keouac didn’t say much to each other. Here was Keouac and here was Kesey and here was Cassady in between them, once the mercury for Keouac and the whole Beat Generation and now the mercury for Kesey and the whole — what? — something wilder and weirder out on the road. It was like hail and farewell. Kerouac was the old star. Kesey was the wild new comet from the West heading christ knew where…. Kesey was already talking about how writing was an old-fashioned and artificial form and pointing out, for all who cared to look … the bus. The local press, including some of the hipper, smaller sheets, gave it a go, but nobody really comprehended what was going on, except that it was a party. It was a party, all right. But in July of 1964 not even the hip world in New York was quite ready for the phenomenon of a bunch of people roaring across the continental U.S.A. in a bus covered with swirling Day-Glo mandalas aiming movie cameras and microphones at every freaking thing in this whole freaking country while Neal Cassady wheeled the bus around the high curves like Super Hud and the U.S. nation streamed across the windshield like one of those goddamned Cinemascope landscape  cameras that winds up your optic nerves like the rubber band in a toy airplane and let us now be popping more speed and acid and smoking grass as if it were all just coming out of Cosmo the Prankster god’s own local-option gumball machines —

Cosmo! Further!

(p.102-103)

EPILOGUE

Three weeks after the end of the bus trip, Ken Kesey went on trial, multiple times, in San Francisco for possession of drugs and was sentenced to six months on a work farm and fined $1500. the Pranksters scattered.  In February 1968, Neal Cassady’s body was found besides a railroad track in Mexico, his death most likely the result of a drug overdose. In 1969, the Pranksters, minus Kesey, and the bus made to Woodstock.

‘Superman Comes to the Supermarket’ by Normal Mailer (1960)

Originally published in the November 1960 issue of Esquire

For once let us try to think about a political convention without losing ourselves in housing projects of fact and issue. Politics has its virtues, all too many of them — it would not rank with baseball as a topic of conversation if it did not satisfy a great many things — but one can suspect that its secret appeal is close to nicotine. Smoking cigarettes insulates one from one’s life, one does not feel as much, often happily so, and politics quarantines one from history; most of the people who nourish themselves in the political life are in the game not to make history but to be diverted from the history which is being made.

If that Democratic Convention which has now receded behind the brow of the summer of 1960 is only half-remembered in the excitements of moving toward the election, it may be exactly the time to consider it again, because the mountain of facts which concealed its features last July has been blown away in the winds of High Television, and the man-in-the-street (that peculiar political term which refers to the quixotic voter who will pull the lever for some reason so salient as: “I had a brown-nose lieutenant once with Nixon’s looks,” or “that Kennedy must have false teeth”), the not so easily estimated man-in-the-street has forgotten most of what happened and could no more tell you who Kennedy was fighting against than you or I could place a bet on who was leading the American League in batting during the month of June.

So to try to talk about what happened is easier now than in the days of the convention, one does not have to put everything in — an act of writing which calls for a bulldozer rather than a pen — one can try to make one’s little point and dress it with a ribbon or two of metaphor. All to the good. Because mysteries are irritated by facts, and the 1960 Democratic Convention began as one mystery and ended as another.

Since mystery is an emotion which is repugnant to a political animal (why else lead a life of bad banquet dinners, cigar smoke, camp chairs, foul breath, and excruciatingly dull jargon if not to avoid the echoes of what is not known), the psychic separation between what was happening on the floor, in the caucus rooms, in the headquarters, and what was happening in parallel to the history of the nation was mystery enough to drown the proceedings in gloom. It was on the one hand a dull convention, one of the less interesting by general agreement, relieved by local bits of color, given two half hours of excitement by two demonstrations for Stevenson, buoyed up by the class of the Kennedy machine, turned by the surprise of Johnson’s nomination as vice-president, but, all the same, dull, depressed in its over-all tone, the big fiestas subdued, the gossip flat, no real air of excitement, just moments — or as they say in bullfighting — details. Yet it was also, one could argue — and one may argue this yet — it was also one of the most important conventions in America’s history, it could prove conceivably to be the most important. The man it nominated was unlike any politician who had ever run for President in the history of the land, and if elected he would come to power in a year when America was in danger of drifting into a profound decline.

Depression obviously has its several roots: it is the doubtful protection which comes from not recognizing failure, it is the psychic burden of exhaustion, and it is also, and very often, the discipline of the will or the ego which enables one to continue working when one’s unadmitted emotion is panic. And panic it was I think which sat as the largest single sentiment in the breast of the collective delegates as they came to convene in Los Angeles. Delegates are not the noblest sons and daughters of the Republic; a man of taste, arrived from Mars, would take one look at a convention floor and leave forever, convinced he had seen one of the drearier squats of Hell. If one still smells the faint living echo of carnival wine, the pepper of a bullfight, the rag, drag, and panoply of a jousting tourney, it is all swallowed and regurgitated by the senses into the fouler cud of a death gas one must rid oneself of — a cigar-smoking, stale-aired, slack-jawed, butt-littered, foul, bleak, hard-working, bureaucratic death gas of language and faces (“Yes, those faces,” says the man from Mars: lawyers, judges, ward heelers, mafiosos, Southern goons and grandees, grand old ladies, trade unionists and finks), of pompous words and long pauses which lay like a leaden pain over fever, the fever that one is in, over, or is it that one is just behind history? A legitimate panic for a delegate. America is a nation of experts without roots; we are always creating tacticians who are blind to strategy and strategists who cannot take a step, and when the culture has finished its work the institutions handcuff the infirmity. A delegate is a man who picks a candidate for the largest office in the land, a President who must live with problems whose borders are in ethics, metaphysics, and now ontology; the delegate is prepared for this office of selection by emptying wastebaskets, toting garbage, and saying yes at the right time for twenty years in the small political machine of some small or large town; his reward, one of them anyway, is that he arrives at an invitation to the convention. An expert on local catch-as-catch-can, a small-time, often mediocre practitioner of small-town political judo, he comes to the big city with nine-tenths of his mind made up, he will follow the orders of the boss who brought him. Yet of course it is not altogether so mean as that: his opinion is listened to — the boss will consider what he has to say as one interesting factor among five hundred, and what is most important to the delegate, he has the illusion of partial freedom. He can, unless he is severely honest with himself — and if he is, why sweat out the low levels of a political machine? — he can have the illusion that he has helped to chooses the candidate, he can even worry most sincerely about his choice, flirt with defection from the boss, work out his own small political gains by the road of loyalty or the way of hard bargain. But even if he is there for more than the ride, his vote a certainty in the mind of the political boss, able to be thrown here or switched there as the boss decides, still in some peculiar sense he is reality to the boss, the delegate is the great American public, the bar he owns or the law practice, the piece of the union he represents, or the real-estate office, is a part of the political landscape which the boss uses as his own image of how the votes will go, and if the people will like the candidate. And if the boss is depressed by what he sees, if the candidate does not feel right to him, if he has a dull intimation that the candidate is not his sort (as, let us say, Harry Truman was his sort, or Symington might be his sort, or Lyndon Johnson), then vote for him the boss will if he must; he cannot be caught on the wrong side, but he does not feel the pleasure of a personal choice. Which is the center of the panic. Because if the boss is depressed, the delegate is doubly depressed, and the emotional fact is that Kennedy is not in focus, not in the old political focus, he is not comfortable; in fact it is a mystery to the boss how Kennedy got to where he is, not a mystery in its structures; Kennedy is rolling in money, Kennedy got the votes in primaries, and, most of all, Kennedy has a jewel of a political machine. It is as good as a crack Notre Dame team, all discipline and savvy and go-go-go, sound, drilled, never dull, quick as a knife, full of the salt hipper-dipper, a beautiful machine; the boss could adore it if only a sensible candidate were driving it, a Truman, even a Stevenson, please God a Northern Lyndon Johnson, but it is run by a man who looks young enough to be coach of the Freshman team, and that is not comfortable at all. The boss knows political machines, he know issues, farm parity, Forand health bill, Landrum-Griffin, but this is not all so adequate after all to revolutionaries in Cuba who look like Beatniks, competitions in missiles, Negroes looting whites in the Congo, intricacies of nuclear fallout, and NAACP men one does well to call Sir. It is all out of hand, everything important is off the center, foreign affairs is now the lick of the heat, and senators are candidates instead of governors, a disaster to the old family style of political measure where a political boss knows his governor and knows who his governor knows. So the boss is depressed, profoundly depressed. He comes to this convention resigned to nominating a man he does not understand, or let us say that, so far as he understands the candidate who is to be nominated, he is not happy about the secrets of his appeal, not so far as he divines these secrets; they seem to have too little to do with politics and all too much to do with the private madnesses of the nation which had thousands — or was it hundreds of thousands — of people demonstrating in the long night before Chessman was killed, and a movie star, the greatest, Marlon the Brando out in the night with them. Yes, this candidate for all his record; his good, sound, conventional liberal record has a patina of that other life, the second American life, the long electric night with the fires of neon leading down the highway to the murmur of jazz.

Introduction: Youth Culture

Who’s Bad?  A bit more on the Milgrim Experiment

1]          From Power and Protest by Jeremi Suri ( 2003)

If politics is a form of controlled conflict, the balance of power shifted decisively to the young in the 1960s. The number of people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-nine increased dramatically from 1955 to 1975, reflecting the post-World War II baby boom that began in 1945 in Europe and America and in 1949 in China. Students now composed a large and restive segment of the population. Their condemnation of the alleged “false promises” and “hypocrisies” in contemporary society took aim at the Cold War stalemate. Leaders such as Kennedy, Khrushchev, de Gaulle, and Mao struggled with the obstacles that nuclear weapons, alliances, and bureaucracies posed to policy change. The growing mass of young citizens, however, demanded more radical politics. The youth culture of the early 1960s gestated in a relatively stable international environment in which young men – especially the most educated – were generally not involved in military conflict. More young women also entered college than ever before. This post- WWII generation of citizens enjoyed lives more secure and comfortable than their parents’. Security and comfort, however, did not preclude discontent and apprehension. The youth culture of the 1960s furthered domestic instability and upheaval. Extensive student interaction within the framework of crowded, usually urban, educational institutions provided the infrastructure for dissent within many societies. The words of prominent iconoclasts — writers as well as musicians and artists — supplied the language that allowed men and women to express their anger as they had not before. The American civil rights movement exemplifies how the language of dissent drew on an infrastructure of educated and energetic students. Throughout Europe, the United States, and Asia numerous protest movements emerged from a singular combination of dissident ideas and nascent youth organizations. In many cases student protesters mobilized around a powerful rhetoric of social criticism articulated by intellectual elites. Authors such as Michael Harrington, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Wu Han, and Herbert Marcuse contributed to the language that empowered youth around the world to organize and agitate in diverse ways. The high tide of student and other domestic protests did not arrive until the end of the 1960s. The first half of the decade, however, set the stage for later social disruptions that in turn transformed Cold War politics. The language of dissent, formulated during the early years of university expansion, provided the critical tools for men and women to challenge state power….

Demographic trends and education reforms converged to initiate a remarkable international expansion in higher education between 1955 and 1970. The enlargement of modern universities, colleges, and related post-secondary institutions followed the growth in both military resources and administrative functions controlled by states. By the 1960s higher education became a distinct sphere of government-sponsored activity, with its own clearly defined and regulated facilities…  Although the precise structure and curriculum for higher education differed widely in each country, universities brought together a cross-section of the best trained students, almost all of whom were literate and proficient in basic mathematics. In this context higher education groomed an aristocracy of talent and leadership, in contrast to earlier aristocracies of birth or manner…  The experience of academic life — where intellectual study and separation from family are integral to student identity — became commonplace among a wide diversity of youths in the 1960s. Compulsory military service had often marked a distinct period in the maturation of young men, between childhood and full adulthood. The expansion in educational access created a freer, more intellectual transition for many citizens from diverse backgrounds, both male and female. Educational reform, driven by demographics and state policy, provided the structural foundation for an international youth culture more integrated across sexes and more politically aware than its predecessors.

Men and women attending university in the 1960s were not united by class, ethnicity, or national origin. Their commonality lay in their status as students. The influence of government within the expanding institutions of higher education exerted strong pressures on students for conformity with dominant ideologies. The experiences of McCarthyism in the United States, the Anti-Rightist Campaign against domestic critics in China, and the recurring purges in the Soviet Union, though very different in degree, attested to how coercive the forces of domestic order could become for students, intellectuals, and society as a whole.

The instruments of state “hegemony” — government uses of education and other forms of indoctrination to reinforce its authority — operated effectively within higher education, but they also generated a series of powerful counterresponses. The literacy, international awareness, and group interaction that served the purposes of educational indoctrination also empowered dissent against the aims of the state. Within universities students could produce their own literature (openly in the West, covertly in communist societies), distribute their materials to a large number of counterparts, organize their own social networks, and, most significant, turn their access to information against the claims of governing authorities.

In the early 1960s individuals in and around various universities used these sources of counterhegemony to transform students into dissidents. Emerging from various age cohorts and backgrounds, a set of charismatic figures crafted a language of protest that inspired the growing body of students to resist the aims of state leaders…  The breakdown of the Cold War ‘domestic consensus’ began in the early 1960s. Contrary to the conformist aims of state leaders, educational institutions nurtured a language of protest among students years before the Vietnam War and other international crises sparked broader criticisms of authority…  Dissident writers contradicted the claims of established leaders and turned the energies of many citizens to alternative courses of action, including covert organization and extralegal protest. These dissidents voiced growing frustrations with the political status quo. They expressed hope for something other than a permanent Cold War. The expanded academic community in each of the great powers became a crucial forum for the transmission of these ideas. Protest movements such as the American civil rights movement had important non-academic origins, but in the 1960s universities around the world became incubators for revolution.

2]            Excerpt from ‘The Conquest of Cool’ by Thomas Frank (1997)

The meaning of “the sixties” cannot be considered apart from the enthusiasm of ordinary, suburban Americans for cultural revolution. And yet that enthusiasm is perhaps the most problematic and the least-studied aspect of the decade. Between the denunciations of conservatives and the fond nostalgia of 1960s partisans, we have forgotten the cosmic optimism with which so many organs of official American culture greeted the youth rebellion. It was this sudden mass defection of Americans from square to hip that distinguished the culture of the 1960s — everything from its rock music to its movies to its generational fantasies to its intoxicants — and yet the vast popularity of dissidence is the aspect of the sixties that the contemporary historical myths have trouble taking into account. The fact is that the bearers of the liberal cultural order were strangely infatuated with the counterculture (especially after 1967), hailing the Beatles with breathless reverence and finding hope and profundity in different aspects of the insurgent youth culture…. What might be called the standard binary narrative goes something like this: spearheaded by a dynamic youth uprising, the cultural sensibility of the 1960s made a decisive break with the dominant forces and social feeling of the post-war era. Rebellion replaced machine-like restraint as the motif of the age. Conformity and consumerism were challenged by a new ethos that found an enemy in the “Establishment,” celebrated difference and diversity, and sought to maximize the freedom and “self-realization” of the individual. The “rationality” that had fueled a Cold War and subordinated people to the necessities of industrial efficiency was discredited in favor of more subjective, spontaneous, less mediated ways of knowing. The long-standing cultural and social monopoly of white males was broken, with the values of formerly subaltern groups rising suddenly to the fore. So familiar has the historical equation become (conformist fifties, rebellious sixties) that is now functions like the “historical boundary” used by Henry May to describe the way his generation remembered the teens and twenties: on one side is a stilted, repressed, black-and-white “then”; on our own is a liberated, full-color “now.” More important of all, the counterculture is said to have worked a revolution through lifestyle rather than politics, a genuine subversion of the status quo through pleasure rather than power. Despite its apparent enthusiasm, goes the standard binary narrative, the Establishment was deeply threatened and in mortal conflict with a counterculture that aimed to undermine its cherished ethics of hard work and conformity…. “This society fears its young people deeply and desperately and does all that it can to train those it can control in its own image,” wrote Ralph Gleason, one of the founding editors of Rolling Stone, in January, 1969. So strange were the ideas of the young, so hostile to prevailing mores, “so radically disaffiliated from the mainstream assumptions of our society that it scarcely looks to many as a culture at all, but takes on the alarming appearance of a barbaric intrusion.” The young were demanding an “epochal transformation”; the conflict was Manichean, and the war to be a total one. But of course it wasn’t.

‘Howl’ by Alan Ginsberg (second class start 10:14)