Interview with Dr. Larry Davidson

Davidson, Lawrence, 1945- ; McKiernan, Stephen

Dr. Larry Davidson is a retired History professor at West Chester University. He is the author of Islamic Fundamentalism and Cultural Genocide, and is an expert on the Middle East. As a student, Davidson was an SDS (Student for A Democratic Society) leader at Georgetown University who made the front page of the Washington Post along with other students protesting the war in Vietnam. Dr. Davidson received his Ph.D. in Modern European Intellectual History from the University of Alberta in Edmonton.

ND

In copyright

2017-03-14

McKiernan Interviews

96:06

McKiernan Interviews
Interview with: Larry Davidson
Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan
Transcriber: REV
Date of interview: Not dated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Start of Interview)

SM (00:00:04):
One, two, three, four, five, six.

LD (00:00:08):
... button is?

SM (00:00:08):
Yes, there is. Pause is right here.

LD (00:00:10):
Oh, okay. All right. You want to tap?

SM (00:00:15):
Here you go. You can just kind of sit back and relax.

LD (00:00:18):
It is running now, right?

SM (00:00:19):
Yeah.

LD (00:00:20):
Okay.

SM (00:00:20):
[Inaudible] toward you and everything. Thank you very much for participating in the interview process here.

LD (00:00:27):
My pleasure.

SM (00:00:29):
Second time. First question I would like to ask is a general question. In the news recently, in fact over many years, there has been a lot of criticism of the boomer generation in terms of blaming this group of Americans where a lot of the problems in American society, we have seen it many times from Republicans, we have seen it sometimes from Democrats. We have seen it in a lot of recent books where the boomers are being criticized for the breakup of the American family, the increase in the drug culture, basically any problems facing American society goes back to those times in the (19)60s and early (19)70s. Could you comment on that from your perspective?

LD (00:01:12):
I always thought it was Islamic fundamentalists that were the new enemy of humankind, but now you tell me it is my generation. I imagine by "boomers" you mean those that were born at-

SM (00:01:29):
Between 1946 and 64. Which were 60 million people.

LD (00:01:34):
Oh, okay. Actually, I was born in 1945. That means I am not really one of those. I am a...

SM (00:01:38):
Dude.

LD (00:01:39):
All right. Well, I will not pretend. It is an obviously fallacious position. I cannot see how anyone can blame anyone generation for the troubles of the contemporary world. I mean, generations tend to meld into each other. And clearly, in terms of the generation you are referring to, there are people of all stripes and all colors and all ideologies across the American scene. No one group controlled the thoughts and actions of that entire generation, least of all the radicals of the "radicals" of the (19)60s. And I have a feeling that perhaps those are the ones that these critics want to pin all these problems on, if I am not mistaken. And the radicals, I can tell you because I was one of them, and one of them actually still, were just a very small minority within that generation, albeit a very vocal minority, and at least in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s, particularly well-organized group. But still, in all, very, very small minority of that generational population. And if you can put a half a million people on the Mall in Washington DC it looks impressive on television. And in fact, it has some effect if you can do it over and over again on the politics of the time, but compared with the overall number of folks in the generation, half a million people is not a lot. And most of the people in the "radical movement" were really quite moderate in their overall politics. It was only a minority within a minority that you could really describe as consistently left-wing. So one has to look for other motives in terms of the critics. Why would they want to point fingers at this particular small group? They're an easy target. They were vocal. They stood out. They opposed a war that opened them up in the long term and at the time to charges of not being patriotic and that sort of thing. They identified themselves with, at the time, unpopular positions, so they were an easy target. And of course, to just point fingers at them means that you do not have to go into any broader analysis, systems-based analysis of the power structure and how it was operating and that sort of thing. So I do not take it really seriously. Obviously, these people write books and get published, but I do not take it really seriously. I do not think it's very near to the truth at all.

SM (00:05:06):
So when you hear the criticisms of looking back 30 years and blaming the drug problems of today's young people on the boomers of that era and their lifestyles, and the fact that the divorce rate did not happen in the (19)50s, but in the (19)60s, (19)70s and (19)80s, that whole concept of, "You do your thing, I will do my thing; if by chance we come together, it will be beautiful," but that kind of mentality?

LD (00:05:41):
I do not think that the things that you describe really characterize the majority of people of that generation. Those were the sort of quasi-anarchist feelings of a distinct vocal and picturesque minority within that generation. I mean, Abby Hoffman is not a representative member of the boomer generation. He was very picturesque and he was a great guy, from my point of view, but hardly can he be represented as typical. Just so the kind of free love depicted in, say, Arlo Guthrie's movie Alice's Restaurant. That is not typical of the boomer generation. You want to know what is typical of the boomer generation? Our people are kind of Kennedy liberals, probably more so than Nixon conservatives, but I am not sure how much nor more so. When I was in the SDS there were consistently more folks who stood against us than stood for us. So, what is the real boomer generation? Or are these people, when you throw out those kinds of clichés that you did, which are out there in the press, are those really typical of that generation or are they just the position of a colorful, picturesque, vocal minority that one can easily point fingers to?

SM (00:07:25):
Larry, I want to just that one more time. That was really good- Larry, I want to ask you a personal question because you said you were involved in Students for Democratic Society when you were at Georgetown. At what point, why did you join Students for Democratic Society, and what was it when you were a young person at Georgetown University that said, "I have got to belong to this group and be involved, and possibly protest against what was happening in America?"

LD (00:07:50):
It began before I got to Georgetown. I got to Georgetown, I think in (19)68, maybe the September of (19)68. And I had come from Rutgers University, and there was no SDS at Rutgers at the time, at least not on the campus I was at. But I had always been sympathetic to the civil rights movement, and I always knew that I stood against the Vietnam War. And we had a discussion, kind of informal discussion, book reading group, at Rutgers among people who were avant garde. And I guess it was while living and studying among that group of avant garde people at Rutgers that I became really left leaning. Why I was that way? I do not know. My father was a full colonel in the Air Force and I never got along with him. You can delve into some kind of Freudian interpretation of these things. My mother was always a very conscientious, principled passivist, very liberal in her views. I think I have always been just anti-authoritarian. I have always gone for the underdog. So anyway, when I got to Georgetown, there were a bunch of people who wanted to protest not only the war, but wanted to also do analysis and actions around other issues like open enrollment issues or increasing minority participation at Georgetown, getting more blacks and Latinos into the student body and various other civil rights-oriented issues. It was a broad coalition of folks. And at one point, someone said to me, "Maybe we ought to start an SDS chapter if we are really going to be serious about this." And I said, "Sounds good. We should do that. We should organize, at least a leadership cadre, to push this agenda, this sort of liberal... Not even liberal, it is more than liberal. It is sort of a social progressive agenda." And so, it seemed a logical step, so we did it. Subsequently, of course, the House on American Activities Committee chose the Georgetown SDS as a model in its investigation of the organization. And the Georgetown's administration cooperated completely with HUAC in that process. And we all got our ID's pictures turned over to the committee and stuff like that.

SM (00:11:09):
If you look at the boomers now, that group from (19)46 to (19)64, there is obviously even differences within the generation, perception that I have seen that those who were born in that (19)46 to late (19)50s period are different than those born in the latter part, which are now only in their mid-thirties. But the question I am trying to get at here is, in your opinion, when you look at the boomer generation as a whole, which is 60 plus million, and here they are reaching 50 now, knowing that still that there are probably some people that identify themselves as boomers over in their early (19)50s and maybe even their mid (19)50s. Could you say what the positive things that you feel the boomers have done on American society, and secondly, the negatives? But obviously I feel that you're with the boomers and the fact is you have seen what has happened and what they have done in America over this last 30 years, pluses and minus. What are the pluses and the minuses on the boomer generation in your eyes?

LD (00:12:08):
I can only respond to that based on my own instincts and my own political orientation. Obviously, I think the civil rights movement is a seminal achievement. There is civil rights movement to the extent that it managed to change people's attitudes and legislate greater equality and openness, essentially was an eminently American democratic step. So it was a way of approaching the ideal, approaching the theory and the ideal inherent in the Constitution. In practice, [inaudible] there are not too many times in American history where you get a giant step in bringing theory in its best sense into practice. I guess reconstruction after the Civil War was another time. But clearly, I think the Civil Rights Movement is that sort of seminal step, and it should be recognized as a great achievement in the course of American history. So, that is a very positive thing. The prevention of carrying the war in Vietnam to an ideological destructive conclusion is a sort of negative yet positive achievement, as far as I am concerned. The war itself was abominable and a betrayal of American principles. We were not in there to promote democracy or representative government. That is all bullshit. We were in fact supporting a corrupt regime. The only difference between the DM regime, say, and the communists were that DM had an allegedly pro-capitalist orientation while the others did not. But American foreign policy has a tendency, despite all the rhetoric, to find dictators, military dictators or civilian dictators, that they latch onto. Latin America, Central America's full of examples like that. And we used to rationalize that in terms of the Cold War as we seem to have rationalized the Vietnam War in terms of the Cold War, but I do not know. I think we would do it anyway. In any case, it was a betrayal of American ideals and I think that to the extent that my generation stopped criminals like Lyndon Johnson and McNamara and these other folks, who I consider to be just plain criminals, from killing even more of Vietnamese and Americans than they managed to do in a bad, in terms of the ideals, anti-American cause. I consider that to be an achievement that each generation has to, at least those who stick to their principles in each generation, have to stand up against these kinds of anti-human, and in the idealistic sense, anti-American acts and behaviors, whether they are segregationist manifestations domestically, or in terms of recent history this sort of inherently evil attack on subsidization of the poor when there is really no economic alternatives for these people, in other words the welfare bill, you have to stand up for that. You have to stand up for your principles and act against that, stand up against that kind of behavior, or you just sell yourself to the devil that way.

SM (00:16:41):
Those are the pluses, but do you see any negatives in your-

LD (00:16:45):
Well, again, I would point out that those who did all those pluses were a minority within that generation, that the majority within the generation as majorities always do, went along with the government, went along with the war, went along with segregation. That is why systems can continue as they are within democratic societies, because the majority goes along. The majority of folks are just sheep, unfortunately, so what characterizes... And I mean, the majority of these sheep seems to be somehow necessary to a stable society. I do not want to be too hard on these folks, but what characterizes the boomer generation, perhaps, is that it had a more vocal and more active humanistic minority than other generations before or after it in recent times. And that is why it stands out, and that is why it draws so much flack. So, in terms of the negative, the negative part is that the humanistic minority had to fight so hard just to sway the passive, unthinking majority. I mean, I-

SM (00:18:25):
[inaudible 00:18:28].

LD (00:18:30):
Yeah, we are still going.

SM (00:18:33):
Okay, point blank, respond to this question. And I have asked this to all... This year done 27th interview, many, and the answers to this question have been as different... Whether you loved Lyndon Johnson or you hated him. Was the student protest movement on the college campuses the main reason that the Vietnam War ended?

LD (00:18:59):
No, I do not think it was the main reason. I think it was obviously contributive to it, and perhaps like the straw that broke the camel's back kind of thing. I think the main reason that the war ended was that you had a lot of body bags coming back. The anti-war protestors were saying over and over again that this war not only was immoral and a violation of the best principles or ideals that America stood for, but that it was unwinnable, that unless you were willing to use nuclear weapons, ya ain't going to win this thing. And the reason you were not going to win it was because the position that America took was completely and totally unpopular within Vietnam. So, unless you were willing to destroy that country, and we were well on our way to doing that: free fire zones, napalm, defoliation, concentration camps for the Vet, for increasing numbers of the population. I mean, we were well on our way to destroying that country. Unless you were willing to do that and take the casualties that would be necessary to accomplish that, you were not going to win it. And the American people could not see where ultimately South Vietnam was worth, for them, the casualty rates. I knew a fellow who was a Navy medic with the Marines, and he was at... Was it Khe Sanh? Not Khe Sanh. Or Da Nang, or one of those places during the Tet Offensive and the NVA came into the city, and his comment was that the Marines and the other military units in the area could never, ever have stood the assault and won against the Vietnamese at this site during the Tet Offensive for the simple reason that the Vietnamese were willing to take 10 casualties for every American dead. And unless we were willing to match that, we were not going anywhere. This was not World War II, the Vietnamese were not the Nazis, South Vietnam was not France or Normandy, and the American people were not going to sustain those casualty rates. That, I think was the key. Now, the anti-war movement, whether it was students or others, had put forth a message that the war was unwinnable and that in fact, it was a violation of all the best things that America stood for it. Now, that in and of itself would not have changed it, but you combined that with the reality of those body bags, and you can add onto that all the maimed, the injured, the TV, the war was being fought on television and all those visual images, you put all that together and that was it, that is why the war warranted. And even still, it took, what, 10 years to stop it? It is really atrocious.

SM (00:22:32):
Of course, that new book out by McNamara, which came out a year ago, the memoir In Retrospect.

LD (00:22:36):
The guy is a criminal.

SM (00:22:38):
Brought all kinds of feelings about the Vietnam [inaudible].

LD (00:22:45):
McNamara's position, is absolutely, absolutely unbelievable. I believe him when he says that in the rarefied air of the State Department and the Defense Department, they actually thought that if Vietnam fell, the Russians would be at the doorstep and we'd be facing nuclear war. That is what McNamara says in that book-book. I believe that he believed that. But the domino theory was so patently contrived, certainly by the 1960s. You might have been able to go with Kennan in the late forties and early (19)50s, but by the late (19)60s to think that if Vietnam falls you're going to be facing a nuclear war with the Soviets, these guys were in a fantasy world and they killed million Vietnamese and 50,000-plus Americans because of this kind of fantasy they could not shake. So, the guy is a criminal, maybe you can make a claim for...

SM (00:24:00):
So, we [inaudible]? Very good.

LD (00:24:03):
Maybe you can make a claim from mental illness, as far as I am concerned, but he used to be strung up by his genitals.

SM (00:24:10):
One of the things, when we look at the boomer generation, is the differences between white Americans and African Americans or people of color that when you look at boomers, there's a differentiation there. We all know, for example, that in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s, many African American students on college campuses would not be seen in protests against the Vietnam War because it was not their war, because many people were being sent over who were of color and dying. The question I want to ask is, when we are looking at the war or we are looking at the concept of civil rights, especially in the area of civil rights, many people were not of age when Freedom Summer happened in (19)64, boomers were very young. So in other common criticism we're hearing, and I want your response-

SM (00:25:03):
Boomers were very young, so another common criticism we're hearing, and I want your response to this, is that the Boomers followed other people in the Civil Rights movement. They were too young, (19)46, (19)56, (19)66, the oldest would have been 18 in Freedom Summer. Could you comment on that, even though it is just an analogy, that really, Boomers were not the leaders of the Civil Rights movement, they followed?

LD (00:25:24):
I think that the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement were African Americans, clearly. I think that those of that generation who were of a socially progressive persuasion, I hate to use the word liberal here, were inspired by King and others like him, and clearly followed in their footsteps, and there damn well was few of us that did that, quite frankly. In terms of the Civil Rights movement, clearly the "Boomers" were not leaders, they were followers in that regard. Now, when I was in the SDS in (19)68, (19)69, (19)70, we had an informal relationship with the Black Panther Party in Washington DC, and I think there is actually a picture that appeared in the Washington Post at some point in (19)68 or (19)69, of myself and Eldridge Cleaver holding a banner, and I cannot remember what the banner said.

SM (00:26:43):
You do not have that picture?

LD (00:26:44):
During some march. Someday I will have to go back and go through the newspaper, and look for it. He is holding one end and I am holding the other end, and it was during one of these demonstrations, or something like that. I should really get that and make a poster out of it, even though I am really disappointed the way Cleaver went fundamentalist Christian subsequently. Anyway, we did have this informal relationship, and I think our analysis basically of American society at that time had a lot of points that touched together. There was a big falling off, or break with African American groups like the Panthers and a lot of individuals within the SDS who happened to be Jewish because of the position that the Panthers and other leaders in the African American community took over the issue of Palestine, Palestinians, Israel. There was a big break there between certain individuals and the African American community leadership. But that is a very specific issue, and I am proud to say that I held to my principles, and did not make a break over that issue. Many Jewish kids left the movement over that issue.

SM (00:28:15):
How would you want to define here on this one, I want to make sure you define this towards the end. Okay. Have you changed your-

LD (00:28:27):
I do not know whether I answered your question.

SM (00:28:30):
Well, it was a commentary that among the criticism that people who were, I would not say anti-Boomer, but critical of the Boomers, is that they lay claim to a lot of things that are not true. They were the Civil Rights movement. They ended the war.

LD (00:28:48):
Well, I do not know who's making those claims. I have not read all the books that you have, but the reality of it is as I described. You can trust me, Steve.

SM (00:29:06):
Would you say when you look at the Boomer generation, one of the terms that was used often at that time is, "We are the most unique generation in American history." I remember that happening when I was in Ohio State University, and it was always, "We had the opportunity of being the most unique generation in American history," because of trying to stop the war, and the Civil Rights movement. The women's movement came to fruition at that time, the gay and lesbian movement came after Stonewall. There was a Native American movement was happening. Everybody remembers Alcatraz, and the Native Americas taking over Alcatraz, Dennis Banks, that group. And then of course, the Chicano movement also and they were all around the same time. Student leaders from a lot of walks, Cesar Chavez came to power, around that time. Are the Boomers the most unique generation in American history?

LD (00:29:58):
Obviously, it was a somewhat unique time. Where, as you describe, many of these socially progressive movements came together at one moment in history. Whether that makes it the most unique generational period in the history of the nation, I really do not know. Probably it makes it one of the most socially active times in the history of the nation. I think that is a safer way of putting it, and probably a more historically meaningful way of looking at it than whether one is the most unique generation or not. I think that a sign of the fact that it is, or was one of the most unique periods in the history of the nation. Maybe one of the ways of seeing how unique, relatively speaking, this period of time was, is in fact all the flack and all the controversy that the activities of this generation, or at least this minority within the generation, this active socially progressive minority within the generation. That is my take on it. All the activities and the progress from my point of view that they generated and the issues that they raised and the gaps between theory and practice that they pointed out. So, they certainly set precedents, whether it is the Chicanos, the gays, the blacks, the anti-war folks. They set precedents for trying to close the gap between theory and practice within the American scene.

SM (00:32:11):
How do you respond to another thing too?

LD (00:32:13):
And that is why they raised so much flack. That is why they have so much opposition.

SM (00:32:18):
In your face mentality of that era, the confrontational approach to dialogue. There was such a thing then. The fact that, again, I am just using this as a barometer of yesterday, there was a survey in Philadelphia on what is wrong with Philadelphia. I do not know if you have not seen that. And one of the things that Philadelphians are never really pleased with anything, and I mean unbelievable things in Philadelphia magazine, but the bottom line was this, that Philadelphians are being labeled as a group of people that are in your face, and that brings a terminology of that period that a lot of the people that were involved in the movement were active, were basically in your face people. And so again, I do not know your thoughts on that, but that is again, going back to a criticism that we have heard that the lack of dialogue in society today sometimes can go directly linked to that era.

LD (00:33:09):
Well, I do not know whether you can trace the lack of dialogue today back to then, but clearly, I mean, you could not be anything but aggressive and confrontational in (19)68, (19)69, (19)70, and likewise, it would be very difficult to be anything other than confrontational and quote in your face during the civil rights period. You were going to get nowhere by polite dialogue. Okay, polite. The desire for polite dialogue is the desire of the establishment, wanting to set the parameters, set the rules for analysis of the contemporary situation. But when you have got a draft, when they are trying to draft everybody into an immoral, unwinnable, deadly war, when people are not allowed to go to decent schools, when black folks get crap and are not allowed to sit at the same lunch counters as white folks and they get crap in terms of their schools' jobs and everything else, what does polite dialogue mean? It means shut up, take it, and if you do not like it, be polite about you are not liking it. I mean, you get nowhere that way. The only way to deal with that is to be in someone's face. It is the only way.

SM (00:34:52):
What I think about the Dr. King analysis, that non-violent protest is not in your face, but it is certainly.

LD (00:34:58):
Sure, it is.

SM (00:34:58):
Well, non-violent protest is, it might be, but it was still a polite, there was a politeness there where they did not create.

LD (00:35:05):
If it was that polite, they would not have brought the police dogs out. I mean, when we say in your face, we do not mean necessarily that you are going to go some slap somebody around, it means that you are going to stop people from just having business as usual. The tactic that you use does not have to be with guns. I mean, you can just bring a 100 or 200 people into an area and sit down. Stops business as usual. And it is by the establishment's definition, not polite.

SM (00:35:37):
That is the deal. Have you changed your opinion of boomers over the last 25 years when you were young and now, have you changed?

LD (00:35:45):
I have simply never ever thought in generational terms. I mean I was part of a minority, political minority and understood that the majority of people of my generation did not agree with me, did not feel the way I did, even though people tend to now use these big categories and lump all people in one generation together as if they all believed the same thing. It's not true. And so when I grew up, I did not grow up thinking of myself as belonging to this generation. I mean, I belong to a distinct political, socially progressive minority that had in it folks of different generations. I mean the people that came together in those anti-war demonstrations, a lot of them, I was in my mid-20s early to mid-20s, and a lot of them were 40 and 50 old 1930s, left-wing working-class type organizers, wobbly types, labor parties, socialist types. So, I never thought of myself in terms of one generation or another, so I really do not care to comment.

SM (00:37:00):
One of the things about this generation is that one of the greatest impacts was their size. That they were the big, well, it was the biggest generation ever. 60 million plus because of the of course.

LD (00:37:09):
Right.

SM (00:37:10):
War and everything. And so again, their size has had a lot to do with their impact too in many respects.

LD (00:37:18):
Well, that might be true, that might be true. But the bigger the generation, the less likely it is to be monolithic in its outlooks. So, it is a simply mistake historically inaccurate to see it as somehow uniform in its outlooks and its behavior.

SM (00:37:38):
One of the constants that the literature states is then you have reiterated this in your commentary and that is that probably only about 15 percent of the boomers ever were ever involved in any sort of activism.

LD (00:37:52):
Yeah, I think that is probably accurate. Yeah.

SM (00:37:54):
Protest on college campuses and all these other movements that we have mentioned here. I am going to lead right into a question here because one of the basic premises behind this project is to look at the impact the boomers have had on American history both then and now and as they come into leadership roles, but it is also the concept of healing. Please comment on this premise. My premise is that boomers in many respects, and especially a lot of those that were involved, the activists, but even many who were not activists are having a problem with healing from the tremendous divisions that took place at that time. Those were for the war, those who were against the war, veterans who obviously have a different healing because they were treated poorly upon their return. And even though when you look at the boomers, they are still a minority. What are your thoughts on that? Because of the fact that in the many trips that I have had to the memorial, I have overheard veterans, I have seen people talking, I have tried to be an observant, and now I have got to be active in trying to do something when I help people hopefully heal the generation a little bit. That the healing, even though the wall was built to help the veterans and to help the nation heal, there's still a tremendous amount of healing that has not taken place. And I am not sure if it ever will. Could you comment on that in terms of the healing and the divisions?

LD (00:39:17):
You are right. I do not think it ever will. Again, I personally have never thought in these terms that I understand, and I accept that my attitudes and my reading of history and my attitudes and towards how this country operates is puts me in a perpetual minority, and I simply accept that. And so, given that position I mean there is no healing. I am not sure what healing means in terms of the veterans of the war except in these symbolic ways like the building of this memorial. There is no way that we can go back and give these guys a hero’s welcome. Quite frankly, they do not deserve a hero’s welcome. They are not heroes. That does not mean that they need to be vilified, they should not be vilified, and they certainly should not be blamed for the catastrophic policies of the people, of the leadership who sent them over there. They are victims, all right? They are not heroes, they are not villains, they are victims. And of course, the people who are dead are the most victimized of all. The only way these, so I do not even think that that veterans should think in terms of healing. I do not think it is possible. I mean, I have a very good friend of mine who lost the calves of both legs in a landmine incident in Vietnam. I mean, in what sense does this man heal? I mean, even if the Congress held a big rally in demonstration in which people, and the same number of people come as were in the largest anti-war demonstration, all to say that my friend and people like him are good guys and great guys and did a great service to the country, is that going to heal this guy? I do not know. Maybe it will make him feel better for the moment, but I do not know whether you can describe it in terms of healing. What they need is not healing. They need some justice, some explanation as to why they were sent there and why this happened to them, and something other than all that patriotic crap. I think that if the leaders that sent them there, those who are still alive could get up and say, this was a really big mistake, and like the Japanese kowtow and apologize to these people or their survivors, maybe that would be in some sense justice, but there can be no healing in there. They can never be compensated for being victimized this way. It is just not going to happen.

SM (00:42:41):
What about the tremendous divisions that happened between those who were for and those who were against the war and bringing them together to try to heal, to understand the passions of the time, whether it be veterans or protestors, those who supported the war?

LD (00:42:56):
Yeah. Well, I mean.

SM (00:42:56):
Both divisions.

LD (00:43:02):
Well, I think that those are useful exercises, but unless those who supported the war can come to understand and admit the erroneous analysis that their position is based on and the disastrous consequences in the physically disastrous consequences, not only for American veterans but for Vietnam, and we have slaughtered over a million of those people. Unless those folks can come to admit that, then I do not see how there can be any coming together unless, oh, I guess also, I mean the people that stood against the war could somehow fall into the trap of saying, oh, we were wrong. And I am, in fact, I know some anti-war folks, leaders who I work personally with, who have subsequently said, oh, we were wrong and we should not have done what we did. That in doing so, these people opened up career doors for themselves. But unless one side agrees with the other side, there is going to be no ultimately no healing. Well, I do not even know what that means, healing.

SM (00:44:26):
I want to make sure it is recording properly. There we go.

LD (00:44:30):
Yeah, it might be that, again, I do not think in terms of healing, I am not exactly sure what it means. And for me personally, I do not feel the need for that process. So, it is hard for me to give advice to others who seem to feel the need for it.

SM (00:44:49):
One of the main reasons this question comes forth is when we took a trip to Washington DC a couple of years back with some, we were on the road students here at Westchester University. We met Senator Musky, and one of the questions that happened during that two-hour session, it came up from yours truly, and it is fact, I talked about the concept of the inability to trust leaders because of what happened during that period, and I have had to deal with that as an individual. But I was especially referring back to 1968 and the protests that happened in Chicago, and he was the vice president as a running mate for Hubert Humphrey and his thoughts about the divisions in America at that time and the healing process. And at that juncture, I did not realize he was not a well man. And he'd been in the hospital and he had a melodramatic pause there for a while and the students looked at each other and did not really respond right away. And then when he did respond, he talked about the fact that he had been in the hospital and that his secretary had been bringing him tapes of Ken Burns civil war series, and he said, you realize a whole generation of Americans were basically wiped out during that civil war. And he says, my answer to your question is thus we have never healed since the Civil War. So you're talking about trying to heal since Vietnam. We have not healed since the Civil War.

LD (00:45:55):
He can push it further back.

SM (00:45:57):
Yeah. And the fact is, and there is still things today about the North and the South and their answers for each other. But the question I am trying to ask here is, and this is the direct question, it says, are we going to be another generation like the Civil war generation who went to their graves with bitterness? Now, in many respects, a lot of people who cares, I am raising a family, it does not bother me one bit, but a lot of people, we look at our lives and what we have done and are we going to our graves, whatever it might be, the bitterness, lack of forgiveness, lack of understanding toward the other's point of view, for example, your point of view should be understood by the person who is totally opposite of you to try to better understand where we come from. That is what I am getting at.

LD (00:46:42):
Well, it is a sweet ideal. This country, its history is a function of division. The American Revolution was the most divisive war this country ever fought, more divisive than the Civil War, even actually. You can look at the personal history of Benjamin Franklin and his son, I mean, which was typical of that. I think that ultimately the lamb does not lie down with the sheep or whatever that biblical analogy is. The lamb does not lie down with the lion. Right? I do not believe that happens. I think that there are very deep serious divisions in this country about social policy and the directions that the country should go in terms of social agenda. I think the vilification of the term liberal is a sign that those divisions are very, very deep, and I do not expect them to be resolved in the foreseeable future. I think that the divisions or around the Civil rights movement and around the Vietnam War are in the same vein as the divisions that we see now between right wing conservatives and liberals, if you want to use that term. That there is almost a hatred on the part of what I consider to be the radical right. I think there is almost a hatred on the part of the conservative elements in this country for people and for ideas of the Democratic left, and I do not think it is the Democratic left or I do not think it is the aging anti-war movement folks who do not want to heal or do not want to dialogue. I think it is the other side. I think it's the people who put up TV ads and other types of propaganda essentially vilifying the concept of liberal, vilifying the Democratic left that are the obstacle here, and not the folks who led civil rights marches or anti-war movements.

SM (00:49:29):
The generation gap was a term that was used a lot during the (19)60s and the early (19)70s, and in the World War II. Now we see would be young people today on college campuses, 20 somethings may not who also have differences with the boomer generation and themselves, and as the boomers get older, we keep hearing prophecies from, again, writings that there will be a major gap between this generation or because of the social security and a lot of other issues. Could you comment on what you thought was the generation gap of that year of the year.

SM (00:50:03):
... [inaudible] what you thought was the generation gap of era of the (19)60s and the (19)70s, the difference between parents and young people [inaudible] between boomers and their kids?

LD (00:50:12):
Well, first of all, there's always a generation gap. I mean, it seems to be a natural flow of generations for children to contest with their parents, at least in Western culture. It is more submerged than other cultures. But in Western culture, every generation of children contests over one issue or another with their parents. So, it is a sort of natural part of the landscape, of the demographic landscape. Now in the (19)60s though, that natural process of contesting between children and parents was sometimes accentuated by the issues of the day. If they are out there trying to draft everyone who cannot somehow manage a deferment, that is going to add tension. Obviously, it is going to add a lot of tension to one's everyday life. And so, it is going to accentuate whatever else is going on between parents and children. If you have got a household of Black folks, African Americans, where the parents have learned that the best survival skills is to just keep your head down and not let the sheriff even notice you, and all of a sudden you have got a kid who wants to go and sit in at the local lunch counter, that is going to accentuate whatever differences there generally would be, naturally would be within the culture of the parents and the child as the child matures and tries to find his own independent space. So, the extent to which the generation gap was greater in the (19)60s than, say, before or after, is a function of the context, the historical context in which those natural tensions and confrontations between child and parent were being worked out. You understand what I mean?

SM (00:52:21):
I do.

LD (00:52:23):
And that is the only thing that makes it different. Now today, I mean, the people who forecast these great problems, the only thing I can say is that I believe ultimately, they are going to if not fix the Medicare and Social Security problems, they will patch it up, perennially patch it up so that it will limp forward. It is just too politically suicidal not to patch it up. So, I have no doubts that they will do that. And in terms of the 20-somethings or the 18-somethings or 19-somethings that I know in abundance here at this university, I do not think most of them could define Social Security for you. And I am not sure if I at 18 could have defined Social Security for you. So I do not want to be too hard on them. So again, I think that the folks that point fingers at these great generation gaps and foretell with great foreboding about future generational gaps are exaggerating, probably for the sake of book sales. I do not know. But I think it is somewhat hyperbole.

SM (00:53:44):
The term activism obviously is a term that is identified with the (19)60s and early (19)70s. What role does activism play in the lives of today's young people, if any? A lot of people will term the boomers says an activist generation, even though we know 15 percent are really the activists, but are there any activists in today's generation now? Do students today have the passions that a lot of the students of the (19)60s and early (19)70s had?

LD (00:54:12):
Well, I mean, actually I think the answer is obviously no, not because they are not inherently capable of exercising those passions, but I do not think the issues are there to bring those passions out. In terms of are they more aware or whatever, I mean, you probably could answer that more than I. I mean, you deal with them, or at least a certain segment of folks on this campus, in terms of their political orientations or issues. And so you probably know the answer better than I do. In terms of my students, my students are not politically aware or politically interested. And I think that goes for like 95 percent to 99 percent of them. I think that if there were riots in the ghettos or a big war and they were drafting everybody, probably that would galvanize a greater percentage of them. You have to have issues that affect people's lives to in order to bring out whatever political potential is there.

SM (00:55:31):
I want to get back to a question. What is the lasting legacy of the boomers?

LD (00:55:38):
Well, again, I will go back to one of my opening remarks, and that generation, working within the historical context it found itself in, dealing with the issues that were forced upon it, created precedence, the ongoing challenge to bring practice closer to the ideals of the nation, which I see not only as in terms of the Bill of Rights, but also in terms of social justice and what have you, economic justice, to try to bring the practice of the nation closer to the ideals. I think that our generation, at least the 15 percent that was active in it, set a great precedent and actually moved the nation a step closer in terms of bridging that gap. I mean, after all, despite the destructive efforts of Ronald Reagan, and despite the destructive agenda of Newt Gingrich and all those guys, this country today is a better country and a country where the gap between theory and practice is more closed than it was, say, before 1956, and Brown v. the Board of Education. And so you have to keep pushing to try to close that sort of gap between ideal and theory. And I think my generation took a big step in that direction. Now, others today want to reverse that, and they might. I mean, it might be two steps backwards, one step forward, sort of one step backwards, two steps forwards. I mean, it can go either way, but you got to keep pushing. You got to just keep doing it, if you believe in social justice at all.

SM (00:57:39):
Yeah. What is your thought following that now? What is your thought of taking one step forward, two steps backward, attacks on affirmative action, attacks on a lot of accomplishments that took place? I know there were problems in the Great Society with Lyndon Johnson and all those things, but there was a genuineness to really want to make change to help a lot of people. And maybe there was some failures along the way, but to pointblank say the times are different now in the (19)90s than they were in the (19)60s and the (19)70s, it is no longer necessary to do the things that we did then, what is your thought on that? Because we see it in the universities too.

LD (00:58:17):
Well, yeah, I mean, if you accept the notion that times are different and it is not necessary to have these programs in place, I will guarantee you that within a generation you will need them again. Because if you take the programs away, you just do not coast at the place where you were when you removed the programs. The inherent instinct of the right is not to stay still but is essentially, from my perspective, to go backwards. And they will do it all in the name of individual rights and the notion of getting the government off your back and all that sort of stuff. But in fact, you just do not stay in idling and neutral. You go backwards if you take away these safeguards. And that is what the programs really are, is safeguards. So, it is cyclical, in many ways. I mean, to a certain extent they will succeed and they will undo a lot of what was done. And sooner or later, you have to just come back and fight all over again. Seems to be one of the imbecilities of human behavior, human organization, that you cyclically go through these things.

SM (00:59:42):
Now, this next segment of the interview is going to be to throw out the names of some of the individuals that were known at that time, and if you could respond in two ways: number one, your thoughts on their impact then, and basically your thoughts on how they are looked upon today by many of the boomers and historians. Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman.

LD (01:00:05):
Well, I liked them, even though actually, in the late (19)60s, the folks in the SDS were critical of Rubin and Hoffman, because we perceived them at the time as being somewhat fools. And they did not have the type of sort of tight political analysis that we fancied that we had. But I think there was a grudging admiration for their daring. And so I have a warm and fuzzy, loving kind of response to them. Now, I think that of course Rubin sort of went over to the enemy, if you want to point it that way. The really truly consistent fellow was Abbie Hoffman. And of course, I mean, his life ended tragically, driven probably to suicide by this picture of the country going back in a reactionary fashion.

SM (01:01:16):
I wanted to ask you, before I ask any other names here, mention any other names. When Abbie Hoffman died, I remember there was a small article written in the Philadelphia Inquirer. And there was a note that he had left saying, "No one is listening to me anymore." And I thought, "Wow, that is pretty heavy." I know it is one individual and I know some people characterized him as kind of a wacko, but then he kind of lived a consistent life, even in hiding, on environmental issues. His whole life was really dedicated to activism. But is that what is going to be written on a lot of boomers' tombstones, is "No one is listening anymore"?

LD (01:01:55):
Well, again, which boomers?

SM (01:02:01):
Okay, right. Say [inaudible] the boomers that were active.

LD (01:02:04):
Right. I mean, it is the boomers who were not listening anymore to Abbie Hoffman, not that most of them ever did listen to him. I mean, most of them probably found him contemptuous. But again-

SM (01:02:20):
Back talking about Abbie Hoffman.

LD (01:02:23):
Yeah, I think what Abbie Hoffman could not deal with is the cyclical nature of the quote, "struggle," unquote. I mean, progress is not linear. I mean, maybe it is in a technological sense. We do not blow ourselves off the planet. But social progress certainly is not a linear, straight line kind of scenario. I mean, there are setbacks. And those setbacks can be serious. But unless you are willing to simply abdicate to kind of a reactionary, segregationist, anti-human attitude that would write off not only minority groups and their position in our society, but the poor as a lazy group that deserves their own fate, unless you are willing to accept that, you simply have to continue to struggle against these folks, accepting the fact that that progress where it can be had is sometimes hard fought and sometimes hard to keep. I think Abbie Hoffman was ultimately just too fragile to live in a world where you have that kind of cyclical shape to the struggle that he really was dedicated to.

SM (01:04:02):
Lyndon Johnson?

LD (01:04:06):
Well, I mean, Lyndon Johnson was a politician who was willing to sell the youth of his country and certainly sell Vietnam down the river for the sake of this sort of Cold War ideology that he had based his politics on. Now, on the other hand, he was perfectly willing to sell the kind of conservative segregationist agenda of his home state of Texas down the river to back the civil rights movement. So Lyndon Johnson was simply a typical American political opportunist. So, you can remember him either way you want to go.

SM (01:04:53):
Richard Nixon?

LD (01:04:54):
Well, I cannot deal with Nixon. He tried to kill me. I mean, this guy tried to draft me and send me to Vietnam. And so I always had great contempt for Richard Nixon. I do not give a damn if he opened up China at all. I do not care. And I do not care if, just like with Lyndon Johnson, if he passed legislation that was good for the American Indians, or whatever. I mean, he did not do that from the bottom of his soul. He did it for the same reason Lyndon Johnson did it, because it seemed politically opportune at the time. But Nixon, and particularly Kissinger, I hate that man's guts, I perceive these people as criminals, not only for what they did in Vietnam, but also for what they did in Central and South America, Chile, particularly with Allende and the Pinochet regime that Kissinger helped bring about. These are murderous, criminal people, and they should be tried for crimes against humanity.

SM (01:05:59):
[inaudible] McNamara, Robert McNamara?

LD (01:06:00):
Well, again, I mean, I think I have commented on McNamara before-

SM (01:06:03):
[inaudible]?

LD (01:06:05):
Yeah, I mean, I guess there is some gradations in the levels of disdain I have for particular individuals. I mean, my gut does not revolt against Russ quite as much as it does against McNamara, but ultimately, they are all of a crowd. And I have not got too much sympathy for any of them. I really do not think that they serve their country well at all.

SM (01:06:33):
Spiro Agnew?

LD (01:06:36):
Man, this is sort of a featherweight intellectual political opportunist who had two sets of standards, one from himself, one for everybody else. I think he is going to be forgotten and well gone.

SM (01:06:55):
John Kennedy?

LD (01:06:57):
I do not particularly care for John Kennedy either. I mean, I know he is sort of an ideal, and he probably saved that ideal image of himself by dying young. It probably would not have lasted if he had lived longer. But I do not have very high regard for Kennedy. I mean, this is the guy who mounted an invasion of a foreign country for no really good reason, in terms of the Bay of Pigs. And quite frankly, I happen to have a certain regard for Fidel Castro. So, I mean, he does not do much for me, Kennedy.

SM (01:07:40):
Robert Kennedy?

LD (01:07:42):
Yeah, I do not have much opinion about Robert Kennedy. I think that his behavior towards Martin Luther King was despicable. And so, Ted Kennedy is probably the best of that family, quite frankly. And so who knows what Robert Kennedy would have turned out to be like if he had lived, but he did not. So, I mean, I just do not have much opinion about him.

SM (01:08:15):
Martin Luther King, Jr.?

LD (01:08:17):
Well, he is a seminal figure on the American landscape in the 20th century. I basically agree with the movement he mounted. I have no inherent attachment to nonviolence, I have no principled detachment to nonviolence, as he did. But I think that it was the right tactic for the time and place, that you want to use violence only when it is the last resort. I would not deny it for an oppressed people as a last resort. But if you live within a culture that will allow you to achieve your purposes without the use of violence, if there is that kind of space, and it seems that in this country there is that kind of political space, then I think he understood that. And his tactics were appropriate and they worked.

SM (01:09:21):
And the same token, Malcolm X?

LD (01:09:27):
I think that, again, I happen to have a high regard from Malcolm X, almost as high as Martin Luther King. It really is yet to be determined whether King's tactics could carry over beyond, say, desegregation of a lunch counter or a school system into being able to achieve the economic justice that King also aimed at. I suspect that if you could sustain a non-violent movement sufficiently long enough and effectively organize it enough, you probably can get a lot of economic justice out of that kind of movement. But clearly, from the perspective of a guy who is coming out of the ghetto, the Northern ghettos, like Malcolm X, you are going to be very suspicious of that non-violence, I mean, because your reality is the cops are coming in, beating you up all the time, as they still do. And so, it is hard to get out there, dress in a suit and go walk down the center of the street, when in fact they put up barricades, they will not let you walk in white suburbs. So, both King and Malcolm X came out of different social milieus, and those different social milieus created a different perspective and led to different kind of tactics. So I do not condemn Malcolm X for his tactics. I know where he was coming from. And I think that Malcolm X was a man who was eminently capable of evolving, as he in fact did evolve.

SM (01:11:29):
What about [inaudible] people here, Huey Newton and Angela Davis?

LD (01:11:30):
Right. Actually, at one point, I think I met both of them briefly. Well, I had regard for Huey Newton. I think he was a man of great organizational skills and incredible bravery, along with the other Black Panthers. Again, he seemed to be doomed to tragedy, as most of these people were, ultimately because unlike the institutional achievements of the King movement, the economic justice that really these folks were aiming at was something that the capitalist system could not accord them very easily. And so they were in many ways doomed to failure. And I think Huey Newton died as tragically as Abbie Hoffman did.

SM (01:12:32):
Oh yeah [inaudible] situation shut and open [inaudible] like that.

LD (01:12:36):
Well, perhaps that is fitting. I mean, it is sort of apropos of the whole situation, but-

SM (01:12:42):
How about Angela Davis?

LD (01:12:43):
Right. Oh, Angela Davis is an incredibly astute and principled intellectual. And she is a rare individual in that she is both an intellectual and a person of action. It is very rare in history that you get people who are truly intellectuals and also people of action. And I think she is an example of that, and I have a very high regard for her on that basis.

SM (01:13:18):
How about George McGovern?

LD (01:13:20):
I think his heart is in the right place. He is ultimately dedicated to the system that he was born and bred to. But I think that that given the limitations of that position, I think his heart is in the right place.

SM (01:13:44):
Senator Eugene McCarthy?

LD (01:13:46):
Well, the same thing. Though many people in the SDS at the time dismissed McCarthy with disdain and felt that the whole Come Clean for Gene phenomena was a clever attempt on the part of the quote, "system," unquote, to co-opt the anti-war movement. And they might have been right. I mean, you have to ask yourself, what would have a man like McGovern or McCarthy done if they had been elected president? Would they in fact have essentially stopped the war, or would they have done what Nixon did, simply continue the war while they try to negotiate their way out of it? So, we do not know.

SM (01:14:43):
Dr. Benjamin Spock?

LD (01:14:48):
Well, I do not know very much about Spock. And he is obviously a man of high principle and willing to stand up for the principles that he believes in. And since his principles aren't completely different than my principles, I mean, I will go-

LD (01:15:03):
... since his principles are not completely different than my principles, I will go with them.

SM (01:15:06):
The Berrigan brothers, two priests.

LD (01:15:08):
Right. Right-right-right. Actually, I knew them briefly because they passed through Georgetown. Again, very, very brave individuals. They not only had to risk the displeasure of a wider society that they were part of, but they had to risk the displeasure of the smaller Jesuit Catholic society that they had made careers in. There were many, many priests Catholic priests like the Berrigans. There was one at Georgetown whose name was McSorley. I do not know what ever happened to him. Yeah, who led anti-war protests, night vigils, candlelight vigils, marches and stuff like that. These were brave people who were willing to risk their futures, their careers, and take on popular positions based on their principles, whether the principles were motivated by secular or religious reasons. And so you have to admire them. You have to admire them. Those types of people are what really the best the society really has to offer.

SM (01:16:30):
Muhammad Ali.

LD (01:16:35):
I do not know. I have no real reaction to a Muhammad Ali. Again, obviously an outspoken, principled kind of guy, probably whose heart is a humane one. And of course, a leading role model in the African American society, for the youth.

SM (01:17:01):
George Wallace.

LD (01:17:03):
Well, again, at least you can say about Wallace is that he had his principles. There was nothing wishy-washy about the guy. So to the extent that you can respect your enemy, because at the very least you can clearly recognize him as the enemy, I will give him some credit. As, again, say Lyndon Johnson, who was kind of a political opportunist. Wallace, he was a politician certainly, but he was clearly a man of his culture. That southern culture. And took a principled Stand for it. It was the wrong stand, it was an anti-human stand. At least you knew where he was coming from.

SM (01:17:55):
Daniel Ellsberg.

LD (01:17:57):
Right. Again, I see Ellsberg as an individual that is deep within the governmental system. That is his career line, that is where he's at. And he finds himself in this sort of conflictual situation where he cannot deal with the Vietnam War. Now, I am unclear as to why he cannot deal with it. Now, is it because, for instance, from my point of view that it's a violation of the best principles of the nation and a contradiction in terms of the ideals of the nation? Or is it just that it is unwinnable? And that we are making a mess, we are getting deeper and deeper into this quagmire and we really ought to have to cut our losses? I am not sure where he is coming from, but he is coming from somewhere out there like that. Probably the latter, but I cannot say for sure. But in any case, has got the gumption to blow the whistle on this deal, where the myriad number of his fellows are just going to go along with it. So, you have to give this guy some sort of credit for having the courage to do that.

SM (01:19:15):
What do you think of John Dean?

LD (01:19:19):
Right, John Dean. Well, I do not know. If the man had never really... Obviously, john Dean would have probably wished to hell that he had come to the forefront in some other administration than this one and the one he happened to be in. I think he was a little man. An [foreign language], to use that kind of Russian phrase. He is a little guy. He is a cog in the machine. He tries to give Nixon the best advice he can and he gets screwed.

SM (01:20:01):
John Mitchell.

LD (01:20:04):
Now, Mitchell is a big cog in the machine. Mitchell is without principle and without conscience. And he, like Averell Harriman, I think it was Averell Harriman during the Truman administration. This is just a short but apropos diversion here. During the Truman administration, there was a debate over the issue of Palestine and whether to support the creation of the Israeli state or whatever. And the State Department and the defense department both recommended against it. And I think it was Averell Herman who was a, and I might be wrong, but it strikes me that is who it was, went and had lunch with a guy who was the assistant secretary of state, whose name I cannot remember now. And the guy said to Harriman, "Look. Recognizing the state of Israel at this moment is going to so screw us up with the rest of the Arab world, where we have real economic interests, that it is not in American national interest to do it." And Harriman looked at him and said, "The reelection of Harry Truman is what is the American national interest." All right? So, I see Mitchell in that light. He confuses the survival of the regime he happens to be tied up with, with American national interests. In other words, ultimately, he confuses his own position, his own outlook, his own ego with American national interests, as I suspect Nixon did too. So, I do not have much regard for those guys.

SM (01:21:51):
[inaudible] the names here, Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan in terms of the women's movement. Thoughts on them.

LD (01:21:57):
Well, I am, in principle, in favor of "women's liberation." So I basically agree with their analysis of the women's positions in society. And also, to a certain extent, the need for an out front, in your face kind of tactic when it comes to women's issues. Because I do not think, for instance, that polite dialogue is going to get women through any kind of glass ceiling. I just do not think it is going to happen. So, you need the analysis that they gave, and you need a sort of confrontational approach if you're ever going to move women forward in regard to entrenched positions for essentially a man's economic and institutional world. Now, that being said, I do not mistake that for any real faith that women can run the world in a more humane fashion than men because I do not really think men and women are that different, that we are both products of our culture. So, you are going to, and particularly in a culture where the definition and concept of family is really very kind of shaky, I think you see just as many conservative women as liberal women out there on the scene. And so, in just switching men for women is not going to make the world all rosy. But in principle, generally, there should be equality and opportunity. And there's certainly equality in terms of intellect. The SDS chapter I moved in in Washington DC, the person who really was the brains behind that out outfit was a remarkably intelligent and organizationally capable woman.

SM (01:24:07):
It was a rarity in that time, because women are really [inaudible].

LD (01:24:11):
Well, the-

SM (01:24:12):
[inaudible] criticism that when people were active in the (19)60s and early (19)70s, men were in the leadership roles, women just were the paper shufflers at the thing that many of the people in the movement talk about.

LD (01:24:23):
Well, this particular woman, she was not at Georgetown, but there was a larger SDS contingent within Washington DC as a whole. Her name was Kathy Wilkerson. Now, she and I had had a parting of the ways when the SDS movement fell apart because she became involved in the Weatherman movement and where I did not. But in terms of conceptualizing an agenda and organizing the daily activities and presenting an analysis of the situation going on, she was the moving force in the SDS of that area at that time. And I have great admiration for her. And it is just my opinion that the differences, the intellectual differences, that are sometimes described between men and women are just false. Women have babies, men do not have babies. And I imagine there is some hormonal and there is some genetic quality differences between the two, but they do not, in my opinion, affect intellectual ability. Even, I think, physical ability is overplayed. There's no reason that women cannot be in combat. Though, quite frankly, I cannot imagine why they or men would want to be. So, there it is.

SM (01:26:10):
I guess two final questions. I just want to ask you, what does the wall mean to you? [inaudible] over the wall, you have been there. What happened to you?

LD (01:26:23):
Quite frankly, I think that, for me, it is a symbol of an immense tragedy. I think there ought to be another wall adjacent to it dedicated to all the Vietnamese that we killed, and then the monument would be complete. And perhaps between the two, we can have another stile, another kind of thing with the names of all the butchers who caused this to happen, with the proper epitaph for them. To me, it is just a symbol of a great tragedy. And to the extent that people do not understand the origins of that tragedy, and simply analyze it in terms of an oversimplified patriotism and betrayal of patriotism, that is a horror.

SM (01:27:32):
The basic premise of that wall was to be a non-political statement. No politics here, just to pay tribute to those who served. What happened.

LD (01:27:40):
Well, they died.

SM (01:27:41):
[inaudible] came of those who died. Of course, many have died since, who did serve, for variety of reasons. And many are still living post-traumatic syndrome lives. But majority of them though, have gone on to be successful, which is something that sometimes the media does not portray correctly. But it is supposed to be a non-political, so if you make a comment that there should be Vietnamese, then we are getting into the politics of the war, which is the war was not meant to be. It is supposed to be a healing.

LD (01:28:09):
I do not care what it is meant to be. I do not care if it is meant to be non-political. It is, of course, inherently political. The war was a manifestation of American politics. Just by saying it is supposed to be not political, does not make it unpolitical. It cannot be unpolitical or non-political because the war itself is a manifestation of politics.

SM (01:28:37):
What are your thoughts on Bill Clinton went to the wall and spoke? And of course, [inaudible] look at him as like, "Here is the typical boomer, Bill Clinton." But he is president of the United States. But he went to the wall and that was a very, for or against it, a lot of Vietnam veterans will never forgive him for what he did, but still he went to the wall.

LD (01:28:55):
What the hell did he do? What did he do? He tried to avoid and successfully avoided going and serving in a beastly war that served no real purpose but to betray the highest American principles. So he avoided being a piece of cannon fodder. Now, if, in fact, the Vietnam veterans cannot forgive him-

SM (01:29:26):
Not all, but some.

LD (01:29:27):
Right. Or some cannot forgive him for escaping their fate, for not being victimized like they were victimized, then their analysis of their own fate, their own history is simply erroneous. Now, people live with erroneous analyses of their condition all the time, but does not mean how they perceive it is true. Though for them it might be true, but historically it's not true. See, I can condemn Clinton for a lot of things, but I am not going to condemn him for trying to avoid getting butchered in Vietnam.

SM (01:30:08):
How about Fonda going over to Hanoi?

LD (01:30:12):
I think it was a brave and necessary act.

SM (01:30:14):
In fact, that is a name I did not mention. Jane Fonda.

LD (01:30:17):
Yeah, I like Jane Fonda. I think it was a brave and necessary act. It was a time when you had to be in their face. Nothing was polite in those days. So, you had had to have some sort of shock value kind of statement that says, "Look, there is a significant minority of Americans who are simply not on the side of the government that is doing this." I do not see the anti-war movement as enemies of the American troops in Vietnam. I see the anti-war movement as their very best friends. They were the ones, the anti-war movement people were the ones who were trying to save the lives of American troops. And, for that matter, Vietnamese. And if they had been listened to, you would have had many, many thousands of Americans alive today who are now dead. So what are you going to do? You're going to point a finger at those who are trying to save your neck and condemn them?

SM (01:31:22):
But how would you respond to, "Well, you're trying to save their neck, but she actually trying to save your own neck"?

LD (01:31:27):
Jane Fonda's neck, she put her neck in a noose by going there. In what sense was she trying to save their- her own neck?

SM (01:31:35):
What are your thoughts on Jane Fonda personally? And Tom Hayden? As a follow-up in terms of-

LD (01:31:45):
I do not know. I do not know. They're divorced now, are not they?

SM (01:31:45):
I know, but their impact on the boomers and what they did, their lives. What do their lives mean to those who lived in that era?

LD (01:31:53):
I do not know. I do not know. I basically agreed with Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden as they acted in the (19)60s and early (19)70s, and I cannot really comment on their careers beyond that.

SM (01:32:06):
This is my last question, which is going back to this whole business about healing, where the divisions were so wide in America back then and this concept of trying to heal today, as boomers go into their (19)50s. Is it important for you to heal and forgive? I am not talking about Robert McNamara now or Richard Nixon, but just in general, the concept of maybe forgiving. Do you think, is it important for you to forgive, to heal from this era? Or do you feel the bitterness will remain?

LD (01:32:40):
Well, I am not sure you can describe my feelings as bitterness or the need to heal. I do not think in those terms. I have certain principles and a certain political position and certain goals, if I can be so bold, for the nation in terms of economic justice, social justice, civil rights, that kind of thing. And those are ongoing struggles. Okay? Now, I recognize that there are people out there who are essentially opposed to me. If I have any bitterness, it is towards the people, of course, who are opposed.

SM (01:33:22):
It is just for woman the next time.

LD (01:33:28):
Well, when I say jackasses, who I believe their position is anti-human, that condemns the poor, condemns minorities to second class citizenship, and gets us involved in wars that kill a whole lot of us and a whole lot of them, to no real use. Who screwed up Central and South America repeatedly. So, of course, from my bias perspective, people that are opposed to me are anti-human. They are really nasty, evil people. So, if I have got any bitterness, it is towards them, not towards some grunt in Vietnam, whose interests I think I was trying to look after in the antiwar movement. And it is ongoing. And it has nothing to do with generations. It has nothing to do with Lyndon Johnson's generation against my generation. There is plenty of people in my generation who stand against me. And there is going to be plenty people in the next generation. And so it just goes on until the day I die. And it is part of what makes life meaningful, to continue that struggle. And quite frankly, while I would like to win, I do not expect to win. And ultimately, I do not think that that is the most important thing. Though, I certainly do want to win. But what is the most important thing is to carry on the struggle and to be consistent to your principles and to be able to sleep at night with yourself. And that is what is important.

SM (01:35:06):
And as we all hope someday, and we all know we are going to pass beyond this planet, that when we reflect on our deathbed, yeah, we might have family around us, but we are alone at the very end and light flashes before us. And oftentimes, it is very important to know that your whole life flashes, but you think of the good about what you have done. And it is not always in terms of the amount of money you have made and the car you had, the possessions you have, but how you have lived your life.

LD (01:35:32):
Right. And at least at the moment, anyway, I am basically satisfied with what I have done. I have never second guessed myself in terms of what went on in those days. I do not think I have changed in any real way. My politics is the same and I am satisfied with that. And I will continue to fight and struggle for the principles that I did in the (19)60s, and that is the way it is.

SM (01:35:58):
Well, Dr. Davidson, I want to thank you very much for participating. Thank you.

LD (01:36:01):
Sure.

SM (01:36:01):
And have a good day.

(End of Interview)

ND

Stephen McKiernan

Lawrence Davidson, 1945-

96:06

English

Binghamton University Libraries

audio/mp4

Sound

Audio

College teachers; West Chester University of Pennsylvania; Political activists--United States; Davidson, Lawrence, 1945--Interviews

Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly.