Interview with Paul Loeb

Loeb, Paul Rogat, 1952- ; McKiernan, Stephen

Paul Loeb, a native of Berkeley, California, is an author, journalist, and political activist. Loeb has published five books and has done interviews for TV and radio including CNN, NBC, and PBS. He has written for many well-known journals and newspapers including the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Economist and many more. Loeb graduated from Stanford University.

2010-01-30

In copyright

2017-03-14

McKiernan Interviews

64:52

McKiernan Interviews
Interview with: Paul Loeb
Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan
Transcriber: Benjamin Mehdi So
Date of interview: 30 January 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Start of Interview)

0:05
SM: Testing. One, two. Thanks again for doing the interview. This is again, the title of my book is called Magic Moments. And it is basically a takeoff of oral history interviews that I have been doing since I was working at West Chester University and then I retired to actually finish the book. The first question I want to ask is one of the writers that really inspired a lot of the boomers was Bertrand Russell, I-I have interviewed so many people and when I asked him Who were some of the influences on the boomers. Russell was one of them. And several people have quoted the very beginning of his book is kind of defining what the boomers are all about. And I like your thoughts on this at the very beginning of his autobiography, it says the three simples when asked what-what is the boomer generation All About and then respond three passions, simple, but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life, the longing for love, search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. What are your thoughts on Bertrand's thoughts there in his autobiography and how they might also be defined with a boomer generation?

1:25
PL: Well, you know, hard-hard question. I mean, I would say that, I mean, I was somebody who admired him, but I honestly actually had not read his work. So, so I am not one of the people who-who is sort of, you know, you know, who he was a pivotal figure for who but, I mean, I think it is probably two parts. You know, one of the things I think is really, really important to, to underscore is that there is no such thing as a monolithic generation. And so, if I looked at the people who were active, including myself, you know, during the Vietnam era, during the civil rights right stuff. You are all the, you know, social justice fight. And I look at the people like, you know, George Bush who are cruising through, you know, as drunken frat boys or-or, you know, or I mean, not just from the privileges, you know, but-but there were a lot of people who were not part of those movements. I think it is important to understand that the experience was fundamentally different. Um, there is a really good book, and-and have you seen it called Beyond the Barricades [The Sixties Generation Grows Up] by Richard Flacks and Jack Whalen? Do you know that?

2:29
SM: I think I have not.

2:30
PL: Okay, yeah. Because they were taking for granted, they did this, I do not know, 15 years ago, maybe they were looking at people in Santa Barbara, who were sort of very active during the period when the Bank of America got burned, although not always participating in it. And people were sort of hostile to those movements, you know, over-over and above the issue of the bank, when they really saw as people kind of following out those paths, you know, to this day, and, you know, so I got really angry when the media was sort of saying these tea baggers are probably the same people who were the radicals of the (19)60s that was like excuse me, where was your evidence? Have you interviewed any of them? No, you know, you know, there is, it is just like this assumption, I think, I think it is important to understand that, you know, those who have gotten involved to a certain, how to describe it to a certain degree. And there is a sort of threshold level. So, you know, if you were really involved and went down to Mississippi, or if you were organizing a whole lot at a college, you know, just doing all these things, the likelihood was that you stayed involved in citizen movement, and progressive movement. You know, if you were at the fringes, you know, I mean, it was not the same thing to me at the edge of a, you know, of a rock concert that, you know, was perfectly fine, but it was not. It is not a political engagement. And I think that there was a lot of conflation so there was conflation on two levels. There was a kind of false conflation of people who-who were kind of coming have shared some of the sentiments but were not involved with people who were involved. And then there was people conflation people who did not share any of the sentiments at all with people who were involved, and so you say, well look, you know, look, there was people on there, they were, you know, supporting regressive candidates or, you know, or whatever. But they never were, they never were engaged in a sort of progressive way to begin with. So, so I think that that that caveat, really important to make clear, and just any-any-any study of the generation. Now, if you were looking at those who were not getting involved, you know, and again, there was sort of two classes, there was two groups of three. You know, there was the people who were actively working for social justice or against the war. And then there was the people who are kind of at the periphery, we sympathize. Now, obviously, the effectiveness says of the movements of that time, it depended on being able to draw in those sympathizers so that their, their attitudes were not irrelevant by any means. But it to now, I think you just have to draw a very careful line where you end up, you know, basically creating a narrative. Somebody said, well, you know, they were a hippie then and look at them now and where did they go? Right. And, you know, so I think that is the point in terms of Russell's statement, you know, circling back to your question. I mean, I think, I think that there was an upwelling of compassion, and, you know, you know, whatever that character’s phrase, you would just use, you know, for something. I mean, I think there really was, and there was a sort of sense that does, you know, why are we-we are listening to us, you know, why are we not living up to our values, we should be living up to our values, and our values include treating people with justice. So, when I say I think that that, you know, that really, really was a current, you know, the need for love. I mean, I do not know, you know, do we need it more than other folks, you get more? Unless you are on that one. I like it, you know, it is like, I like to be loved, but, but you know, you know, my dad who is 81 got it. You know, it means a lot to him to. I am not sure that that is something that is generationally based to be honest. Right. You know, I would hesitate on that one. Um, but I think it was kind of upwelling of compassion. And I cannot remember the third aspect well.

6:14
SM: Well knowledge, the search for knowledge.

6:16
PL: Well, the search for knowledge, but I think that there was a sense that the, the verities of the times, which were sort of forged in the post, in the Cold War, post-World War. Two consensus that they were worth questioning, at least among a lot of people. Now, one of the, I did not tend to think, is that the completely legitimate critique, say from the left, and it has some point, dovetailing with some of the critiques from the right, and sort of helped to dismantle some of that social welfare state. That was a kind of unfortunate consequence. Right? You know, when I say search for knowledge, you know, the knowledge of basically saying, well, let us question everything. So-so I think there was that certainly people were trying to think things through anew. And that was good in many ways. But sometimes it made people a little contemptuous for what had been achieved. And that was-

7:10
SM: One of the things that when you look at the boomer generation is oftentimes the influence they had on their children, which is the generation Xers and actually now, when you go to the colleges, only about 15 percent of the men, millennials are sons or daughters of boomers. So, it is mostly generation X kids is so-

7:31
PL: So here is the thing he really because I did that book on-on students. Right, that really strapped I mean, problem, I think when you are trying to define that, is if you look at the generation X folks, a lot of their parents were from the what everyone calls that previous generation, the silent generation, you know, you know, Korean generation, and now it is kind of to charge but you know, the generation of sort of, you know, Korean age, and you know, came of age in the (19)50s. So, a lot of their parents were from that and again, you have distinguish between early and late boomer, I mean, boomers if you were coming up in (19)62, or three versus (19)68, or (19)69, totally different world, right, you know, and I mean, if you look at them in the figures in, think of this is in Seoul citizen, I could look, probably, I will look it up, because I know I know it is in there and therefore, I can just find it and give it to you, that, hold on a sec. What I am trying to find is the, of Wisconsin. That should do it. Okay, so basically, here is your- here is the figures laid is 19 sentences from Seoul citizen directly. The latest 1966 National antiwar demonstration drew more than 25,000 people. More than 70 percent of students at University of Wisconsin, a future radical hotbed bill approved of America's involvement in Vietnam. In the spring of 1968 not one 39 major newspapers in the Boston Globe survey, favored pulling out our troops? So, you know, when I look at that, what does that say that it is you are coming of age in (19)63 you are coming of age in a period where everyone is supporting the war, now coming age, and not that many are involved in (19)69 very different. So, I think that if you look at the children, the children of the, you know, of that previous generation, or have that sort of first, the non-engaged flights of the boomer generation, tended to be quite conservative. And in fact, that generation that cohort is, you know, is a very conservative cohort. Um, you know, in terms of their voting, you know, when they were they vote Republican. And but I think it is inaccurate to say, oh, these are the children of the (19)60s activists. And then, you know, and again, the millennials kind of split, you know, and obviously, every year, right, smaller, I mean, like, my stepson, graduated from college this year, I was at the tail end of the Vietnam generation. So, he is still the end, you know, Children of the Vietnam cohort, right? But, you know, he is kind of, it is kind of near the end of it. Um, so I think I think that um, again, it gets complicated because all depends on where you draw the dividing line.

10:15
SM: Yeah, I know that there was, there was another book that you are probably well aware of it was written by Wanda Urbanska, which was called Singular Generation. Yep. And she, she is written in 1986. She was a graduate of Harvard. And she mentioned that as other generations had been marked permanently by war, and it is aftereffects. Our generation, which is Generation X has been marked by divorce, which over half of our parents who were the boomers have been divorced in our reaction to the instability through the social protest movements, and a lot more of a stability in their lives? Not-

10:53
PL: Yeah, I do not know. I mean, I think I did. I did not remember the name, but I mean, certainly remember reading that theory. I mean, I am mixed about it, because um, I mean, certainly it is true that they are, you know, that divorce rates went up, but then you know, you know, I mean, my, well, this piggyback generation, but like, my grandparents on my mom's side, my mom's parents were in a 60 plus your marriage. That was a horrible marriage. You know, it worked out. I mean, it was, it should never have been married together. It was awful. And, you know, so I think, yeah, there is a tradeoff of divorce, but there was also the tradeoff of those people sticking it out in truly horrible marriages. You know, like my grandparents. And, I mean, from the outside, it may have looked good, but from the inside, it was abysmal. And they were torture, they were torturing each other every day. I mean, I you know, I watched it every time I did, I went over, right. And I love both of them, but still. So, you know, I think that it is a little tricky to say that they were you know, marked by- I mean, it did shift some things and certainly the entrance of women into the workforce shifts a whole lot. Probably I would say even more, you know, it because suddenly you had, you know women work. But you know, and then there, you know, and then it is complicated because it is the gen X folks, and these are the people that I actually wrote a generation of crossroads on. Mm hmm. Are they reacting against the, say the (19)60s protests directly? No, because they were too young. Right? They were, they were responding to the media's caricatures of those, which is what they have inherited. Because they were, again, they were too young to respond directly, because they did not, you know, they were not born yet. Or they were really tight and really young. So, so I think it is, yeah, so I think I would kind of take issue on that. I mean, I, you know, I think probably they more and more shaped by, you know, by the lull in direct participation, and by the sort of media caricatures of protests, and they were with any direct experience positive or negative.

12:59
SM: Paul, when you um, I want to ask you a question is how did you become who you are, um, when you first, you know, when we brought you to West Chester University back in the early (19)90s. And I remember you visiting the campus and I remember when you left, the students were saying he is so different, and he has got such passion. I wish I had it, because you are a deep thinker, but what made you who you are to be to think so deeply about these issues, not only about your generation, but the generations that followed? How did this happen? Well, who are the role models that inspired you?

13:38
PL: Well, I mean, I, I often say they were sort of a couple of people directly on there was a rabbi. He was in Seoul of a Citizen, Leonard Biermann, he was just very outspoken, and, you know, I was growing up and he was just, I could tell he was thinking off the rip. So, you know, that, um, that that made me more receptive. And there was a very outspoken young history teacher who was taking a lot of risks. And I think those were probably the two biggest models. You know, where I just saw people speaking out. And-and somehow, I just felt like I had a responsibility to do something about things that were wrong about that from the beginning.

14:19
SM: Did you ever in your life ever pay a price for this?

14:23
PL: Well, personally, I mean, I suppose so. You know, it sort of depends on your definition of pain of paying a price. I actually write about this in the new edition of soul citizen a little bit-

14:33
SM: When is that coming out by the way?

14:34
PL: April, March 30th.

14:36
SM: Yeah, because I got that. I got some of your books right with me here, including that generation at the crossroads. First editions of that.

14:42
PL: Yeah. So, um, yeah, I mean, I was very active at Stanford. And we were active around military recruiting particularly corporations tied to military, right and, um, so a bunch of my friend Pete Knutsen and myself and several other people went into a recruiting room where a few pictures of Honeywell was doing cluster bombs and we swiped pictures of their victims, and we refused to leave. And we ended up getting indefinitely suspended. So, you know, in that sense, I suppose I paid a cost in that I, you know, I did not graduate from Stanford. But I actually, you know, as I write, you know, reflecting on it, did it destroy my life did it you know, make, I mean, it was a little hard to make the transition, but I, you know, actually sound like a lot of new I moved to New York, a lot of new possibilities opened up so I, you know, the one of the lessons is, you may do something that looked like, you are paying a cost, but in fact, you are not really paying. I mean, you know, you are in some low abstract level, but it does not really make your life worse. So-so I suppose you could say that that was closest I have come to, you know, paying a cost beyond just, you know, you know what, everyone goes all insensitive. You know, you are going to get your heart broken periodically, you know, and that I suppose that the cost too.

15:59
SM: I know it is.

16:01
PL: You are going to feel like overloaded. You know, you know, too many things. But-but not in the sense of, you know, I am not I have not been tortur- I mean, I have been, you know, I have been in civil disobedience a few times, but I knew I was going to get arrested. So, I was not, you know, that was not an honor. It did not feel like a real cost.

16:18
SM: Yeah. So how do you respond when you I say to specific instances in 1994 when Newt Gingrich came into power, and this is not an attack against republicans or anything, but when he came into power, I read some of his speeches. And he made a lot of commentary about the (19)60s and about the Vietnam generation. And a lot of the bad things that were happening in America at the time he came into power is due directly to that era. Back there, back in the (19)60s, and I know George will oftentimes when he writes, we will, we will take a shot at the right generation and there is several others that put the blame of everything in our society on that era.

17:01
PL: Well, it is garbage. I mean, basically people who read, you know, goof supported nothing but a regressive social order that hand power over to the wealthiest. And when people just shut up and be silent about it, and said they were scapegoating, those times when people actually challenged it, and they do that, of course, by trying to caricature the excesses, because every movement going to have it? You know, flaky moment? And, you know, but I mean, it is, I would argue that it is, it- Well, I mean, maybe it is their belief, but I call it bad faith. You know, certainly bad history. Not that day.

17:38
SM: I know, you cannot generalize a whole generation, because we are talking anywhere between 70 to 78 million people that were boomers, I have got books that say we had 74. But can you- kind of I know there was the-the early boomers, as you mentioned, who were really involved and then you get the later boomers who did not have the experiences as like the early boomers, but can you, can you give some qualities, some strengths and weaknesses of the generation?

18:08
PL: Well, again, I do not like lumping it together.

18:10
SM: Okay. Very good.

18:11
PL: You know, I am very hesitant. Because, I mean, I can talk about the strengths of the people involved in the movement, but-

18:18
SM: That, I think that is what I am going to get at, because-

18:20
PL: Okay, what that I can do, but I just, I just want to make clear, I mean, Gingrich is part of the generation.

18:25
SM: Yes.

18:27
PL: Karl Rove was part of the generation I think he is, yeah. You know, so these people who is, you know, I mean, I feel nothing in common with these people. Is not that I am a carbon, we are both carbon-based life forms, you know, and even their- you know, I feel a hell a lot more common with my friends dogs than I do with a Gingrich or Karl Rove you know, so we are going to random-random dog I meet in the street. So, you know, in terms of the movement itself, Frank, I think, you know, there was a really powerful moral witness and people did have this sense of, you know, I am going to try and actually act on something again, even if there are not, as you mentioned, even if there are some costs. I think that that is very powerful. Now, you know, sometimes it got kind of megaloman- megalomaniacal, I mean, you know, there were people who believed revolution was around the corner. And, you know, and we were things that created a culture of fear, did things that created the juice that people like Gingrich and wail on those folks used to sort of create the caricature. So, to that was certainly destructive. But you know, but it was mostly destructive. I mean, was not really that society. I would it was mostly oh, no, but-but-but destroying the move. I mean, if I looked at the people like the weathermen, or there was this group, where I was at Stanford, strutting around with the little A.K 47 buttons on their jackets, and, you know, they did help destroy the movement. There is no question about that. And, you know, and-and I think, you know, there are some serious, you know, at least criticism or blame or whatever. And some of the people I mean, if you look at somebody like Mark Raj, who is very active with the weatherman has been very-very, you know, publicly self-critical and just said, look, you know, you know, yeah, we did, you know, we did some things, you know, we were important. We did things in good faith, but we were all different things, many, many things that were disastrous. Do not romanticize those things because they are not worth, you know, they are not, they are not things that should be emulated.

20:28
SM: Mm hmm. I am interviewing him Monday.

20:30
PL: Okay. Oh, yeah. Tell him hi.

20:32
SM: Yeah. Yeah. What are they? What are the qualities that many boomers though used to say, and I am this might be across the board in that is this feeling of uniqueness, that we are a very unique generation, we are going to end war? We are going to bring healing to the world, almost kind of a utopian kind of a mentality.

20:54
PL: You know, I think there was an interesting move, if you look to the part of it was the economy and the size of the generation, I mean, I think that there was this sort of sense of profit, there was a sense of possibility that, you know, I felt like, I mean, it was not true for everybody. I mean, if you grew up economically really poor, you did not have that kind of possibility. Or you did not have nearly as much. But I mean, if you grew up, certainly, if you grew up middle class, you really did. And you saw it, okay, things are going to get better. And you can do whatever, you know, you could do whatever you-you know, sit your heart on, and-and you could attack the society could tackle problems. And there was a lot. Yeah, I mean, do not forget, there were I mean, at that point, in right after World War II, I mean, Europe and Japan's economies were in ruins, you know, they had been bombed, you know, and fought over. And so, we were really the lonely large, you know, the large, healthy, advanced industrial power, because, England, but they were a lot smaller, and bombed to, you know, they kind of emerged unscathed, strong and just, you know, dominated that post war era. So, I think some of that rubbed off in the sense of I mean, tendency was arrogance to those who was possibility, you know if it was good and bad, but I think it did say, yeah, we could solve the problem. Now, you know, fast forward to now, it is a lot bleaker. People are a lot more skeptical and cynical. I think that is true.

22:17
SM: Oftentimes, in when you talk about the generalities that the Gingrich’s and will use it continue. I know, Will does that all the time. I have got one of his latest books. He has got a couple essays in there taking the shots. But another thing that was often used against the generation was something that may have been sure that only 15 percent of the boomers were truly involved in activism in their youth. Right, and they use it as a negative knowing that if you really look at the statistics there, you are dealing with 15 percent of 70 plus million, which is a lot of people.

22:53
PL: Yeah, I mean, I just, I mean, I do not know if I would just, I do not think it is a negative. It is just the reality. I mean, it is just as, yeah, you know, this was not everybody. And it usually is not in any context in any social movement. And look at what was accomplished, I would say an awful lot of really important powerful things by, you know, a relatively modest amount of people. And that should be an inspiration. I do not think it should be a knock, knock. And it certainly should not be a knock on those people who acted like somehow there was something wrong with them, because it was not 100 percent of the people throwing them. I mean, that would be a ridiculous argument.

23:33
SM: That is like when you look at the generation X that you have talked about, which are the kids, oftentimes the kids of the Korean War era, or, you know, the (19)60s. These qualities oftentimes come out here. And maybe you can generalize again, even about the generation Xers. Here is some of the qualities, the parents’ divorce rate. They grew up in an era radically different from the one that gave rise to the (19)60s generation. The parents divorce rate, the downturn in jobs, the one in four household where there is a single adult to be financially self-sufficient, singular in loving relationships and that and rebel against chaos and disorder where the boomers were rebelling against the system, that these are certainly some of the qualities that the generation Xers have. But maybe we are dealing with the same thing, Paul. Yeah, I think, cannot generalize about them either.

24:26
PL: Yeah, I think there is divisions within the generation. I mean, it really is, you know, they are, you know, they are the, they are people. You know, I think that the economic instability is real. I mean, let us, you know, recognize it basically, since about (19)73 of the US economy for most people, and going downhill for the rich it is not, most people it has, and so they were very much affected by that. And you know, and so they grew up in that context, so does not you know, as a quote millennial, those of us hearing coming of age in Vietnam, we are, you know, was a period of rising, you know, rising standards of living and rising affluence and, and, you know, surely being fairly distributed. So, you are not fairly but you know, more so than now. So, I think I think that that affects, you know that the insecurity affects people. I think the media stereotype protected people. I think, I mean again, the divorce rate is so complicated because if I looked at the people who did and did not get involved, and the ones who like when I was doing generation, the cross, who had what I would consider sort of generous, or socially engaged sensibility, you know, some of them came from, you know, pro down, you know, intact homes. Some of them came from divorced home. Some of the most just people with the awfulest sensibility came from, you know, very traditional family. So, I do not think you can necessarily, you know, sort of draw on the divorce act, just say, okay, this leads people to withdraw from engagement, this leads people to engage. It is very complicated. And I always try to make four arguments either way.

26:08
SM: In your eyes, when did the (19)60s begin the watershed moment? And what was the watershed moment when it ended?

26:15
PL: Oh, I do not know. You know, I mean, it, you know, it is, there is lots of watershed, you know, I mean, there is the obvious ones, you know, Berkeley Free Speech Movement, there is the, you know, the early sort of second wave of, I mean, the Civil Rights Movement is building and building, but there still was a kind of surge with those effects. I think we were (19)59 even. So, it is like the Greensville the lunch counter said in some of the first places. I am always bad on dates, but, you know, those were in the very beginning and they kind of, you know, took things to a level higher than they have been, you know, so you could date that, you know, when does it end? You know, hard to say I mean, obviously, by the time the Vietnam War ends in mid (19)70s. It is over. But is it still, you know, I mean, I think you would be insane to say that, like the year 1970, which had Kent State, which had the most kind of the highest level of protests in anywhere was not part of the (19)60s, obviously it was? And it was no, you know, I mean, you could say that there is turning, you know, when King or Kennedy was shot, that was the turning point and stuff starts spiraling down. And, you know, maybe, well, attendees pretty early, but you know, are in and, you know, in (19)68, I mean, yeah, I think people started damping hope to at that point, you know, getting more cynical and despairing. But you know, it is hard to know when it exactly ends. I mean, I, I remember I moved after I got kicked out of Stanford, which was it was the spring of (19)72 that I got kicked out. And so, then I moved to New York City to finish school in the fall of (19)70. And I thought, gee, New York, the whole lot less active than then, you know, we were in the bay. area. Well, maybe that was maybe it was not. But part of what we are seeing is the beginning of sort of the diminishing energy of those movements. They are still around, they still were pretty large, but they were definitely less than they had been two years ago. You know, two years before and by another two years, they were markedly less still.

28:20
SM: When we took a group of students when I was the university, I would say about 10 years ago, we took a group down to Washington, we met Senator Muskie before he passed away. And the students were working on questions with me. And the question we wanted to ask is what he felt about that 1968 convention and whether we were heading toward a second Civil War kind of breakdown of our society. And so, I want to read this because this is the event question that we asked him and then he responded in a totally different way than we thought he was going to. Here is the question. Do you feel boards are still having problems from healing from the divisions that tore this nation apart in their youth, divisions between fat black and white, gay and straight male and female divisions between those who support authority and those who criticize it, division between those who supported the troops and those who did not? In your view, what does the Vietnam Memorial play in healing the divisions that was primarily a healing? Or was it just primarily healing for veterans? And finally, do you feel that the boomer generation will go to its grave like the Civil War generation not truly healing? And the reason why they said that is because I have taken students to Gettysburg, and we had people there talking about how had not healed since the Civil War. Am I wrong and thinking this or is four years made the statement Time heals all wounds a truth? I am really getting into the question here. Do we have a healing issue in the nation within this generation? That never really came to terms with the divisions? And when the-

29:55
PL: Well, that is a good question I mean, you know, certainly some of the divisions are there, and all the gay, straight one is there less than I think in the younger people, but certainly in older people, you know, if you were gay, it was a miserable time to be gay. But the too there, there was a sort of, there was different kinds of divisions, if you have listened to there was the, you know, the divisions of class and race and all that, you know, which, you know, which our society is still very much wrestling with. And then there was a sort of political division. You know no, I mean, you know, I think that there partly because people did continue on down the, you know, a lot of them, you know, there are certainly still some lingering, you know, if you are really on the other side, and hostile to these movements, you know, I probably have a little bit of mistrust. On the other hand, you know, we have had the sort of crucible of eight years, or I do not know what your congress but-but-but it was that eight years of George Bush, and, you know, so I am like to look at people's response during that period a lot more closely. If they are my age than I do their responses 40 years ago and say, well, where were they? Which side Were they on? Did they respond? Did they do anything? You know? And so, if somebody, you know, if somebody responded, in a way question where I think we are the fastest abuses of the Bush period, and they were on the other side for me during Vietnam, I think my response, if anything is gratitude. It is like, oh, that is great. You know, 30-40 years ago, they were on the other side. And now here, you know, now here, they are, they are recognizing that there is a real problem push. So, if anything, I probably like more Facebook them, anybody who has been active on my own side all along. On the other hand, the people who were like, you know, gung-ho for Vietnam and gung-ho for Iraq and all that. Well, you know, I got to say that I do not think they have been very good for the country, you know.

31:53
SM: Right, yeah. It is kind of the, the way muskie responded was that he did not respond at all about the-the (19)68 convention and, you know, confrontation between the police and the and the young people. He basically said that we have not healed from the Civil War. And then he went on for about 15 minutes to explain why he felt that way. Because he had been in the hospital, he saw the Ken Burns film series when he was in the hospital. And he said, do you realize as young people if you know your history that over 430,000 men died in that war? And it was almost an entire generation that we could have? We could have that we lost because of the best.

32:35
PL: Yeah-yeah, that is kind of interesting. I mean, I would, I would say is that that he, basically, that the Confederates never completely surrendered, and are a destructive force in our society still. I mean, that is, you know, I mean, if I looked at the base of the Republican Party, not all of it, but a bunch of it is in that, you know, old unreconstructed doubt in some ways and those old power structures that just, you know, I mean, they, you know, slavery ended and then there was segregation, and they made a few accommodations. But you know, it the white party of the South, you know, not entirely, you know, but a lot of it is its strongest base. And it is basically, you know, it is the party, though it is the party that resisted any attempt that, you know, those seats resisted any unionization. Right, you know, workers did not have any alternative. The religious institutions will, you know, with every, you know, some really important exceptions, primarily lined up on the the ones in the white culture are lined up on the wrong side in the Civil Rights battles, you know, and are still supporting to me my own kind of culture of plantation politics and greed. And again, I mean, I do not, you know, I know incredible activists in the South, they are doing wonderful thing. But I do think this that sort of unreconstructed Confederacy is, or you know, they are not-not unreconstructed. You know, only modestly reconstructed, etc. inveterate ethic. I think he is still alive and well, and, you know, it was running the show and a lot of ways during the Bush years. So, um, so that would be the way that I would say that from it. The number who died well, you know, that is a long time ago and I do not, you know, they had whatever legacy, you know, obviously those people were not around afterwards. That does not, you know, by now they would have all been dead anyway. So that is a failure.

34:22
SM: But I think the last Civil War veteran died in 1924. They have a statue for him in the Gettysburg Battlefield.

34:30
PL: Yeah. So, you know, it is a politics that is continued and that, that is real.

34:34
SM: You can kind of see it when you go to go to Gettysburg, you go on the southern side to see all the flags and flowers left on the north, you do not see anything. So, I just find that I go over four times a year and it is amazing. Two qualities here that I think are important in the boomer generation, this is all 70 plus million. And that is even though people may not have been involved in that 15 percent that were, you have got to say that the boomers were kind of a movement generation with the civil rights, the antiwar, and certainly the gay and lesbian, Native American, Chicano, environmental movements that came forth. And the second quality is the fact that they are very- they do not trust. And that was for obvious reasons, because so many of the leaders lied to them. And-and so and so, do you consider this generation of very non trusting generation and then a generation that really is a movement generation?

35:34
PL: Well, I mean, I think that there is more. Yeah, I think there is more skepticism. You know, that is definitely true, certainly than the- Well, again, it is tricky, because I think that all the generation now is equally untrusting. So, I think you know, that it is a period of the time, you know, pre (19)60s posting the level of reciprocity, that that is what I would argue the difference is.

35:58
SM: Do you think that some political science professors will say when they teach American government that a little bit of skepticism is healthy for democracy.

36:10
PL: Oh, a little, yeah. I mean, it is definitely you want skepticism, but you do not want it to devolve into complete cynicism and uptake. You know, that is the that is the line that that we have got to be walking its sort of-

36:25
SM: What, Jan Scrunch wrote a book on the Vietnam Memorial called to Heal a Nation, and it was the kick, it came out about 1987 I believe it was pretty good book. And he talks about building that wall not only to heal the Vietnam Veterans and their families and those who died in the war, but in a sense to heal the nation as a whole. With respect to that war. What do you think that wall was done?

36:50
PL: I do think that what is interesting is the people who visited whatever their perspectives are moved by it. The ones who support the war, you know, they sort of see, you know, here are the people who died in the just cause and the ones who oppose the war, like myself see it as a testament to just the complete madness of that war. But, you know, and by-by basically going to, I mean, you know, you should, you know, to really be realistic about the impact of that war, you would have a memorial as well for the Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians. And it would stretch, you know, halfway across Washington, DC, you know, I mean, a million to 2 million people died. But for the at least for the US side, it does come to you know, how do I describe it. People respond and are moved by the death. And everybody's respond by interestingly though, the number of times I have been there, the-the sort of political writing systems that they have this sort of kind of heroic that you nearby of the GIS and stuff, he goes to that I mean, they kind of give two seconds of a look. And it does not ring true, I do not think. But the wall rings true. And wall rings true for everybody.

38:07
SM: Of all the terrible events and good events that happened in the (19)50s (19)60s and (19)70s, is there one that sticks out in your mind more than any other? That may, that may have had been the greatest shock to a generation not only the activists, but the subconsciously affected the entire generation?

38:29
PL: God? I do not know. I mean, nothing, you know, I mean, there is still, there is obvious terrible events, you know, like assassination. Um, and, you know, there is sort of moments of great possibility, like, the huge protests and marches and stuff. But I do not really think that I do not think you can say here is the defining event or something like that.

38:52
SM: In your I think you were born in (19)52?

38:54
PL: Correct.

38:55
SM: Yeah. Obviously, you were very young in the (19)50s. But there was something About that you are talking about boomers. Now we are talking about from (19)46 to (19)64. And then you got the two groups. As we talked about it, everything seemed to be hunky dory, everything was fine. You know, parents were home from the war, giving their kids everything, they wanted. And even though we had the threat of nuclear disaster every day and McCarthy hearings for those that can remember early on about that man yelling on TV that people were communists and the fear and all that other stuff, and then the television shows of the (19)50s where kids seem to always be happy, and there did not seem to be too many African Americans or people of color on those shows. And then all of a sudden, the (19)60s came and some people saw realization that the- what was going on in the (19)50s was really they were hiding things right. I interviewed, Richie Havens, and Richie Havens said the (19)50s was the hidden generation. Everything was hidden and the truth finally came out? Yeah. Yeah. Do you have you when in your studies of young people, when you study them? Do they talk about the media and the-the-the effects that it has had on them?

40:17
PL: No, I do not you know I think I think they take it for granted. I mean, I think to say, oh, you know, it is like, they do not even think that much about oh, you know, I do not think they, they think this is, you know, this is what the media influencing me, this is how the media is influencing. They just think, no, this is what I know about the world, and I do not think they think that much about, like, where it came from.

40:56
SM: What, I am going to ask a couple questions here about specific events, and how but what they mean to you in the big scheme of things for the-the boomer generation and maybe in American history as a whole. What does the Kent State and Jackson state killings mean to you?

41:14
PL: Well, what they meant to me is that they are, you know, a couple of things. I mean, they, they meant that the Nixon, you know, regime, which I sort of blame for them, in some ways, certainly, in the case of Kent State, and I think probably Jackson State too, you know, sort of there was a test that, you know, go ahead, you know, fire on protesters, that they were willing to kill people. And I think it did really scare people make people angry. It had a dual effect. I mean, it, it escalated things. But it but it also, it also kind of, you know, probably did dawn people somewhat but it definitely it definitely raised the stakes.

42:00
SM: What does Watergate mean to you?

42:04
PL: Well, I mean, Watergate, it is interesting because it is it. It is a profound betrayal of the political process. And fortunately, it came to light. What is discouraging though, is if you fast forward, the Republican Party did not stop doing those things. So, you know, the [inaudible] politic was about exactly the same kinds of things. And the abuses in Florida, 2000 and Ohio 2004 that, in my view, both cases elected George Bush and reelected him. Um, those were coming out of the same. I mean, you know, it is sort of like you have got the rules, and you may not like the rules, but you live within the rules. We may try and, you know, you know, whatever at the end, you know, if you act in a certain way and your party gets a little advantage because of the way the rules happened to be written, well, that is life. But when you start breaking the rules, then it can get pretty ugly pretty quickly, which I think it did in the case of Watergate. I mean, I know evil pro was the guy who hired the guy [inaudible] He was the guy who hired G. Gordon Liddy originally. And he said, and he went to jail for Watergate and then really repented. And he said to me, he said, we almost destroyed. He said, as a judge, too. But, you know, when we were talking, I said, you know, we almost destroyed democracy. We are so convinced that the stakes were so high, that we had to do whatever we needed, whatever needed to be done, and we almost destroyed democracy. Pretty scary.

43:39
SM: What does Woodstock and the Summer of Love mean to you? They are two different things.

43:45
PL: Well, I mean, Woodstock was a concert. I mean, I guess it got a solid. Yes, it did get mythologized. But, you know, by the right in the left, you know, left is like, you know, Woodstock nation. You know, the right is like the dirty hippies are taking over. It was a big you know; it was a big concert. I mean, I, you know, if I lived on the East coast, I probably would have gone to it. I did not because I lived on the West coast. But, you know, I think that the idea of inflating it into some statement, or political movement is just ridiculous. I mean, it was, you know, other than the fact that, you know, it shows that there are a lot of people who like rock music and like to smoke. Yeah, we did not take other drugs. And then there was a general sentiment against the war. But it was not an activist effort. It just never was. You know, the Summer of Love was in it was sort of I mean, like, I well, I guess that is a slightly well, no, that is I think that is where that song I was thinking there as there was that Eric Burdon song about San Francisco and stuff and where is flowers near here? Yeah.

44:48
SM: Lee Hazelwood. I think.

44:51
PL: That was Lee Hazelwood without yeah-yeah-yeah. Burton wrote song about?

44:54
SM: I am not sure.

44:58
PL: I cannot, Burton wrote some terrible songs. I just remember always being from whoever gave oh, hold on a second. Maybe the furnace people are here.

45:10
SM: A few more minutes here. Okay, go.

45:14
PL: Yeah, so oh, I always this sort of say I mean, I, you know, I think that, you know, that psychedelic, that you know, mixed effect. And for me, I enjoyed the stuff that I took, but I always really, whoever gave Eric Burdon acid, I was I was just, you know, a tire Hitman because he was so good before he took acid. He was so insipid after he you know, it is bad. Yeah. I mean, there were musicians who said, you know, when they bloomed when they took acid, but he was, you know, again, I look at the Summer of Love and oh, that was what I was thinking of a girl called Dan dos. I mean, I was pretty stupid. You know, it was like, well, yeah, there was a whole bunch of people coming in. Uh, you know, to the Hayden wherever and I mean, it was, I do not know, again, maybe because I am more rooted in the political side, just sort of feel like, it was nice, you know, nothing against any of those folks. But the idea that somehow growing your hair out, you know, well, you know, we are taking smoking marijuana instead of drinking alcohol would somehow usher in a political change is just kind of silly and I think the media kind of inflated that.

46:36
SM: Let me turn my tape here we got fifteen- What-what did the counterculture mean to you?

46:40
PL: Well, again, I think the counterculture was sort of a yearning, you know, and again, I mean, you know, some of it did get realized. I mean, for instance, Vermont politics changed because of the counterculture because a lot of people settled and went back to the land in Vermont, and it was a small state and, you know, if they are, you know, now they got Bernie Sanders. So, it was not completely apolitical, and it was not completely detached to the impact. But I think that, generally speaking, again, it was just it was lifestyle, and it was recreation and no and-and that was fine. I had nothing against it. I mean, I, you know, I would like some of those drugs. But you know, in moderation, you know, otherwise I would not have bought near with, and I am glad I did not go near. Yeah, I have always had a pretty sharp dish and, you know, soft and heartbroken, you know, never touched those other ones. I am glad I did not. Um, but I do think that, you know, the, the idea that you can sort of carve out your own private retreat. I think that that that is sort of a very American fallacy. We are all interconnected, and you got to deal with the big public issue.

47:52
SM: What about the hippies in the hippies. Your thoughts on them?

47:56
PL: Well, I mean, the hippies were an attempt to politicize the counterculture. Anyway. To some extent it worked. I mean, they, you know, I mean, I never liked Jerry Rubin, I always thought he would just be a jerk, you know, and then the kill your parents’ stuff. No stupid. But you know, Abbie Hoffman was a great, I mean, he was a great founder. And he was, you know, he funny and imaginative. And I remember being a teenager being really inspired by him because he was so creative. And there was such a sense of play, and humor. So, I think that that, you know, that that 10th actually was, you know, I liked what they did. I mean, you know, does he could he really make a movement of it? I do not know, but you could, you could certainly use elements of it in any movement that you know, display and the humor and they, you know, I mean, I remember when they scattered money, I think they walled off the stock exchange with plastic, you know, barriers now, but it was true money down on the floor, and all these brokers were like, scrambling for it is, I mean, that was a wonderful moment. And you know, and it was completely nonviolent. It was creative, and I, you know, did-did that move American politics in a good direction? Yeah, I think it did. You know, um, you know versus stuff that created real fear of backlash. So yeah, I liked the moment they did.

49:06
SM: Your thoughts on the Students for Democratic Society/Weathermen. And then the Civil Rights Movement/Black Power, Black Panthers.

49:16
PL: I mean, I think in both cases, that you know, what happened is that a lot of frustration and bitterness is that the pace of change was slow. And so, you know, a lot of these so if you look at some of the people that were, you know, in SDS, even the ones that some of the ones went in weathermen started out very idealistic, and they were an accountant, or were they all the players, but like, you know, they were like teaching in an alternative school in a poor neighborhood and stuff like that. And then I think they just got weighed down by guilt and anger. And, you know, here was what they were doing, and people were dying, which was true, and the war was not ending so you have to escalate and bring it home. And when they did not recognize is a that the peaceful nonviolent protests were having an impact. But Nixon just did not acknowledge that. I mean, was a huge more horrendous stop from nine to stop them from potentially using nuclear weapons and vs North Vietnam. And you know, in his in his memoirs and all those, you know, memories, people worked with them. But people are getting really frustrated, you know, and so and then what they did basically destroy the movement because people looked at, and they thought, this is crazy. You know, both people in the movement, people sympathetic. And then people outside it just said, the fear. And allowed Reagan and George Wallace and all these people to run against it. The same thing is true to some extent on the black, you know, the black nationalist movements from the Black Panthers is you had people who well its complicated. Um, you know, certainly there were good community projects that some of those did, you know, the free breakfast and the free clinics and all that stuff. And they kind of built the political base that led to changing what you know, well in the Panthers, open, good ways, but again, all the sort of militaristic running around all that day is to make them good targets for the cops to, you know, go crazy. And then you add in with that sort of militaristic, you know, kind of style, he will the door for other abuses. So, you have, you know, people like, you know, doing you would not be getting involved in, you know, your bad news, hard drugs and you know, essentially, you know, destroying his own promising life, but also helping again destroy the movement. So, I just think that it is really important to be mindful that that, you know, if you kind of create a culture of fear, it has got a high potential backlash.

51:36
SM: Yeah. And, and again, that could be the reasons why you hear the Gingrich’s and the Wills. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. It was like, Richie Havens, when I interviewed him, last week said that his parents raised him to be one of the good people. And that was a very important thing, and he made similar comments that you are making about the fact you know, that make sure that what you do is for the right reasons and so forth. What do you have the last one here is the Vietnam Veterans against the war? Your thoughts on them?

52:09
PL: Hugely important. I mean, usually, I mean, the reason the right hate is John Kerry is because he was involved in that group. I mean, so, you know, what they were, you know, it was the testaments to the death. And nobody had greater credibility. I mean, if you talk about turning points against the war, when significant numbers of veteran turned against for that was when the war had to and, you know, that was when they could not continue it. So, you know, I think that it was tremendously important organization, you know, made a huge impact. And, you know, people in the end, and that is why I always get angry at the stuff about the myth about spitting on soldiers. I mean, it probably happened a couple of times, but by and large, people in the antiwar movement were pretty, I mean, they kind of reach out to the bat, because they knew that if they, you know, they did their compassion. They knew that they were caught in the middle, but also, they knew that most people at least the anti-war movement that you know, if they did speak out, it was a very powerful testament.

53:04
SM: But what did you see when you saw that helicopter flying off the roof at the embassy in in on April 30, 1975. That the war was finally over.

53:15
PL: Well, I think it was anti-climactic. It was like the word gone and kind of wound down but had not quite. And then okay, it was over. I mean, I think it was just finally released that it really is over. Because I think that was mostly-

53:27
SM: When all the things happened in Cambodia with the Kamer Rouge. Did you ever have any second thoughts?

53:32
PL: No, because I mean, basically, not at all. I mean, you know, because Cambodia was a, I mean, it was a stable country. I mean, they call it what it was, they did not call I think they call it like the Paris of Southeast Asia. I mean, it was it was a stable country that we went in, and completely destabilized, destroyed the existing structures created this void that Khmer Rouge entered in and accrue. Of course, they were horrible. You know, but to blame the answer. I mean, you know, the blame the antiwar moves perfect Khmer Rouge is just has no relation to reality. I mean, you know, we were not for Nixon, he would not have happened. You know, and yes, you know, there is probably a handful of people who initially, you know, like, you know, they are not trusting their point then. But I think pretty quickly, you will realize, you know, how awful they were. But again, the number of causation on you know, the causes that Nixon expanded the word of Cambodia and destroyed that country.

54:31
SM: Richie Havens said something last week when I interviewed him, he said that Woodstock served a very important purpose is first off, he said it got us involved in a lot of different types of music, but-but they could not hide us anymore. And he was talking about 1959 was because a lot of the musicians that came out in New York City at that 1959 period, Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Richie Havens, and the list goes on and on there, Peter Paul and Mary, they were kind of being hidden by society. And then they exploded in the (19)60s.

55:07
PL: Well, it certainly is true is that there is a lot of, you know, there are a lot and havens is currently one of them. There are a lot of musicians for bearing witness. And I mean, they kind of had a how to put it. I mean, they were voicing, they were voicing the common concern. And that powerful then that amplifies it. But I mean, I think when everyone does that, it is really powerful. I mean, I think that there was I mean, I remember riding on an airplane next to Jack Cassidy from just an airplane.

55:35
SM: Oh, yeah.

55:36
PL: And I was talking with him. And he said, you know, we wanted to play blues and all of a sudden, we were like, asked to lead the revolution, you know what to do? There, there are false expectations placed on or impossible expectations placed on some of the musicians. But-but I also think that, you know, in that sense, I would agree with Havens that, you know, when some when-when you hear a lot of people you are powerful music that talks about the real issues of our time, it has an impact. And you know, and last, I mean, it was not just the phone, you know, I mean, the, you know, it was it was a whole spectrum of people who are speaking out through their music and that was influential.

56:15
SM: He also said it would be he felt that that are not generally we had to create our own voice because we were the last generation that do not speak until you are spoken to generation, and he was pretty emphatic about that.

56:31
PL: Well, I mean, I think that there was there was a loosening up, you know, and that, you know, and, and it is this sort of nostalgia for the old Lord or kind of, you know, be silent and-and-and-and-and accommodate that. You know, I think that that is what they want to go back to.

56:50
SM: Right after you came to West Chester University back in the (19)90s. We did two programs, two major programs, where we brought in boomers and generation Xers, we had it in the theater. We had one in the fall and one in the spring to talk about the issues. The final conclusion, two conclusions came out of that conference is that and regarding the generation Xers thoughts about the boomers, the generation that preceded them, number one, they were tired of hearing about the times, and all the nostalgia that the boomer generation kept talking about. And then the other group said, he was, I wish we could have lived then during a time when there were so many issues and causes. I just wish we had issues like that.

57:33
PL: Well, I think both of those are still running. I mean, so, you know, especially now, he later, you know, the idea of I mean, like, I mean, I remember when I was growing up, and like I was sick and tired of like these World War II vets, like, oh, we were you know, we were so wonderful. And I mean, yeah, it was like, yes, you did a really important thing. I am going to certainly acknowledge you are courage and all the rest of it, but on some level, I was higher. You know, I was tired of grandpa's stories. On a certain level, and even, you know, even though important things were done, and, you know, so I think that there is the, you know, the idea that the be all and end all on the eternal reference damned for any protest or for anybody comes afterwards because you can never meet it because it is sort of an unrealistic standard. The flipside is the as you said, the romanticization of like, well, if I live there, I do not so I am not so yeah.

58:27
SM: Yeah, and finally, the conclusion is here that of those two major programs because we brought in TV personalities to actually moderate in some of our faculty were boomers actually got upset with the students. But another coupl- some of the qualities the boomers have a- the boomers always have to have a cause to be happy. Some of the students said the boomers are arrogant, boomers think they are better than other generations because they speak up more and challenge the status quo. Boomers are quick to judge people's weaknesses rather than their strengths, so that these are like some of the things that came out of those-

59:06
PL: Yeah, but you know, I think he is on the media stereotype. There has been- I mean, again, having I mean, you will, you know, quick was quick to judge me. And I think, you know, if you are, if a country is going in, you know, wrong war, you want to make a judgment about that, you know, if you have a debate on a political issue, you want to make a judgement, what is wrong and make a judgement? You know, I do not see anything with that. I mean, it is, you know, if you say they bill, you know, they are condemning us for not living up to well, I do not know, certainly, there was a feeling that that did, where people who bought the media line, were dismissing subsequent generations far more than sure then that was wrong. So, I did hear I did hear that I mean, I, when I was talking when I was doing generation, the crossword that I am doing a book on student values and people would say did they have any values. And, you know, that was that was born of misinformation that was born of reading these condescending Ed report that was important back to talking with people. And reciprocally. The, you know, the students saying, yeah, they all betrayed their values. They all sold out, the generation X people think, you know, the boomer generation, they all sold out, they betrayed their values. Well, that was garbage too. But again, based on the same kind of media stereotype.

1:00:27
SM: Well, your book, I am almost done here. I got two more questions. Generation yeah, generation the crossroads is one heck of a book and in there you list some of the qualities that about the generation Xers which again, are the- a lot of the kids and I know you can generalize this he could, but he must have some experiences what-what kind of parents do you think the boomers have been? When some of the things that you listen to your book, the qualities that most of the generation had- was is a sense of individualism, a mistrust of social movements an isolation from the urgent, big things that are happening in the world at the time, maybe some historical ignorance. And then you look at some of the other qualities that they are more interested in the smaller picture, when they are in the state of the world, their whole differences in how they parent their interest in the body, which is more important than certainly the (19)60s generation and work seems to be more important, you know, in the generation Xers, all these things, what do you I guess what I am getting at is what had the boomers passed on to their kids.

1:01:43
PL: But see, again I you know, this is where, I mean when I look at, you know, it depends on who you are talking about, right? If I look at so when I was interviewing students, and I said, you know, I looked at these students who are really just, you know, greedy, you know, called greedy or detached or just whatever, because they did not have parents who are social activists, none of them did. You know, and if I looked at the people who were involved, not all but a disproportionate chunk, often did have to parent do I mean, I think that they are these firms have to actually finally get engaged, keep taking these stands, and then they pass it on. And you know, wherever the whatever the, you know the lines of okay, this year at that year, wherever they fall, you know, they are passing something on have a tradition of engagement, and the people pass on the tradition of disengagement. They do that, too. So, you know, it just seems to me that, um, you know, that is just really wrong to say, you know, here is this generation passed on somewhat dubious values, because the answer is which part of the generation did that.

1:02:55
SM: Good point. My last question, Paul, and this is the last one. It is about the university. What did the university, the college learn about from the (19)60s? We know about the Free Speech Movement? We knew about the activism that was happening on college campuses, like-

1:03:11
PL: Like how does the university?

1:03:12
SM: Yeah, and-and it seems to me today, and we know the students are involved in massive amounts of volunteers and probably 95 percent. So, you cannot say they do not care. However, my sense is that universities today still have not learned from the (19)60s because they were afraid of rising activism, which to me is a little bit different than volunteerism, it was 24/7 mentalities as opposed to two hours a week and the universities learn anything from the past, or are they doomed to repeat the mistakes they made back then?

1:03:47
PL: Well, I mean, I think, again, it depends on who you are talking about. But I certainly I think that there is certainly people who are trying to get their students engaged in a [inaudible] the people, you know, and then there is also you know, once you do sort of feel like that okay, why do not they just shut up and let us run this run the university or the college? You know, I mean, and I have seen both attitudes, obviously, I think one produces a better play a better, I will say a better educational experience. You know, even if there is contention, an argument and all the rest of it, I think ultimately, it is a better educational experience. You know, so, I mean, that is the stream that I am much more supportive of.

1:04:28
SM: Right, well Paul, thank you very much. Sure. I will, you will certainly see the transcript. I have got a lot of I am doing all my interviews by May 15. And then the transcripts and all and so I will be in touch with you down the road. Okay, great. And you keep carrying on Paul.

1:04:46
PL: All right. Say hi to Mark Rudd.

1:04:47
SM: Oh, I will, okay, bye-bye.

(End of Interview)

2010-01-30

Stephen McKiernan

Paul Rogat Loeb, 1952-

64:52

English

Binghamton University Libraries

audio/mp4

Sound

1 Microcassette

Audio

Authors; Journalists; Political activists--United States; Loeb, Paul Rogat, 1952--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.