Interview with Wayne Thorborn

Interview with Wayne Thorborn

Thorburn, Wayne J. (Wayne Jacob), 1944- ; McKiernan, Stephen

Politicians—United States; Educators; Authors; Republican Party (U.S. : 1854- )--Texas; Thorburn, Wayne J. (Wayne Jacob), 1944--Interviews

Dr. Wayne Thorburn is a politician, educator and author. He served as the executive director of the Republican Party of Texas from 1977-1983. He is the author of A Generation Awakes: Young Americans for Freedom and the Creation of the Conservative Movement. Dr. Thorburn is a graduate of Tufts University and Penn State and holds a PhD in political science from the University of Maryland.

2010-01-07

In copyright

McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.118a l McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.118b

2018-03-29

McKiernan Interviews

220:20

McKiernan Interviews
Interview with: Wayne Thorborn
Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan
Transcriber: REV
Date of interview: 7 January 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Start of Interview)

SM (00:00:02):
Testing one, two.

VT (00:00:07):
And others of the left of that period of time, which I rightly so have made it into college libraries and public libraries. But as you indicated, there is only two that were kind of, one of which was a professor from Pennsylvania, John Andrew, who now passed away, who was at Franklin and Marshall wrote the Other Side of the (19)60s, which really pretty much ends with the Goldwater election. He does not really go into much beyond that. The other book, Cadres For Conservatism, is a little more extensive in the period it covers, but it basically says, well, the organization died in (19)85.

SM (00:00:53):
Oh, wow.

WT (00:00:55):
Rightly so. It was not strong from that point on, and in fact, I kind of say by the (19)90s, the mid (19)90s, it went into at least hibernation. It did not maybe die, but it went into hibernation.

SM (00:01:11):
Right.

WT (00:01:11):
But anyway, those who were active in the somewhat revival of the organization in the late (19)80s and in the very early (19)90s, they were just all upset and wrote scathing reviews on Amazon and everything else. How could he say this, the organization died in (19)85? And it is true. I mean, he was wrong, and so that have marred his history of the organization, which I thought was otherwise pretty good. And so, the bottom line was I felt there had to be something else that maybe libraries would purchase that would be on the shelf 10, 15 years from now when somebody's doing a study or research on what happened in the (19)60s and the (19)70s, if they would not only have the Tom Hayden and Richard Flax and the Kirkpatrick sales version, but they'd have a counter saying, "Well, wait a minute. There was another group of young people doing other things at that point in time." It stands to reason.

SM (00:02:12):
Yeah. I read the book. What I normally do is when I read a book, I read it through once and then I start reading it through where I start underlining it and all the other things. So, I really need to get a second book because that is what happens when I get involved in books and I am in the process now of I have read it, but I am reading so many books from my book project that-

WT (00:02:36):
Sure.

SM (00:02:37):
This is a good one, and it is well written, so I am ready to go if you are?

WT (00:02:44):
I am.

SM (00:02:44):
Okay. One of the things I have done is, it is actually the first 50 people I interviewed, which when I started this project back in the late (19)90s, I did not ask too much about their personal background, but the last 150 I have, and so I think it is important. How did you become who you are, that strong, conservative leader who grew up in the (19)50s, (19)60s, and (19)70s?

WT (00:03:09):
Well, that is a good question. I think I came from a lower middle class working class family that was very traditional and conservative, not in the political ideological sense, but in the norms, values set. My father was an electrician. Much of his life, worked for other people, but then, well, the last 30 years or so worked for himself. So, I would not even call him a small businessman because he was himself, he never had any helpers or anything. My mother, after working very briefly, well before I was born, was a stay-at-home mother. And I grew up, I have one brother who is really a totally different segment. He is 15 years older than I am, and so it is almost like being two only children because by the time I was in the elementary school, he was off college and all that stuff. So, I grew up in a place called Somerville, Massachusetts, which is very much of a working class, inner suburb of Boston right between Cambridge and Medford, if you are familiar with it at all.

SM (00:04:36):
Oh, yeah. Yeah.

WT (00:04:39):
And so they were Baptist. Because I sometimes, and I am probably going to go on too long, so cut me off if I go on too long.

SM (00:04:50):
Okay, that is fine.

WT (00:04:52):
I grew up in what I now refer to as an ethnic church because in that area they were Irish, Italians and transplanted Canadians. Basically, the old wasps from colonial days were living in much more wealthy communities, so where were the wasps were basically transplanted Canadians and the church I grew up in, I would say 90 percent of the people there had relatives still living in Canada. And they, because of being Protestants, they were Republicans. And I think that is the motivation in the days that you are talking about, particularly the (19)50s and post-World War II. If you were Catholic, odds were very-very strong that you were going to be a Democrat, and if you were Protestant, odds were very-very strong that you were going to be a Republican. And ideology meant very little because you had very liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans, liberal Democrats, and conservative Democrats. There was ethnicity and class and other factors were what chose your party. So, I started in that environment and I think the first thing that really hit me was picking up while in High School, Barry Goldwater's, Conscience of a Conservative.

SM (00:06:18):
Yes.

WT (00:06:19):
And then after that, starting to get introduced to Buckley and Up from Liberalism. I think his first book, God and Man at Yale, was really before my time and really did not make an impact on me. It was the second, well, not his second, but his late 1959 book, Up From Liberalism. And so, I started reading those in high school, and I guess it was the values from my family that started me in that direction.

SM (00:06:54):
Did you read his book too, which was another classic on McCarthyism?

WT (00:06:59):
Not really. I mean, I obviously have since, but it did not make an impact on me.

SM (00:07:03):
Yeah, that is a classic.

WT (00:07:05):
McCarthy was an unknown person to me in those early days. I am sure some of the people you interviewed, oh, their parents were real backers of Joe McCarthy and all? No, it was not that. We seldom really at any depth discussed politics at home.

SM (00:07:22):
What was it like going to high school in the (19)50s or the late (19)50s, early (19)60s?

WT (00:07:28):
It was the late (19)50s and I graduated from high school in (19)61, so I think I am pretty well overworked, in kind of meaningless work, but traditional. At the high school, again, because of where I grew up, was very much a working class. A very, very small number, small percentage, of the graduates would go on to college. Some might go to a technical school or a secretarial school as they used to have them in those days, but most of them were high school graduates who then went on to work in clerical positions or truck drivers or working for the city or something like that. So, I worked part-time, and as most kids did in those times, I was able to purchase for $125 an old (19)54 Ford in until my senior year I had this broken-down car that I would drive to school. And there was not any one teacher who had an overriding influence on me. I was involved in the debate club, but we really never really got into very many debates and church activities and things like that.

SM (00:09:02):
When you drove that car, did you look like James Dean?

WT (00:09:06):
No, I was not quite the rebel.

SM (00:09:09):
Yeah. I often am interested in terms of one's college years. Could you talk about how you picked the college you went to? What was it like to be a college student during those years, and was there any activism at the college in those late (19)50s, early (19)60s?

WT (00:09:30):
Okay. Yeah. Basically I ended up applying to two colleges and one was Wake Forest. I really cannot tell you why. I never went to North Carolina. Never made a visit. The campus. It was in those days a Baptist college, and that might have had some reason for applying there. And then Tufts University, which was around the corner, a 15-minute walk from home. The reason I guess I applied there is because it had a very good reputation academically, and my brother had graduated from there, again many years earlier. But I guess in that there was a minor legacy you might think. So, I got into both of them and for various and sundry reasons, because there were no scholarships that were being made available, it just seemed, and my parents were not wealthy, but they were going to have to pay the tuition, it made sense to go to Tufts, which was really the academically better school, and I could walk to campus, live at home. Which is what I did. So. that is how I ended up going there. I guess one other part of your question, how did I come in contact with YAF?

SM (00:11:02):
Yes.

WT (00:11:04):
That is a transitional one because what happened was after I got accepted at Tufts, I was able to get a summer job that they had, I guess for students and incoming students, working with the grounds and building department. And in those days, the kids would leave their dorm room a mess and anything they did not want, they just trashed and left there. Knowing from my daughter's experience, nowadays, they come around and monitor and you have to have everything out there and cleaned up. But in those days, they had just left the places a mess. And so, one of the first assignments at Grounds and Building was to go into the dorms and take all the trash, get all the trash out of the rooms. And in so doing, I came across this rather amateur looking publication called The New Guard, and nosy that I was, reading through this and saw that it was a conservative youth publication by an unknown group to me called Young Americans For Freedom. And so that is how I came in contact with YAF, just by chance coming across a publication that a kid had left in a dorm room. And wrote off and sought information and tried to find out if there was a chapter at Tufts, things like that.

SM (00:12:29):
Wow. Yeah. One of the things I want, again, I have read this, but the people that will be reading these interviews, they will not have read your book and all the people I have interviewed, they have not read the books, but it is the personalities and the basic information, it is a different venue to reach people. When you talk about the Young Americans for Freedom, it is mostly college students. There is no high school students involved here. Correct?

WT (00:12:53):
At that point in time, there were very-very few, as time went on into the (19)60s, even as (19)62, (19)63, there were high school students involved, very much so. And there is a couple examples of people like Al Della Bovie, who is the chairman or president or whatever of the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York. He got active and was the head of a chapter in New York City of basically high school students. So, yes. And then from that point on, there was maybe not at the original founding, but by the early (19)60s as the involvement, particularly in the Goldwater campaign began, there started to be a number of high school chapters, some of which were allowed on campus, but many times we are not campus high school chapters, but might be City High School chapter.

SM (00:14:04):
The number four question here, which is basically divided the 65 years that boomers have been alive in six different periods, and basically when I have asked this question to all of my interviewees, it is some have said, it is almost impossible to talk about a period, there is too much, but what first comes to your mind when you see these six periods? Like say that first one, (19)46 to 1960, when you think about America and what, just the period?

WT (00:14:40):
Yeah. I guess to me, first of all, it is childhood. But in terms of the broader picture, I guess it would be staid, culturally established, not much radical change.

SM (00:15:04):
And then that period (19)61 when John Kennedy comes into office to 1970 when Kent State happens.

WT (00:15:11):
Right, right. Well, I would argue there is two different periods that are drastically different there. The period up until, I guess if you really want to look at one event, maybe the March (19)65 Johnson expansion of Vietnam being the end of the first period. Which I think still, there were rumblings of change in society with the civil rights movement with some of this campus activity mainly on the West coast, but it started out as a very conservative kind of period. I relate to, I was a freshman in (19)61, and so I still remember the beanie that I had to wear as a freshman on campus. I still remember that there was a curfew for female students. I still remember that there were obviously separate dormitories, but there was, even at Tufts, there was a separate women's college called Jackson College, just like there was Harvard and Radcliffe and all the administratively distinctive women's institutions within the bigger institution. I remember that even by 1965 when I was a senior, what I, and many of us did, is we bought these blue blazers with a crest on it, with the year 1965 and the seal of the college and would wear them around.

SM (00:16:45):
Wow.

WT (00:16:46):
And we would get harassed as a freshman, if we did not have our beanie on. So that first period of time, I think, was still socially very conservative, even though the rumblings were there of the start of some of the other things. And then the second half was quite different. That is when social morays are changing and when the music is making much more impact on society, and of course you get Woodstock and all that other stuff. So, I think you cannot really just solely talk about the decade of the (19)60s. It is really two different groups that hit there.

SM (00:17:31):
Right. How about that period, (19)71 to (19)80, which is the some might say is through at least (19)73, (19)74 is a continuation of the latter half of the (19)60s, and then you get into the disco era and the music changed. What were your thoughts before Ronald Reagan became president, just your thoughts on that period?

WT (00:17:51):
Right-right. Well, there was a period, again, as you said, of a lot of malaise. There was a lot of discomfort in society. There was all the problems with Nixon and Watergate and Agnew. What would In effect was the defeat and withdrawal from Vietnam. There was the energy crisis that came in. There was inflation with the Jerry Floyd and his whip inflation now. And then of course, looking back on that period, you come across the picture of Jimmy Carter sitting with a sweater in front of a fireplace talking about the malaise that we were in. So, it was rather, I think in many ways, a kind of a depressing decade that had a lot of negative things associated with it.

SM (00:18:54):
How about that period, 1981 to 1990 that many say is the era of Reagan?

WT (00:19:00):
I think that was for me, and actually for many people, much more optimistic. I think Reagan came in and was able to re-enthuse the American people about the possibilities of the country and its role not only in the world, but its role in time, and what was happening. As the theme in the (19)84 election that "It is morning in America", kind of summarized it. It was a sense of optimism. Now, there was the down period of the Iran Contra and near the end of it, but I think pretty much that whole decade was one of much more economically, we were doing better, and I think inside, psychically we were doing better by dealing.

SM (00:19:58):
How about that 1991 to 2000 when President Bush and President Clinton-

WT (00:20:05):
Excuse me. That too, is not a bad decade. I think if one looks back historically on the Clinton administration, but Clinton had a lot of personal problems, as we all know. We do not have to get into those, but I think as a president and as a period of time, yeah, it was a very positive one. When you look back, whether you want to give some of the credit to the Republican control of Congress or the President or both, or whatever. It was the last period that we, after many, many years, of continual deficit, that we were running an annual budget that was not in deficit, and the economy was doing fairly well. So, I think it was a pretty positive time. With also starting at the beginning with really the downfall of the Soviet Union and taking away the threat of an any day impending nuclear disaster. It was before we got to realize that the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries, and maybe even movement in our countries could become a serious continuing threat to us. We had focused for so many years on the Soviet Union, and it was gone. That, I think, it started the decade where it started out very positively.

SM (00:21:43):
And then of course, the last decade, 2001 to now 2011 with President Bush and President Obama.

WT (00:21:51):
Right-right. Exactly. Again, early on, reality sets in that the world is not a wonderful and beautiful place with 9-11. I think that really set the tone for much of American's attitudes towards the rest of that decade is that threat from a non-governmental force of a group of extremists who were under the color of religion, were attempting to advance their ideological position and work at virtually no respect for human life and would involve anyone civilian, the non-governmental officials or what have you, in bringing down what they saw as the enemy.

SM (00:22:47):
You know what is really interesting?

WT (00:22:47):
I think-

SM (00:22:47):
Go ahead.

WT (00:22:47):
Economically, you had stuff down.

SM (00:22:54):
It is interesting when you look at this whole period, when you think of the 1972 Olympics and the terrible thing that happened with the terrorism that Olympics, the killing of the Israeli team, and then all throughout the (19)80s, the takeover of airplanes and pilots, and then of course leading up to 9-11, seems like that Terrorism has been around here for quite some time.

WT (00:23:18):
Yes, it has. True.

SM (00:23:20):
Yeah. Wow. It's been around half the lives of all the boomers, especially the front runner boomers. When you look at the generation, which, whether it be 74 or 79 million, I always see different numbers, but when you look at the generation as a whole, can you give some characteristics that you think are some of the strengths and weaknesses of the generation? Is that possible?

WT (00:23:48):
Yeah, and again, I am a Casper at best.

SM (00:23:54):
Yes.

WT (00:23:54):
I was born in (19)44, so I am just beyond being able to call myself a baby boomer because I think the true span is (19)46 to (19)64 at birth years. But having said all that, I guess a couple of things would be number one, growing up at a time of economic and political growth of the United States of America. I mean, the economy has changed and strengthened so much from after the World War II period in which the first ones were born. And politically coming out of World War II, there were only two great powers, and then eventually with the fall of the Soviet Union, only one for a period of time. And economically, the United States' strength internationally has grown tremendously. So I think it's been one where the generation has had great advancement. Almost every one of them have economically done better than their parents and have been able to look to the future with positive projection. The downside of that, of course, is maybe the over-emphasis on security and the anticipation and expectation that everything will be either given to you or easily obtained, which kind of leads maybe to a sense of entitlement that is beyond what should be. I guess that in a nutshell is probably the way I would describe it.

SM (00:25:46):
In your opinion, when did the (19)60s begin and when did it end, and what was the watershed moment?

WT (00:25:51):
Okay. Well, I think we have talked about that a little bit. I think there are two (19)60s. The (19)60s that is, I think you are referring to, I think probably began with Johnson's move in 1965 to enhance US involvement in the Vietnam War, and that probably was the pivotal event that activated many people on the left on college campuses, and by then the music and drugs and other things were starting to impact the community. So, that would be the watershed moment I think. The (19)60s as described that way rather than chronologically probably started to fade out by 1973 in the withdrawal of American troops, and the fact that their hero McGovern got so resoundingly defeated the left's hero, the left hero, Montgomery, got so resoundingly defeated the (19)72 election, and so that movement, if that is the (19)60s, kind of goes from (19)65 to (19)73 in my mind.

SM (00:27:16):
Yeah, that is excellent. Number seven is a little bit detailed here. I just picked these out myself, because they seem to be important either right, statements, slogans, or events or personalities that really affected college students, and I was curious what the Young Americans for Freedom were doing on college campuses when they happened. And the first one is, and again, it is just if your perception as person who not only was a leader for of the organization is, I believe it is executive director?

WT (00:27:51):
Right.

SM (00:27:52):
Yes. For 7 years?

WT (00:27:54):
No, no. I was only there... I was involved. I joined in (19)61 and basically got out by (19)75, so that is only 14 years, but I was executive director only from (19)71 to (19)73.

SM (00:28:08):
Okay. Very good. How did the young Americans for Freedom respond to Kennedy's, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."?

WT (00:28:19):
Sounds good, but not realistic because individuals ought to be looking out for themselves, and I think it ran counter to the individualistic strain in modern conservatism. That rather than having a loyalty to the country as primary, your individual concern and in taking care of yourself ought to come first.

SM (00:28:49):
Then we have the Bobby Kennedy quote. It was actually a quote from another writer from the 1900s-

WT (00:28:59):
Right-right.

SM (00:28:59):
But, "Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see-"

WT (00:29:03):
I think that would be one that they would grumble as to who was being quoted, but they would agree with that. That was really an attitude that they had.

SM (00:29:16):
That is a positive attitude then?

WT (00:29:18):
Absolutely.

SM (00:29:19):
Then Muhammad Ali, who was one of the primary athletic figures of the boomer generation, we all remember during the Vietnam War, "I will not fight in Vietnam and kill you yellow babies when we have black babies dying in our cities every day."

WT (00:29:36):
Yeah. I think they would say, Oh, he fails to understand the challenge of communism and how communism is going to kill yellow babies, black babies, white babies, regardless, and it is going to try to control all of the world, and that what we are fighting in Vietnam is international communism and an effort to take over a country, and we are not there to be killing little yellow babies.

SM (00:30:02):
Malcolm X is by any means necessary, one of the biggest slogans of the year.

WT (00:30:08):
Yeah, no, they would disagree with that and say that there is the rule of law and there are right appropriate ways to do things and not any means necessary.

SM (00:30:21):
Timothy Leary was the epitome of the counterculture, "Tune in, turn on, drop out."

WT (00:30:32):
There is where you get a little division by the late (19)60s into a couple of movements. Some in the organization were enthralled with parts of the counterculture and probably would agree with that to some degree, and that is the movement that gets described is the more libertarian element in the organization. But most would say that, no, this is totally wrong, that you have to become involved, stay involved and change society.

SM (00:31:05):
Peter Max's posters really often defined the hippie culture in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s, very popular where I was going to school, and one that really stood out was this slogan, "You do your thing and I will do mine. If by chance we should come together, that would be beautiful."

WT (00:31:28):
Well, I think that, probably most of the actors would totally agree with, especially that would really reflect the more libertarian element in the organization and the sense of individual freedom. Yeah. Some of the more conservative ones would say, "Well, that is not quite true. You have to take consideration of society in the larger picture." But I'd say that most would agree with that.

SM (00:31:56):
And of course, the big-

WT (00:31:58):
Yeah.

SM (00:31:59):
...slogan, "Hell no, we will not go. We will not fight-"

WT (00:32:01):
No, they would be totally opposed to that.

SM (00:32:02):
We will not go. We will not fight it.

WT (00:32:02):
No. They would be totally opposed to that. Yeah. Was very sparling in support of the American effort throughout almost all the period of time. Only when we get into the (19)70s, and Nixon has his Vietnamization aspect of the war, did some less emphasis on that. And really then the emphasis shifted to concern about the POWs. So, no, this is something that they would totally reject.

SM (00:32:33):
Then the Call of Civil Rights was the uniting force was, "We Shall Overcome." That was the song, voices and-

WT (00:32:44):
Well, can I go off in two directions with that?

SM (00:32:45):
Yes.

WT (00:32:46):
One is, I think one of the big problems of the conservative movement in the (19)60s was its inability to support the legitimate goals of the civil rights movement and the breakdown of segregation. And so, that ended up hurting conservatives and more specifically Republicans by becoming too associated with segregationist in the undying south and discrimination, wherever it was in the country, by not identifying with the Civil Rights Movement. So in a retrospect afterthought, I think a number of conservatives now recognize that that was a very serious problem for the movement for us as individuals. But if taken out of that context of civil rights, the We Shall Overcome, is certainly an attitude and an approach that most [inaudible] would agree with and could be reflected basically after the defeat of Goldwater in 1964. Their rededication to the cause and the movement, We Shall Overcome, would be an accurate description as they went on to say, "Well, yeah. We got trapped, but we are not going to go away and take our marbles and go home. We are going to rededicate ourselves that we shall indeed overcome."

SM (00:34:22):
The Free Speech Movement and I have talked to a lot of people about this, the one from (19)64, (19)65 with Mario Savio and Jack Weinberg and Bettina Aptheker, that group, some historians even on the left have said that the historic history has not done justice to that event because of the fact they isolated it in (19)64, (19)65 from all the other protests that took place in the late (19)60s. But then other books say that was the precursor and the drive for protests on college campuses. What was YAF? That you have written extensively in the book on this, but this is a very important thing because it's about free speech. And the basic central thesis was, and I remember Mario Salvio talking to about it, there is a brand-new book out on Mario Salvio by Robbie Cohen from NYU. And that is that ideas, the university should be about ideas, not about corporate control on universities. And so, they looked upon this. They were not planning to do protests, it just seemed to happen because the administration denied their right to hand out literature off campus right near Sayer Gate. And what happened is that you unified even the conservative students, when the students were told they could not do something, it was an amazing mistake on the part of the administration at that time. But your thoughts on The Free Speech Movement at Berkeley and YAF's response to it. Are you still there? Hello? [inaudible] You still there? What? Shit. [inaudible] just asked you a question about the Young Americans for Freedom's response to The Free Speech Movement in (19)64, (19)65 at Berkeley.

WT (00:37:33):
Right. Divided and when it started out for the local YAF chapter at Berkeley was supportive of it. The whole movement began over distribution of political literature on campus. And the administration had ruled that you could not distribute any political literature on campus because it was state government property and there was no solicitation allowed on big government property, like an office building or something. And so, they expelled a guy who thought, questioned, he was really on the border apparently, whether he was on campus or off campus at this point nowadays, they expelled him. They had him in the car ready to take him away, and the students all just surrounded the car. And eventually, I think he and a policeman were in there for 24 hours or something like that before they could rescue him. And that is what started the whole thing. And so, in that context, the YAF chapter stood with the, yeah, I think we call it the [inaudible]. Other groups opposed. As it got on, it became not so much free speech for everyone, but free speech for us, but no speech, right? For anyone else. And therefore, when people wanted to debate issues, there was no debate because there was only one right side, left side. So, from that point on, it became not a question of free speech on campus, but really who is going to control the campus? Whether to let the student activists or the administration [inaudible] control. And at that point, yeah, on almost every campus, yeah, I do not want to say they were defenders of the establishment, but in effect they were defenders of order on campus.

SM (00:39:50):
How about the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg? Because he was big. He was actually speaking on college campuses and there was a lot of-

WT (00:40:01):
Yeah.

SM (00:40:01):
That was big.

WT (00:40:03):
Yeah, it was. And I think the only thing I could say is that they would, yeah, it would have been YAF would have been opposed mainly because he was perceived and rightly so, as part of an anti-war leftist movement that was against the war in Vietnam. And less concerned about the issue of disclosing information as contrasted with just him as the spokesman for the left.

SM (00:40:35):
How about the Chicago 8 Trial? Which is these names here that I have on my list are the eight defendants, and their two main lawyers. So, they were well known left activists, all of them.

WT (00:40:48):
Yeah. YAF would have been opposed to every bit of that and their actions and their efforts to defend themselves. So yeah, that was an issue that certainly was talked about after the 1968 Convention where all that writing took place.

SM (00:41:10):
Now I get kind of in particular here in some of these other ones, what was the Young Americans for Freedom's thoughts on the American Indian Movement? A lot of West Coast colleges were really linked to this, California, Oregon. And so, the takeover of Alcatraz in (19)69 was pretty big. And then of course the tragedy Wounded Knee in (19)73. And then where was YAF on the aim?

WT (00:41:41):
I do not think actively involved. Not actively involved. It was not a front burner issue for the organization. And if they actually took a stand on it, I cannot recall it.

SM (00:42:00):
Some say the very big major last protest, 1969 in Washington, the Moratorium?

WT (00:42:07):
Right.

SM (00:42:07):

Where was YAF on that?
WT (00:42:10):
Totally opposed. Organized against it. That was the occasion of the start of what was referred to as the Tell it to Lanoy Movement with distribution of literature and speakers on campuses, not on the date of the big rally in DC but surrounding it from the board some after. The message that YAF was saying is, "You're talking to the wrong people. Tell it Lanoy. If you want to stop the slaughter and the murder of children and the bombing and everything else, tell it to Lanoy, which is the force that is trying to overtake the Soviet government.

SM (00:42:53):
And then two other real strong activist groups.

WT (00:43:00):
Okay. Yeah.

SM (00:43:01):
Yeah. Earth Day in (19)70, the Environmental Movement, and of course the Gay and Lesbian Movement from Stonewall in (19)69. They all evolved and took their lead from.

WT (00:43:12):
Well Earth Day, I think was a concern that, and the movement and the environmentalists were trying to restrict and limit the American business and the capitalist system. At that point in time, I think that was more the concern and the focus on the issue itself. Stonewall, fully oblivious to it, I think as an organization. And if social security is the third rail of American politics, to a large degree at that period of time and throughout the (19)70s, and I am going to say almost all the (19)80s, in the organization, homosexuality was probably the third rail of the Conservative Movement. And this is a period of time when virtually all homosexuals, female or male were, as the expression goes, in the closet. It existed. There were a number of gays who were involved. I do not know of any lesbians per se, but a number of male gays who were involved in the Conservative Movement through that period of time. And it was not an issue that was discussed with any extent. I think it was predominant probably in the organization what was culturally the accepted mode of the time that homosexuality was not something that was accepted as, I do not want to use the word normal, but as the norm and one's sexual orientation was not discussed in public. So, what happens later on in the organization, and by that, I mean by late, early (19)90s, is the strain comes in that is very anti-homosexual and start talking about sodomites and all of this stuff, which certainly not anywhere [inaudible].

SM (00:45:46):
I know that in some of my interviews, because I have interviewed some major gay leaders and activists, and their dislike of Ronald Reagan is so intense because of the AIDS crisis. And when you mentioned the word, and these are the activists, these are the gay and lesbian activists of then and now, he is despised because he would not even talk about the issue, would not even recognize it as an issue. So, when you're talking about AIDS around (19)81 to (19)85, that is a serious issue for them.

WT (00:46:20):
Yes. You are right. And I do not think, and it probably was overlooked in the [inaudible] and regarded as, "Well, if you shut down the bath houses, maybe there would not be AIDs," kind of, which was an emotional and irrational reaction to it.

SM (00:46:43):
How about the Women's Movement and the formation of the National Organization For Women?

WT (00:46:49):
Right.

SM (00:46:49):
It became very powerful. And there has been many offshoots of that group as well, but that particular-

WT (00:46:55):
Well, this is again, I think sort of like we talked about the impetus of the free speech movement at Berkeley. This is similar. I think at the beginning of the Woman's Movement, there was a good deal of support, but not just solely among females in the organization, but in general for what the objectives were of equal treatment and opportunities and non-discrimination against females. And I go in the book to a discussion of that in the early (19)70s, there was a number of articles that were written pro and con, and letters pro and con on the Woman's Movement. And I think the one thing in YAF was the use of the Women's Movement by the political left as an organizing tool. They were opposed to, in distinction, to the objective of the Women's Movement, which was equal treatment. There were even some, the Equal Rights Amendment came up about the early (19)70s period and associated with this. And while most in the YAF were against that for amending the Constitution, there were a few supporters, particularly some female leaders in the organization saying that, "Well, this is the only way you can guarantee that there is equal treatment of females." So, there's a little bit of diversity on that issue.

SM (00:48:28):
And my talks with some of the women feminists, many look at Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan as mainstream. And of course, Bella Abzug is more out there in the extremes. This is a very sensitive area, the Black Panthers and the Brown Berets. The whole issue of black power with, as someone said to me, when you start saying Black Panthers, you better define who you're talking about. Because there were so many different personalities from Huey Newton to the two Cleavers, Kathleen and Eldridge, Bobby Seal, H. Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael toward the end when he left SNCC and certainly the death of Fred Hampton and Dave Hilliard and Elaine Brown, the list goes on and on. Angela Davis was not a Black Panther. So, your thoughts on what did YAF think of the Black Panthers and the Brown Berets from the Chicano Movement?

WT (00:49:28):
Yeah, okay. Certainly the Black Berets, the Black Panthers or sorry. There is the two. Very much opposed to them, wrote a lot against them, excuse me, felt they were part of the Left Wing Movement on campuses and in communities, were using violence, like the Malcolm X, by any means necessary. And so, were totally opposed to their methodology. In terms of their objectives, some of which they might have supported, which was empowerment for Black community and entrepreneurial opportunities. But it was certainly their methodology that was totally opposed. Brown Berets, the question might be directed best to somebody who was in California or Arizona or the West Coast. They were a non-entity for us who were then living on the coast. And so, I do not think there was much. Later on, there is reaction against Cesar Chavez, the great boycott and the United Farm Workers Union, but that is different from the Brown Berets.

SM (00:50:51):
Did they support that?

WT (00:50:51):
No, not at all.

SM (00:50:54):
See? The Brown Berets are awful. They are also very strong in Newark and New York City because that is where Puerto Rican and they're a very strong group and they really admire the Black Panthers.

WT (00:51:10):
Yeah and that certainly... No, YAF did not have any real involvements or attention directed towards them.

SM (00:51:19):
That whole, "I have a dream," speech in '63 because it really brought forth most of the civil rights leaders of that time and Dr. King and Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph and the list goes on and on. Where was YAF when that major march was happening in '63? And then even as years later, Dr. King went against the Vietnam War and he was criticized heavily even within the African American community, but what were the thoughts on Dr. King, SNCC, SCLC, CORE?

WT (00:51:55):
I think that, "I have a Dream," speech was one that even YAF certainly since then, most conservatives have said that is a great speech and that our children should grow up in a society where they are based upon the [inaudible] their character and not the color of their skin. All of that has been recited by conservatives nowadays. But I think even back then, most conservatives would have been and the YAF would have been, "Yes, we agree with that." The march on Washington more in terms of geez, this is the right way to go about it in a society based on the rule of law. At that point, it did not [inaudible] their turn. And certainly, when he gave the Vietnam War speech, that was something that YAFers would have turned against him.

SM (00:52:54):
How about the whole concept of non-violent protests? Because the Civil Rights Movement in the early (19)60s through right probably up to the time Dr. King died, and even in maybe with the other leaders too, like Ralph Abernathy has said, "Go ahead, disrupt. Non-violent protest, Gandhi, go to jail for your beliefs," that kind of thing. Where would the YAF stand on that?

WT (00:53:19):
Probably supporting the methodology to some extent, although they would not have been supporters of both [inaudible]. Non-violent protests would be something that they would still be in favor of certainly.

SM (00:53:36):
And I think we have already talked about the student protest because when you think of student protest, you do think of Columbia (19)68, Harvard Square, Kent State in (19)70. The tragedy at Wisconsin, Berkeley, and I know in all the SUNY systems and all the Ohio colleges, Ohio University for one, a major protest for years.

WT (00:54:01):
And the YAF stood against all that and was organizing as much as possible on campuses using a couple approaches, one of which was what was called Majority Coalition, which was the distribution for blue buttons, stood for peace on [inaudible]. Taking the position that students had a contract with university and education classes should be held, campuses should not be shut down. And a few instances, YAF leaders actually sued administrations for the loss of tuition by virtue of closing the campus early and/or suspending classes for a period of time to go along with the-

SM (00:54:48):
Which happened a lot after Kent State-

WT (00:54:52):
Yes.

SM (00:54:52):
Yeah. The other group is the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which really became strong in the early (19)70s. And Bobby Muller is a very well-known Vietnam Veteran who, when he went to war, he was gung ho. But when he came back, he said with a lot of Vietnam Veterans Against the War said that he realized that America is not always the good guy. And he has actually been saying that his entire life in all the things he's done. And of course he was paralyzed for the service. Your thoughts on what YAF thought about the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and that mentality that Bobby had?

WT (00:55:34):
Well, two things. I think, number one, we thought that they were wrong on the position on the war. And that the war was a legitimate war against communist aggression from the north. And that we were right to be aiding our allies in South Vietnam and with all kinds of agenda to it like maybe they ought to be more involved. Maybe they ought to be more Vietnamization. Maybe we ought to relying more on both Vietnam itself to carry the war and non-American soldiers, but still to be supportive of that effort. So, we would have disagreed with the whole approach or the whole position of the organization's approach.

SM (00:56:19):
Let me turn my tape here-

WT (00:56:21):
And I think we would also, YAF would have also feel that in the vast majority of cases, nothing being absolute, America is the good guy, and America stands for certain values, but are applicable not only in North America or in a geographical territory [inaudible].

SM (00:56:42):
Right. I know Bobby Muller and Ron Kovic were two of the leading anti-war activists. I know we talk about John Kerry, but he was not even in the same league with those two. Hold on, I have to turn my tape over. Hold. Yeah. We're almost under these vote sections here. And was YAF inbound in prison rights, too? What did they think about there were a lot of happenings in the (19)60s about what happened at Attica with the Prison Rights in (19)71? And certainly Angela Davis made the news with the George Jackson situation at San Quentin. Where did YAF stand on all the Prison Rights issues?

WT (00:57:28):
Nowhere. I do not think it was something on their radar or their attention span. Though I do not think there was any position on that.

SM (00:57:44):
The whole-

WT (00:57:44):
On Angela Davis who was described as a communist and if they were in opposition, anything, pretty much anything she did, virtue of right knowledge.

SM (00:57:53):
Did they ever have any thoughts on George Jackson because he had kind of symbolized the inmates at the time?

WT (00:58:04):
Not that I am aware of.

SM (00:58:07):
Yeah. The whole thing, the concept of what the Young Americans of Freedom thought about the hippies, the Yippies, the counterculture, Woodstock, the Summer of Love and of course the tragedy of Altamont, where were they on all those kinds of cultural things?

WT (00:58:24):
Divided. There was an element, particularly those who consider themselves more libertarian who closely identified with that. And the expression of individual freedom and individual rights that they associated with that. And then there was a more traditionalist element to well, they might have liked music and things like that, felt that it was going too far. So, it was really divided.

SM (00:58:59):
Yeah. I get right into the music here, because you cannot talk about the (19)60s, early (19)70s without the music. I mean, it was a very political force. It was a cultural force. It was a... Well, just a pleasure force for many and you're talking about the rock musicians of the period, the folk music, the Motown sound, even country in Western was really evolving at this time. Where was YAF? And were they listening to all this music?

WT (00:59:28):
Yes. Very much so and I think that you get different music reviews actually in the magazine of some of the art at the time and trying to interpret politically some of what the artists were expressing. Certainly the Beatles song Revolution was one that was very much listened to and in depth was endeared to that song. They had a poster with the people on it of [inaudible] because it was an anti, if you recall the word though, it was anti-revolt message. Yep. [inaudible]

SM (01:00:17):
How about John Lennon's Give Peace A Chance and Imagine?

WT (01:00:23):
Yeah. Those two would be exceptions to what I just said.

SM (01:00:24):
Oh, okay.

WT (01:00:27):
I think they would have been politically not agreed with. Maybe Imagine a little bit, but certainly not Give Peace a Chance. But not even Imagine. I mean, they would listen to it, but the words, they would tone two-note probably. Yeah. Watergate, Ford Pardon, Carter Amnesty. Young Americans for Freedom divorced itself from Richard Dixon in 1971, along with many other conservative politicians, individual, and was not supportive of Nixon well before Watergate ever broke. They were involved in the movement for trying to nominate John Ashbrook as a protest to Nixon in the 1952 primaries. When the 1972 election came along and McGovern was Democrat's choice, they were certainly opposed to McGovern, but they did not like Nixon. So, what the YAF formed was local clubs on campuses called Youth Against McGovern, indicating that we really could not come right out [inaudible] Nixon because we did not agree with him and without giving [inaudible] a bad name. But we were certainly an opposed to governing the way he [inaudible] the country. The Ford pardon? I do not think we really had a position too much on that, but Carter's Amnesty, we were opposed to. Well, opposed to [inaudible] those two had gone [inaudible].

SM (01:02:13):
I added these last two. Obviously, they probably did not like Black students with guns at Cornell Campus, but the historic event of the (19)68 Olympics with Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising their fists. They were not Black... We had Tommie on our campus. They were not Black Panthers. They get upset when they mentioned that they do not even like the Black Panthers. It was Black power to them. And just, that was a major event in (19)68 along with all the other things, but-

WT (01:02:44):
Yeah. I think like everything else, it symbolized left on campus and the Left Movement in America. Probably no focus on them individually too much or what they did. Although it was...

SM (01:03:01):
That meeting at Sharon was very historic in 1960. For the record, I know it is all in the book and I know you are a lot of things, but who was present? Whose idea was it to meet? Who were some of the personalities that were present and who went on to greater fame and other organizations? And why was there a feeling that student activists needed to organize this group on college campus around the country?

WT (01:03:35):
Yeah. I will try to summarize this succinctly again. The late 1960s, excuse me, late 1950s there started to be a little bit of an organization of a conservative orient individuals. Started with, I am going to say the National Student Defense Act and the program- And the program of giving scholarships to certain students and also grants to certain universities for science and other things, kind of... I guess kind of a reaction to the US realization that technologically we were not quite as advance as we should be. And part of that was the loyalty of that. Students who received funding, had scholarships to study on, had to sign an agreement that they were to defend the constitution and support the constitution and that they were not involved in any organizations they advocate to be of the government. There was a movement from the left... Oh, a number of campuses and college presidents said, "oh, we cannot do this because this is in denial of academic freedom, cannot make them sign it". And so there was a movement in Congress led by John F. Kennedy to repeal the loyalty of provision. And this was like 1959. And a few students led by two people, David Frankie and Doug Caddy, who were then students at Georgetown. George Washington and Georgetown respectively. Started organizing national students for the Loyalty Oath and made contacts primarily, I believe, through what was then the young republicans on college campus across the country lined up one or more individuals on 120 campuses and wrote congressmen and testified on Capitol Hill. For various unknown reasons the repeal never went through. I think it passed in the Senate, but never got a hearing in the house or something like that. Anyway, that was the impetus. That was followed up quickly by the 1960 Republican Convention in Chicago where a group of young, who were enamored of Barry Goldwater and his then just recently released The Conscience of Conservative, came together to organize youth for Goldwater for Vice President push at the Chicago Convention to nominate him. There was a subsidiary of that that was also supporting Walter Judd, who at that time was keynote speaker and was a congressman from Minnesota as Vice President. Marvin Leman, who was kind of an impresario of the right and organizer of many paper organizations of Frank. Basically underwrote the funding for both youth for Goldwater for Vice President and youth for... Well, Judd kiddingly said "the only time in history, that two candidates’ for Vice President were both funded with same American Express card."

SM (01:07:32):
Oh my gosh.

WT (01:07:32):
So, these people got to know each other first through mail, I guess because we did not have any other, and telephone on the loyalty of issue. And then physically came together in Chicago to try to organize this way. At the end of that, there were two meetings at the end of the convention. One Goldwater came by and thanked the youth for Goldwater people and said that he had made a speech on the force, said, "conservatives grow up. If you want to take back this party, and I think you can just get organized". But then he came and he met with the youth for Goldwater people and said, "I think you ought to form a permanent organization, and if you do, I will support you". Likewise, the next day there was the... Marvin Leman had a meeting with both of the... from the leadership, both of those gentlemen. And that is where the discussion focused around, "we ought to form an organization. Well we have got to have a meeting, where will we have it?" And somebody, I think it was Leman, somebody said, "well, why do not we ask Bill Buckley if we can have it at his family upstate?" And that was the purpose for the meeting. Buckley family, his mother actually, it is her house, she agreed to do it. And then Caddy, who was working for the McGraw-Edison company, was given the time to organize and send all invitations that went to, I believe 120 college and undergrad graduate students, law students and others inviting them to come to the meeting at Sharon. This would have been... The convention was in July of (19)60, this would have been in August. They were invited at their own expense to come to a meeting in September 9 and 11 in Sharon, Connecticut at the Buckley family at Bay. Some 95, 96 people showed up, none of whom were over the age of 27. And I think, I do not know if there was a high school, there might have been one or two high schools. The rest of them were undergrad, grad and law school, or a very small number of 15 or so who were young professionals. And that is the meeting where the organization came into being. Buckley and Bill Buckley himself was there, along with Bill Rusher, who was there at the publisher, Marvin Leman Vic Milione, who was the president of Intercollegiate Society of Individualists, now known as Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

SM (01:10:49):
Oh yeah. Right in Delaware. Yep.

WT (01:10:54):
And Frank Pousel, who was Buckley's brother-in-law, had been the ghost writer for [inaudible] conservatives. Those five guys were all regarded as too old as senior mentors. And they were all, Buckley at that time was 35. The others were all in their 30, but they were too old. I mean, this is how young the conservative movement was at that time. That these guys, none of them would reach 40 with an outer state movement. And who were they? There were a couple who became Congressman, Bob... No, Bob [inaudible] John Kolbe from longtime congressman from Arizona Was there, there were a number of writers, other individuals, the list they [inaudible].

SM (01:12:00):
What and what were their ultimate, were their main goals when they left after that meeting. What were the main goals they wanted to accomplish?

WT (01:12:08):
Number one, organize. And come together so they could network and share their experiences and try to advance conservative principles on college campuses and in community. And as a secondary goal, as a more specific one, was to advance the possible candidacy of Barry Goldwater.

SM (01:12:34):
Yeah, that is important because I am going to skip 9-A here for a second. I want to go right to 10 because this is something... Even if it is just general knowledge, people who do not read a lot of history but know basic information, and I have heard this a long time, that the 64 Goldwater Miller campaign has often been somewhat misunderstood with the respect to its importance in American politics in the last half of 20th century. In the years following the election, people remember how one side of the election was, Goldwater was basically destroyed by Johnson in the election. However, it was a major step in the creation of the conservative party and weigh it's influence in American politics that had gone unreported. Why is... When we think of that election, we think of that great quote from Goldwater, that we think of... and we think of the pick the person that no one really knew whose daughter has gone on to become a pretty good political commentator herself. And then of course that he was a good senator, but he should not have been running for president. Yet. He was so important.

WT (01:13:49):
Yeah-yeah, exactly.

SM (01:13:51):
And so, people downplay this moment because he got creamed.

WT (01:13:55):
Yeah-yeah, yeah, exactly.

SM (01:13:57):
Your thoughts on anything there on that?

WT (01:14:00):
Okay. All right, let us go back. In the early (19)60s when YAF was founded after the 1960 presidential... YAF was founded just after the presidential election. Well, let us go beyond that election. Kennedy's elected. Goldwater is the hero of the right, particularly among young conservatives. And there a growing number of them on college campuses to a large degree in that period of the early (19)60s, there was a radical movement on college campuses. It was of conservatives. Conservatives were the outspoken advocates. There is a quote I have in the book from one student at University of Wisconsin and he says, "when I walk around campus with my Goldwater button on, you feel the thrill of treason". And I think that summarizes to a large extent the attitude of people who were in YAF, who were backing Goldwater is we are doing something that is against the establishment that is going to change society. And here is the guy who can lead it. Conscience of a conservative became through its paperback edition a tremendous seller on college campuses and an influence. So, Goldwater became very much the leader and the political, I mean Buckley was somewhat the ideological leader, philosophical leader, but Goldwater was the political figure around whom everyone in the organization and on the right really identified, but there was no one else. And what was building up in our minds and in Goldwater's mind and in many people’s, mind was a clash of philosophical and ideological importance in 1964, when Kennedy would defend liberalism and Goldwater would defend conservatism in America would have the great debate over which way the country ought to be moving. Goldwater and Kennedy is... From Goldwater's perspective, at least in the books and things that I have read, was felt a friendship with Kennedy. And they were individually liked each other, but obviously disagreed on philosophical positions. And Goldwater had this, whether it's a totally optimistic idea or not, but he reports that he had talked with Kennedy and they had even discussed the possibility of these are just the early days before a lot of securities concerns now that they would go on a plane from city to city and debate probably never would have come into being, but that is at least what he said or has said. But that is indicative of the way he was approaching that 1964 election and many people were. Then comes November of 22nd of 1963, the tragedy in Dallas, which results obviously not only in the assassination of the president and to the White House of Lyndon Johnson. But in the media at that time, a black mark on conservatives, the blame is, even though there's obviously a reason for it, and Lee Harvey Oswald was who he was, that somehow conservatives because they were strong and in Dallas were responsible for all this. You still there?

SM (01:17:39):
Yep, I am here.

WT (01:17:42):
Okay, because I am getting bleeps on my phone. I do not know what is going on.

SM (01:17:47):
Oh, I hope your power is not going out again.

WT (01:17:49):
Oh, hold on for just a minute.

SM (01:17:50):
Yep.

WT (01:17:52):
Oh, it says low battery. Hold on, let me...

SM (01:17:57):
You have your regular phone?

WT (01:17:59):
Pardon?

SM (01:17:59):
Do you have your regular phone landline or?

WT (01:18:03):
No, this is the landline. Hold on, see if I can get another one.

SM (01:18:06):
Okay.

WT (01:18:06):
Maybe, hold on, [inaudible].

(01:18:07):
Are you there?

SM (01:18:20):
Yep, I am here.

WT (01:18:21):
Okay. All right. Okay. There is going to be this great debate and then comes Johnson and Johnson's totally different guy and Goldwater is totally demoralized. Probably does not want to run for them at that point, but he says, and I quote this in the book, "they came to me and they said there were all these young people who wanted me to run and were encouraged and developed all across the country". And so, I said, "okay, I will go". That is probably kind of a little bit of literary licensed by Goldwater there and his motivation. But anyway, it does stress how important the youth movement across the country was in backing Goldwater and motivate him to run.

SM (01:19:15):
Well. I am glad.

WT (01:19:15):
And that is it.

SM (01:19:17):
Yeah. Well, I am glad you present this because, when people are reading these oral history interviews, I want them to learn and I... It is like, for example, when Harry Summers, I do not know if you know Colonel Summers, before he passed away, we had him come to Westchester University to talk about the Vietnam War and he said the one thing that they never teach in courses on the Vietnam War, on the university campuses, is the military point of view. And so we had Harry coming and then he got very sick and then he died. And so same thing, certain things are left out, I do not want things left out.

WT (01:20:02):
Yeah, exactly. And that is it. So, it was from that Goldwater movement that so many people who were active in the (19)90s and the early part of the 21st century in conservative movement really got their start. Whether they were high school students, many of them were, or college students or young adults. And the important lesson, I guess also, that I would emphasize is, and I think this is a message for some of the people who are involved in the Tea Party perhaps, although a different outcome there, is they did not give up after that defeat, which was a resounding defeat. They said, it is time to organize and keep fighting and went on in the ones in California elected Reagan as governor in (19)66, and then in New York in (19)70 elected Jim Buckley and were involved in Reagan's presidential campaign.

SM (01:21:02):
That goes right... I am actually going to do questions 11 and 12 before 9-A. And that is that, when Ronald Reagan came to power in California, he took on two issues, which was obviously the law and order issue to stop the student protests and the destruction of the classes, and particularly against the free speech movement and the people's parks situation (19)69. And then he fired the President Kurt, for not being tough enough with students. And then of course he wanted to end the welfare state. He was against the system of welfare and he hoped to stop it. And he used those two issues. Also, law and order and welfare when he ran for president, yet became connected to Ronald Reagan in (19)76 and (19)80 and beyond. How important was their role in his election as governor in California? And then of course his election as President of the United States?

WT (01:21:56):
Very important in, let us take (19)66, the first election, it was people who were associated with YAF who were head of the students were Reagan [inaudible] and went on... As a matter of fact, YAF was able to recruit at that time, there was a guy by the name of Sam Yorty who had been the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles.

SM (01:22:22):
Oh yeah, I remember. Yep.

WT (01:22:22):
Democratic Governors nomination, the leader of the youth for Yorty, the leader of youth for Christopher. There was a former San Francisco mayor by the name of George Christopher who ran against Reagan in the Republican Party and both of their youth leaders joined YAF along with the people who were involved in the Reagan campaign and all backed Reagan in the general election. Who were some of these people? Sean Steele, who is now the Republican National Committee man from California and is the former Republican state chairman of California, was the head of high school students for Reagan. And later on, the national board of YAF. Dana Rohrabacher, who's a congressman from Orange County since the last 20 years, I guess.

SM (01:23:16):
Yes. He has been on TV a lot.

WT (01:23:21):
Yeah. He was one of the high school leaders for Reagan in 66 and went on to be very involved and eventually ended up being a speech writer at the White House when Reagan went to president, prior to being elected to Congress. Bill Cinosino who is a very active political consultant in California was also a leader of the youth for Reagan. I think he just started at USC then. So those were a few, there were a number of others who were very active in his election. And it came to the point where as Cinosino and others said from that point on, YAF and Reagan were tied at the hip, and whatever Reagan did as governor was reflective of YAF, and somewhat vice versa. When YAF got into some ideological disputes at its 1969 convention, and some of the more libertarian members were going off doing things like advocating the legalization of marijuana and draft resistant, a few other things like that. Some of them were removed from the organization, but Reagan was very much concerned about what was happening to the organization. In my book, I cite some correspondence...

SM (01:24:49):
Yes-yes.

WT (01:24:49):
... From Bill Buckley about this and indicative of how closely the two were associated for YAF, whatever Reagan did was a reflection on YAF, but vice versa, whatever YAF did was a reflection on Reagan. And Reagan was obviously looking to his 1970 reelection.

SM (01:25:10):
Yes.

WT (01:25:11):
And concerned about what was this youth group doing, that might embarrass him. But not that he wanted to divorce himself from it, but he wanted to be concerned to make sure was on the right track. So that is it.

SM (01:25:25):
Yeah. You do a great job in the book of explaining that in 69 when students from Democratic Society was having their issues in terms of the direction they were going, and of course they went the wrong direction with the weather men, and then many quit SDS, this same time was the timeframe that these battles were going on for the conscience of the young Americans for Freedom.

WT (01:25:54):
Exactly.

SM (01:25:55):
And so that... See, that is an important part of history that also has to be known.

WT (01:26:00):
Right-right. I agree.

SM (01:26:03):
I have always wondered your thoughts on the press because, and many people that I have interviewed for this project say, the press always loves to sensationalize the bad and not really talk about what is the good. When you, please describe the press in the (19)60s and early (19)70s and white groups like SDS, the Weathermen, the Panthers, AIM, Vietnam vets against the war, Brown Berets, now, all these other groups, environmental groups, received greater press than YAF. Why was YAF shut out, so to speak, and what was their stand? Well, why was the press not talking more about the Young Americans for Freedom?

WT (01:26:41):
Well, it depends. There was some discussion, not as much national, but I think I cite a few things in my book, a couple articles in Parade Magazine, there was an interview with Philip Appaloosa at the time was college director at [inaudible] Playboy, and there was some coverage and some local news, but mainly the coverage occurred when we were having counter demonstrations or rallies in opposition to the left. I do think that the left caught the attention of the media because of the kinds of activities they engaged in, the more drama that is associated with or takeover or protests of one sort or another. And admittedly, those things, perhaps bad news is more reflective in the media than good news. And that is just kind of the way it is. People do good deeds every day, but they do not get in the news.

SM (01:27:53):
What was their stand on the Vietnam War it's my understanding that they oppose the war, but received little coverage.

WT (01:28:00):
Now, who opposed the war?

SM (01:28:02):
The YAF.

WT (01:28:05):
No. No.

SM (01:28:05):
That is not true?

WT (01:28:07):
That is not true. I do not know of anyone of substance in the organization that opposed the war. As we get into the (19)70s, there is a discussion in how important that ought to be pushed as an issue, and some people in the organization are getting very depressed about the outcome of the war, but I do not think they... And they said we ought to downplay our involvement in support of the war, but not that they were opposed to the war.

SM (01:28:44):
Do you like the term boomer generation? Is there a better term that you feel describes this, 74 to 79 million born between (19)46 and (19)64?

WT (01:28:57):
No, that I think it is fine, and I think it is the reflection of population patterns that occurred after the World War II. So, no, I do not have any problem with it.

SM (01:29:12):
I am going to get to 9-A eventually here, but I want to mention also about the fact that Dana, I have worked with the Young Americas Foundation for many years when I worked in the university with Pat Coyle and...

WT (01:29:21):
Oh yeah.

SM (01:29:22):
I got to know Ron Robinson just in the past year, and I had Michelle Easton on our campus. But what is interesting is, and I have had some conversations with Pat about this several years back, and that is that, I am an activist and he is doing organizing activists who are conservatives. And I have always had this feeling that when, this is my question here, when one thinks of activists, oftentimes some people think of liberals, not conservatives, but activism is no political boundaries. Everyone can be an activist. And so it is. Do you feel as a former leader of YAF that groups like YAF are not considered activists by the media because they are conservative, not liberal? It is just something that I have always had a question on.

WT (01:30:10):
No, I am not sure that is true. I think it probably was true during the period of time that we were reflecting on mainly here. But I think if we look at the time today, the media portrays the Tea party as activist, and indeed they are. And so, I am not quite sure. I think it's just that they did not give that much coverage to what YAF was doing. It is not that they did not regard them as activists, but I may be wrong on that.

SM (01:30:44):
We already talked about number 15, so we do not have to go over that again before we get 16. I want to read this for the record. This is a question I have asked everyone from day one. This is just a question now, it is an observation. The extreme rank, and I am going to read it for the record. The extreme right and conservative forces like to blame the generation that grew up after World War II for many of the problems we have in American society today due to the sexual revolution, the breakup of the American family, loss of church and synagogue attendants, extensive drug culture, the rise in the divorce rate, the "I want it now" mentality that some say caused the current financial crisis in America, i.e. A consumption society due to the fact that they were oftentimes spoiled as kids. The creation of the welfare state mentality where people ask for handouts or expect something for doing nothing or no sense of responsibility, lack of respect for people and authority, people and authority from all types of professions and leadership, lack of law and order due to student citizen protests in the (19)60s, (19)70s, and in some (19)50s, too many led to violence, arrogance, " we are right and you are wrong" mentality, extensive rights, complaints, indoctrination over education in our schools over higher learning. How do you respond as a fellow conservative to these criticisms? Sort a generation of 74 to 79 million who grew up after World War II and challenged the way they were brought up in the (19)50s via actions in the (19)60s, (19)70s, (19)80s, and beyond. And I end by saying, many people believe that this is really about the culture wars, your thoughts, knowing we went through a period in the late (19)80s, (19)90s and beyond where political correctness was used every day. I saw it every day in the university. It's less so today, leaders who have made negative comments about the excesses of the (19)60s and (19)70s include Newt Gingrich in (19)94. George Will and many of his columns over the years, David Horowitz, who went from an extreme leftist to extreme member of the right governor Huckabee on his TV show, Fox Channel, and people like O'Reilly, Beck on Fox, and of course Limbaugh on Radio. Your thoughts.

WT (01:33:08):
Wow, that is a tough one. First of all, I think you have obviously cited a number of the issues that have changed in American society. I think some for the good and some not for the good. And it has been, in a sense, a growth of individual expression in many ways, and a breakdown of the social barriers and mores that listed before. But I think there were all kinds of people who came out of this generation, and I do not think you can face a blanket responsibility on them. So yes, there have been some negatives, but there has been an awful lot of positives that have come out of the period of time in terms of our ability technologically and otherwise to communicate and to operate. Certainly, during this period of time, the downfall of the Soviet Union and international communist, certainly a positive, the internet, the technological development that are the [inaudible] So there is pluses in the minuses, and I do not think you can divide an entire generation. So.

SM (01:34:36):
Do you think that a lot of this is, we are still going through culture wars from that period, and we see...

WT (01:34:42):
Yeah. Yeah.

SM (01:34:42):
We seem to not be able to get over the (19)60s and (19)70s in just about anything.

WT (01:34:47):
Yes-yes, yes, that is true. And I think we are, and we are still fighting some of those wars, and these were issues that were not present when YAF was created. And through it is first period of time. We sometimes overlook, and I think I mentioned this in the book, I will just cite it here, that it was not until 1962 that the Supreme Court in (19)63, the Supreme Court came out with the prohibition on prayer in the public schools and Bible reading the readings prayer position, and then Ingovit versus Patali did not come out after YAF was founded. Of course, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act came after that. And Roe versus Wade was not until 1973. So, in the early years in the formation of the organization, there were the so-called social issued were not a factor, and even later, as I talked about the connection to the women's movement in the [inaudible] there were divisions and diversity opinion... [inaudible] diversity of opinion. One of the founders at Sharon is a guy named Richard Cowan, who has devoted his life literally to legalization of marijuana, on an individual's right, I am an individual so I do whatever they want with their own body kind of libertarianism. Within the context yeah within the organization's history, social issues were not a dominant factor. Admittedly, again, as I indicated earlier, by the late (19)80s and on they had come with the remnant that is still around of what remains of the organization, they did become more of a rallying call.

SM (01:36:52):
Wow. The next question is detailed, broken into many parts. What were some of the issues that upset the Young Americans for Freedom students on a college campus in the (19)60s and (19)70s? How did they protest, how successful were they? And of course, we have already gone over they were upset with what happened at Columbia, Berkeley, Harvard, and Kent State and People's Park and college protests. But what were their tactics? How big were their numbers? Were they successful? Did they fail in areas? Of course, I know these are probably the areas and correct me if I am wrong, you have mentioned in your book that in areas where the left organized teach-ins, campuses being shut down, buildings taken over, classes disrupted, faculty use classrooms to discuss current issues not the material being studied, taking over offices where administration was centered, including presidential offices, faculty uniting with students, not allowing ROTC military recruiting on campus, empowering students to be part of all university decision making if such decisions were linked to the war, research money's coming in for research linked to the war, many church students tried to stop this, bringing controversial speakers to campus who encouraged increased protests and challenging the system. Where was YAFF on these situations and were there times when SDS and YAFF or other liberal groups united toward a cause like Vietnam and the draft? There is a lot involved in this question but...

WT (01:38:37):
Yeah. Okay. Back to how did they react, how did they protest these kinds of activities that were happening starting with the Berkeley and then Columbia and on? A couple different tactics we used, one was the creation of Majority Coalition. That is to try to unite other students and other organizations on campus as much as possible in opposition to the left takeover of the building, to the left's attempt to close down the universities and the violence that was occurring. Probably a good example of that was Columbia in (19)68 and then on. Majority Coalitions were then advocated throughout much of the (19)60s, (19)68, (19)69 period, as the approach to advising YAFF chapter to take. The main thing was "let us unite with whoever is with us for order on campus." And an outgrowth of that came from California, which was the Blue Button Movement and that is to distribute simple buttons were just blue, no words on them, to reflective of order and peace on campus and encourage students to wear those. There was some reaction in the organization to the Majority Coalition approach by saying, "Wait a minute, we are doing all the work why are not we getting any of the credit? We ought to be doing this as the YAFF chapter and not allow ourselves to be sucked into doing all the work for something amorphous like the Majority Coalition." In some places it was the YAFF chapter that actually did do this, organized meetings, had demonstrations, counter demonstrations and things like that. In the book I talk about some of the counter demonstrations at Columbia, at Kent State, at Ohio State and other places. They obviously were in favor of continuing ROTC and military recruiting, Dow Chemical recruiting on campus and expressed positions on that. The draft is an issue that YAFF, from 1966 on wanted to eliminate the draft. Yes, could be some common cause with organizations on the left, not necessarily SDS but other organizations on the left on the position of abolishing the draft. However, as I indicated before, YAFF was for peaceful efforts to get the draft abolished it was not in favor of violence or demonstrations [inaudible].

SM (01:41:37):
There seemed to be something happening in the late (19)70s and it was not disco. There was something happening in the late (19)70s that was leading toward Ronald Reagan being elected president and I think young conservatives were a very important part of this. And maybe it was the conservatives were coming back into power and there was burnout from what had happened previously since John Kennedy became president. Since that election major... This is my perception and correct me if I am wrong, since that election in 1980, major conservative actors rose to power. And organizations like Young America's Foundation, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, college Republicans have always been there. The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute seem to become a much more major force in our society. Please give me a list of some of the personalities who begin. Well, you have already done that but is that true? Did they really... Is this their era when they really came to fruition?

WT (01:42:43):
Yes, yes. And I think that not only... Probably started with the 1976 campaign of Reagan to Oppose Gerald Ford to the Republican nomination. And personally I was a delegate to Reagan I was living in Arkansas teaching political science at that time and organized for Reagan in the Republican primary in Arkansas and then got elected to delegate Kansas City. And so many of us, there were, I think in the book I cite there were 85 or 90 Gaff members who were either delegates or alternates to that convention all of whom were pledged to Reagan. And then that built through the 1980 when Reagan was really start, excuse me, starting to be the heir apparent within the party and in his election. And then when then Benning gets [inaudible] and so many of these people were the people who took key staff positions in the administration. And either those who did not do that were involved in some of these extra governmental organization by cited who were after their service there went to Heritage American Enterprise [inaudible] Institute and other places like that.

SM (01:44:17):
Would you say that... I am into this really magic moment period and anything in history. And to me, the rise of Ronald Reagan first came about... I am a young guy and I am watching TV in the fall of (19)63 and I see him for a half hour speaking on national television on black and white TV for Barry Goldwater.

WT (01:44:41):
Yeah. Fall of (19)64.

SM (01:44:43):
Yeah. There was something about that moment I knew there was something happening here.

WT (01:44:49):
Yes, exactly. Exactly.

SM (01:44:51):
He was a great speaker, number one. But it is the way he talked, it is the way he presented I said, there is something going on here.

WT (01:44:58):
And the message.

SM (01:44:59):
Yes.

WT (01:45:00):
And the message was important at that time too. Yes, exactly. That is the impetus of the whole movement for the remainder of the 20th century in many ways.

SM (01:45:11):
Yeah. When President Reagan came to Power East stated, "We are back." What did he mean by that?

WT (01:45:18):
I am sorry.

SM (01:45:19):
He said we are back. Was he talking about...

WT (01:45:23):
Yes. Okay. What did he mean by that? He meant by that the country was back as a force in society and the American people were back. We had come out of the period of Lyndon, of Jimmy Carter and the malaise, the sense of America has limits, we cannot do everything, we have... We're living in an era when American power has to be looked at in a limited and we have to tone down our expectations for the future. And what Reagan was saying "We are back." Meaning that no, that is not the case, that we are still a shining city on a hill, that there is a future, there is optimism and we are still going to be a force for good in the world.

SM (01:46:16):
And then when President Bush came to power, he said, president Bush won, he said the Vietnam syndrome is over. And most people laugh at that because Vietnam is still in all of our discussions on foreign policy. What did he mean by that?

WT (01:46:33):
Well, I think he was hoping that it meant that our role in society and in the world... That first of all that we were not divided domestically anymore and that our role in the world was much stronger than, we could take a more active role in the world. And I agree with what you said, the Vietnam syndrome was not over I think it is still present with much of the boomer generation.

SM (01:47:08):
One of the things and I have interviewed several scholars at conservative think tanks and I remember one person, it will be in his interview, said that I am here because it's hard to survive in a predominantly liberal culture in today's universities. Do you agree with what he said? Many of the scholars, they could be at any university and they can probably be very successful be teachers but because they are conservative scholars or thinkers. It is hard to survive in what they consider a predominantly liberal culture.

WT (01:47:46):
Okay.

SM (01:47:47):
You believe that?

WT (01:47:48):
Let me try to answer this a different way. Number one, I think you have to take into consider consideration individual personalities. Some people who would be conservative in that kind of environment would get a thrill out of it because they want to be different, they want to be the outspoken individual and they might actually thrive in that kind of situation. And I think if you look at a number who are on college campuses, you might find that. I think a Robert Fork or a Judge Scalia would thrive in that because they like being that kind of a person. Others might because of their personality that they are being isolated out, they are not getting the appointment to the right committees, they are not being moved up from associate to full professor, et cetera, et cetera. I think that is more an individual's response to the situation in which they find themselves. Now, as to me personally, if we want to just spend a minute on that, I taught at Arkansas State full-time for three years. I was in an environment that was most hospitable. The chairwoman was a Democrat but I'd say probably a fairly moderate conservative Democrat. The department had 10 members there were probably five of us who voted Republicans so it was [inaudible], that environment I taught as an adjunct and at so what was then called Southwest Texas State University and they brought the southwest Texas State University now, for four years. The chairman, I have no idea what his politics were but he and I got along fine and I got along fine with the other people and I did not feel any animosity there so personally that did not hit home. But I know as you have indicated, there are others who have said that was...

SM (01:50:02):
Yeah. Well, when I interviewed Phyllis Schlafly actually was at the CPAC conference this past year because she was going to be in the Washington DC area and she granted me an hour and I know she was very tired so I really appreciated it and then David Horowitz has been on our campus several times. But in their writings and conversations, they have stated that they think that the troublemakers of the (19)60s and early (19)70s are the people that run today's universities and control many of the academic departments. Do you believe this to be true and if this is true, where is the young Americans for Freedom, the student organizations on campus fighting this? And I emphasize that one of the contributions that many people say that has, of the boomer generation is the fact that in the studies departments at all universities, whether it be gay/lesbian studies, women's studies, holocaust, black studies, peace studies, Asian American studies, Chicano, black studies, women's studies, that this is one of the positives that came out of the boomer generation. And so, there is no question that one of the results of the (19)60s and (19)70s is that these areas became a reality in higher ed. Your thoughts on that is a contribution from the boomer generation and the number two, the troublemakers question.

WT (01:51:35):
Yes, one could say that is a contribution in that period of time and an outgrowth of the first question of the troublemakers being now in charge. And I say contribution not in a positive sense but I think all these are fake studies in many ways and they are so specialized that they do not really belong in a Liberal Arts environment. But yes, they are a contribution of that much of the people from the left in the (19)60s and the (19)70s had went into academic careers, hold many departments and that part of it I think is true. And we [inaudible]. Bernadine Thorn and her husband, Bill, whatever his name is...

SM (01:52:36):
Bill Airs.

WT (01:52:37):
Yeah. Airs, yeah. As classic examples. Angela Davis is teaching on a college campus in California so there's many and many who are less identifiable names were of the left who were all across the country. Part of that I think, is that there was...

SM (01:53:00):
Hold on, can you hold?

(End of Interview)

2010-01-07

Stephen McKiernan

Wayne J. (Wayne Jacob) Thorburn, 1944-

220:20

English

Binghamton University Libraries

audio/mp4

Sound

Audio

Politicians—United States; Educators; Authors; Republican Party (U.S. : 1854- )--Texas; Thorburn, Wayne J. (Wayne Jacob), 1944--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.