Skip to main content
Libraries

Interview with Tom Wells

:: ::

Contributor

Wells, Tom ; McKiernan, Stephen

Description

Dr. Tom Wells is an editor, historian, and author. Dr. Wells wrote several books and contributed articles to multiple books on the Vietnam War and the 1960s. He has also received dozens of fellowships and grants from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, among other institutions. He has a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Berkeley.

Date

2010-08-19

Rights

In copyright

Date Modified

2018-03-29

Is Part Of

McKiernan Interviews

Extent

216:23

Transcription

McKiernan Interviews
Interview with: Tom Wells
Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan
Transcriber: REV
Date of interview: 19 August 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Start of Interview)

SM (00:00:04):
Very good. Yeah. My questions are going to be specific questions. Some of them not directly linked to your book, but a lot of them are. I just, first off, I want to say your book is excellent.

TW (00:00:16):
Oh, well, thank you.

SM (00:00:16):
Yeah, because I lived it. I was a college student from (19)66 to (19)70, as an undergrad and I went off to Ohio State in 1970. So, I was on SUNY Binghamton campus and then Ohio State, and then I went right off to Ohio University that had purged a lot of the students out of their campus after Kent State. So, a lot of the stuff that you talk about just brings back all these memories. And we will get to the interview here in a second, but I am going to ask a question later on about Father Hesburgh and what he said about university presidents, which was really tremendous. But first question I have for you, you are a little bit younger, and I know you state this at the beginning of your book but tell me a little bit about yourself. How you became a history professor, kind of what the influences on your life, that drove you to become a history professor and your interest in the (19)60s.

TW (00:01:14):
Well, I am not actually a history professor. I am...

SM (00:01:16):
Sociology.

TW (00:01:17):
Independent. Yeah. I taught sociology individual courses for a while in the early (19)90s, the Bay Area at University of San Francisco, San Jose State in Mills College. But I was raised in Oregon and was not very political or scared, but I was part of the counterculture during particularly the early steps that belong, smoked a lot of pot, done a lot of drugs. And let us edit that to say, "took some drugs." But I was not very political. And I got to University of Oregon in, I was an undergraduate in 1970. 1974 was when I started because I took a year off after high school and I graduated high school. So, (19)74, and I took a class called Crisis in a Capitalist World, from Sir Marcus Gray. That and a bunch of other courses as a sociology major at University of Oregon, had a big impact on me and radicalized me politically. And I have been on the left since then. This was the (19)70s. And University of Oregon had a very political sociology department and a radical sociology department. So, the courses I took there had a big impact on my political views. And like I said, I have been pretty much on the left since then. Have not moved right. Well, let us take a step back. I mean, for a while I considered myself a sexist.

SM (00:02:46):
You consider yourself a what?

TW (00:02:49):
I considered myself a Marxist for a while. And this was the (19)70s, right?

SM (00:02:53):
Yes.

TW (00:02:53):
And mid-(19)70s and Red Lennon, et cetera. So, in that sense I would certainly, I would no longer consider myself a Marxist, but I am still on the left. So, in that sense, I have not the right word. And then when I was at Berkeley, so I went to Columbia two years as a graduate student and then I went to Berkeley after that, transferred. And when I went to Berkeley, I started getting interested in the anti-Vietnam war movement because I basically missed it, I did not participate. Like I said, I was not paying a lot of attention to it. I see some of the images on TV, but my parents, at least my father was Republican. Remember I mentioned in the book, I remember thinking George Govern was the one who was buying at 72, which is bizarre, because up to retrospect of everything I know about George Govern. He is a very decent man. And Richard Nixon is not, was not, but that is the perception I had. But then I got in at Berkeley, I got interested in the Vietnam War movement and I went to this conference at USC, in roughly (19)83 on the Vietnam board. It was a big conference and they had a lot of people, a lot of journalists, [inaudible], anti-war activist. And it was about some people from the government, I think. And it really had a huge impact to me, in getting me interested in Vietnam because I was just remember coming away from that thinking, "God, how did they get away with it?" Because I was just overwhelmed by the horror in the front and the fact that they did it. And so that really keeps...

SM (00:04:26):
In your opinion, when you look at the generation born between 1946 and (19)64, better known as the boomer generation, and I prefaced this by saying that I realize after my interview process, that both born between maybe (19)39 and (19)45 had the spirit of the (19)60s because many of them were the leaders. So, even though they were not listed within the boomers but what do you feel are some of the misperceptions that have been leveled at this generation by the media and the critics?

TW (00:04:56):
I do not know. Some of the perceptions that they are very self-historic and self-indulgent, have all sold out. I think one of the stereotypes, it is kind of partly a looking at Bill Queen, the hysterical helping son of baby boomers, and that sincerity he put forward there. This is the general idea that everybody became totally a naval gazer and then essentially sold out and sent started devalue. I know I think a lot of people did move to the right is my understanding. I do not know the date on the [inaudible] well all, but a lot of people have moved to the right. I think general consensus...

SM (00:05:39):
Kind of as a shoot off of that question is what are some of the facts that are often left out when criticism is sent toward the generation? Little known facts or deeds with respect to how important young people were in the anti-war movement. I have had people that I have interviewed that say very important without, and then I have had some people saying of minimal importance. Of course.

TW (00:06:01):
Well, student protest was central to the whole thing. I mean, what was happening on the Campus Central? They were a big part of the sense of a country coming apart at the seams, that a lot of people in the government, public. In some sense, they were a driving force. I mean there were just a lot of young people, activists, a lot of creative ideas and a lot of very artistic. I learned a lot about get some forest. A lot of younger people. I mean, some of the veteran leaders in the anti-war were older. People like Dave [inaudible].

SM (00:06:37):
You are cutting off a little bit there.

TW (00:06:41):
Oh, they were older. But on the other hand, there were an awful lot of young people, very active and very determined. Some of them maybe went a little too far in terms of their tactics and their movement toward believing, that we needed to make a revolution to change things or where in fact we were headed towards the revolution. But nonetheless, a lot of people were very active, young people were very active and very important to the anti-war movement. I mean, I admire tremendously, a lot of people who were the younger people who were engaged by the way, but admired them for what they did, it is not easy. So, all right. Hard to follow.

SM (00:07:19):
In the same breath. I also ask what are some of the exaggerations on the part of the activists that are listed, as important to them?

TW (00:07:29):
I think there was too much, some of them... And I think to us, I think the number of people who were carrying NLS flagged by the number of people who were explicitly supporting [inaudible], but they were counterproductive in that sense. They turned off a lot of merits. I think that is exaggerated.

SM (00:07:54):
Right.

TW (00:07:54):
But I also think that a lot of this was maybe somewhat crazy, that people did. Some of them were ultra-left. It also played a role and it contributed to this fence in the government, which is a very real stance and worried them across quite a bit. The society was falling apart at the seam and things could get even worse. I mean that this thing could get, that the amount of turmoil could grow and really partake in. They did not like it when there were all these, what they saw as mobs surrounding the Pentagon, or just large mobs marching in the street. They were concerned and they were very concerned that the turmoils, will just get worse. And they did not like the sense that they were in dubious commands, that they knew that some Americans were getting tired of all the turmoil. The war was rising in the streets, and that was feeding into declining public support for the war. So, even some of the ultra-left stuff that people did that is certainly questionable and even somewhat crazy, it did feed into this general sense of society with some sense breaking apart at the seam. Officials did not like that at all.

SM (00:09:02):
Who were more important in the anti-war movement? We know the big names, the political leaders, the activists, the students who came to the forefront. Many of the Freedom Summer people became leaders later on in the late (19)60s, in many different movements and groups. But the well-known activists and leaders of the time, or the everyday activists who were no names in the movement. I bring this up because Benjamin Barber, Dr. Benjamin Barber has written about citizenry, what makes a strong nation. And his belief is that the stronger the citizenry and the less of a need for a leader, the better the nation is. But we do need strong leaders, but we also need strong citizens. Would you say that the anti-war movement or the war within, is really what Dr. Barber is saying, it is citizens who are really standing up? And Dr. King used to talk about this too, about the importance of we, and it is not just me. We all have the capability within us to be the change for the better in our society. And he talked about it all the time and in the civil rights movement to the, we know that the movement was made up of so many no names, that it would not have been a success without them. So, what I am really getting at here is how important were the people that were not known, as opposed to the people that were on the front pages? With respect to the importance in the anti-war movement?

TW (00:10:32):
Well, certainly the people who known were more numerous than people who were known. So, in that sense they were very important. But there was a lot of grassroots, anti-war activity that took place, by just everyday people that may in some book has not been covered as much as a more dramatic event. And I tried to convey that in my book. Things like the Quakers. A lot of the Quakers were doing a grassroots anti-activity very early on, before the war began in earnest. And they were lobbying Congress, they were just talking to their neighbors. They were doing very fun for local organizing and a group, I am thinking about when I say the Quakers, the French City on National Service Committee, and then also groups like Women's Strike for Peace, which they had a lot of meetings with their neighbors and I just sat and talked to people and maybe smaller events in their communities. But there was an awful lot of that and an awful lot of ordinary citizens got involved through those sorts of activities. And some of the people got involved with those sorts of local activities, were not particularly inclined to go to Washington for large national demonstrations. But there was a lot of that. And I think in some sense, in some accounts that sort of local grassroots activity by everyday people, have not been covered as much as it might be.

SM (00:12:01):
You have seen, you have taught college students over the last 20 some years. And I first asked this question back when I interviewed Senator McCartney in (19)96 because the Generation Xers were the group that made up the campus. Now it is millennials.

TW (00:12:17):
Yes.

SM (00:12:19):
But you have seen young people over the past 20 years who have either no feelings toward this period, or knowledge, or even interest in a time when boomers were young. In fact, in the early (19)90s there seemed to be two camps of college students. And I noticed this when we did programs at the university where I worked, between boomers and generation Xers. There seemed to be two camps. One camp was, "I am tired of hearing about this, you guys from the (19)60s, all you talk about is nostalgia and what it was like back then. It has no relevance to today." And generation Xers were pretty strong on that. And yet there were others who said, "Gee, I wish I lived then. I wish there were causes today like there were causes back then." So, there were kind of two camps. Am I right on there from your experiences too? These were...

TW (00:13:08):
What I found in my experience is, going through the (19)80s through to (19)90s is, a lot of the people that do not know much about the (19)60s, if they get interested and they start reading about it, a lot of them are very interested and very kind of taken aback by it and almost want to replicate it. I have seen people, I remember there was a guy, I was involved in an anti-intervention in US intervention in Central America Group at Berkeley, when I was a graduate student. And I remember there was another graduate student who was reading the book, [inaudible].

SM (00:13:40):
Oh yeah, I have got a first edition.

TW (00:13:42):
Yeah, a very good book. And I remember he got really psyched up. I mean, he was ready to... It seemed to me that he was getting more militant as he was reading that book. But I feel that, yeah, there are students that I have talked to that, the ones that are curious about it and they start reading about it, they really find it quite interesting. And it is something to talk about.

SM (00:14:08):
Did you feel, and this is a strong feeling, that there was animosity between the Boomer generation and generation X?

TW (00:14:18):
I have never noticed that. I have not seen that. And unless it is just talking about generational conflict than their children, but I have not noticed that just more generally. I think in the way it is innocent, you are talking about. No, I have not noticed it. It is not to say it did not take place. I have not.

SM (00:14:41):
Right. I know that one of the things when President Nixon came into office, he said that he had a plan to end the war in six in (19)68, yet he kept saying, "We need PE." And then in the very end when the Paris Peace accords were taking place, he used these words that really infuriated Vietnam vets and many who had fought against the war for years, "Peace with honor."

TW (00:15:04):
Yeah.

SM (00:15:04):
The exact, and I say here, the exact words used after the Paris Peace Accords were signed. I prefaced this question with the fact that, his overall plan failed because his actions doubled the names on the wall in Washington, if you really look at it.

TW (00:15:23):
Yeah. I think his plan was to get out as slowly as possible and with his, as he put it, with his teeth going out last. He was still trying to win, but he was very constricted by opposition of the Vietnam War. I mean, he knew he could only take the desolation so far and he could not do everything he wanted to do militarily. And he was also concerned by whether he actually, some of the stuff had actually worked, if affectively Vietnam see enough. But he was going to go out slowly and he was going to [inaudible], but he could not do it. I mean, he got undercut. He was really undermined at the end. He was undercut all the time, I think. I mean, he was certainly inhibited, constricted by the anti-movement all the time. But at the end I think he was really undercut by his declining and authority in Congress as a result of the Watergate. They were going to give him as much as they were to give him if his credibility and his authority had to define his local war.

SM (00:16:18):
You talk about credibility with President Johnson winning in 1964, that, and as he said very early on, you bring it up in the book, "We are not going to send our boys to fight a war that Asian boys can fight." And obviously that was a big lie. And many people thought that he had betrayed the people that worked for his campaign and many of them were young people. Could you talk a little bit about that? Because that period, (19)64, (19)65 that you bring up in the book, it is like really the beginning of all these, the anti-war movement and with that is very strong.

TW (00:16:54):
Well, I think a lot of people felt betrayed by him after he escalated the war. And I mean he certainly was not being honest. And at a certain point he decided under the advice of the advisors that he had to escalate, basically because South Vietnam was going to hell. And he faced a real possibility of the South Vietnamese government crumbling and South Vietnamese army crumbling. So, he had to go in there. He was forced to go in there if he wanted to prevent South Vietnam from falling. So, he did. And I think a lot of people that supported him, felt afraid by that, felt betrayed by that. And I think a lot of people were probably fed into people's weariness of Huber Humphrey later in 19...

SM (00:17:38):
Right.

TW (00:17:39):
... days. I think Humphrey had a hard time. And I think he had a hard time distinguishing his sufficiency, John. And I think Nelson did not want him to go too far out. John basically had up on a leash of his fence. But I think that people's feelings, failed by John probably fed in to some extent what Humphrey to do. And I think, so on the other hand, I mean Paul Warnke, who was in the Pentagon at the time, he said that Humphrey was not going to appoint Clifford. I forgot the positions. He said Humphrey was going to appoint him and Clark Clifford and I think more account, I am not sure, but definitely him and Clark Clifford, who were double figures. Later on, he said Humphrey's going to appoint him and Clifford to these high-level positions and they would have gotten out of Vietnam with him. Well, short ordered. Whether that is true or not, I am not sure. But if that is true, then we could have moved quite a bit.

SM (00:18:33):
You all speculate what? Because she cannot do this because you have to live history. You cannot just guess what might have been. But when President Kennedy was assassinated, depending on, I have read so much in preparation for the book that we have people that believe, well, because he was a cold warrior, he would have proceeded just like Lyndon Johnson in the end. And others who say, I think Sorenson, thinks that he would not have escalated. So, any thoughts on whether, how important...

TW (00:19:05):
I am not-not a Kennedy fan. I have never liked any of the Kennedy's. I mean Kennedy, like you said, was a cold warrior. So, I have never been particularly optimistic about Kennedy, what Kennedy would have done. He would not have fascinated there. My sense that he was the best swayed, well more like John, but I do not. But just generally, I am not a fan. I mean, he was a cold warrior.

SM (00:19:28):
When you look at all the personalities on both sides in America's battle over Vietnam, is there one or two on each side that truly defines the best they had to offer, opposition wise?

TW (00:19:41):
Well, there were a lot of them. The anti-war woman who, I mean talk people. I thought, what if you asked me, do I have any heroes? It is one of my heroes. Anybody who was active in the anti-war, particularly people who are very persistent in...

SM (00:19:59):
Well, and also, please speak up because somehow it cuts off here.

TW (00:20:01):
Oh, okay.

SM (00:20:01):
Yep.

TW (00:20:04):
I have tremendous admiration for anybody who was active in that movement, and particularly people who really stuck it out and just really dedicated, who were activists. And there were some people, but the problem is, I am probably going to mention some of the leaders who were more visible and maybe got a little more publicity, but some of the leaders were extremely dedicated people. Like I mentioned, Norma Becker earlier from the Fifth Avenue East Grade committee, who played such an important role in New York and also in some of the national mobilization committees. And people like Dave Ballinger, who was very important and very dedicated. And he was someone who had a connection to a lot of the more militant youth. And he was able to maintain, to bring some of the more radical youth into some of the actions that they were involved in organizing. And somebody like Sydney Peck, who was a very-very impressive guy. He was a professor, I think the case, Western Reserve University of Cleveland at the time. He was a sociology professor, and he was one of the main people in the National Mobilization Committee and extremely, extremely impressive guy. But there is so many people like that. I mean, David Hark, who was a Quaker activist and doing a lot of congressional lobbying, but also a lot of kind of Quaker style civil disobedience, a lot of that he was, and he is still active. And then on the government side, I do not know, I mentioned Paul Warnky, who was, I believe he was the assistant secretary of Defense for ISA, I believe. He played an important role in turning Clark Clifford against the war. And Clark Clifford played an important role in convincing Johnson that he had to do something in 1968. That he could not continue on the way they were going, and he certainly could not give, I think, attorney general, earl Wheeler was the chairman of the JF at the time, and he was asking for 200,000 more troops and Clifford and Johnson said, "That is politically impossible." And Johnson, eventually he did a partial farming hold and basically stabilized the ground war and decided that he was not going to run through re-election. So, warranty played a big role in turning Clifford, I think convincing Clifford, but just the war was not politically sustainable. So, somebody like Paul Warren fire a lot. And I know Paul Warnke was active later, I believe in the nuclear. And he is a nice guy. I mean, he is a genuinely nice guy too. He is somebody that stands out.

SM (00:22:40):
What is really interesting, if people like McGeorge Bundy that you talk about in the 1965 section of your book, when he came back from Plaku and his observations, if he had gone into the president and really pushed those observations on him, that would have been a lot. And also, the thoughts of Maxwell Taylor, who were their ambassador at that time. To me, if Taylor and Bundy, and I would like your thoughts on this, is that they had been more forceful and McNamara later on, that this thing just is not going to work. Do you think they had the ability to persuade that president?

TW (00:23:16):
Yeah, I do. If they were all taken up that campaign and really press at him. I think your question is a very good question because a lot, well, let us say several of the key players, they certainly noticed very early on this thing with him. And at best it was going to be a very long bloody affair. Very early on, I am talking, McNamara was one of the people I am thinking of, if they were to just went to Johnson and said, "Listen, it is pretty clear that the Vietnamese have enormous staying power and we can continue to escalate it, but this is going to be a long time before we have really a chance to turn this thing around. We may never be able to turn it around." If you had somebody like Rick George, very articulate, very intelligent guy, credentials, McNamara goes in there, McNamara is becoming very emotional about the war by this time. Very emotional. He goes down there and pleads his case to Johnson, some of these other folks. Yeah, I mean that is a very good point. Do not know why they did not do it.

SM (00:24:17):
See.

TW (00:24:18):
I do not know, but I think your question is an excellent question.

SM (00:24:21):
Well, you know what, I will add on to that question because if the anti-war movement knew in this very beginning stage, the feelings that those two men have, and you bring up very well that one of the issues is that they tried to hide a lot of things from the media and the public in general, that if that was known by the Ton Haydens of the world, or the Dave Dellinger's of the world and reach college campuses that were starting to protest, maybe that could have been a major, major influence to put pressure on the president to stop this.

TW (00:24:52):
Well, it could have also been a major influence on the public.

SM (00:24:55):
Right.

TW (00:24:56):
That is incredible ammunition that you could use to convince the public, that this thing is worth right. Saying, "Look, here is what these guys in private are saying about this."

SM (00:25:08):
Yeah, it is...

TW (00:25:08):
There is a terrible situation we are in here and the prognosis is horrible. That is what these guys are saying in public. So, I think that could have a tremendous influence on everything.

SM (00:25:20):
And we talk about as Schlesinger did, about the best and the brightest, and well, they may have been the brightest, but I do not think they were the best, that they did not do these kinds of things. On a scale of one to 10, and this is just, where would you place these groups in terms of helping and not hurting the anti-war protests? Or you could say whether they helped or hurt students for democratic society, before the weather?

TW (00:25:45):
Hey, very important, very important. I mean, like I said, students generally, were an engine for the anti-war movement and all this activity on college campuses. I mean, I think the younger people had a big influence on their parents and on the public in general. I mean, they were one of the things that led people to start to question the war. And a lot of students were in fact very articulate, very smart, and they learned a lot about Vietnam. And I think the fact that so many young people were protesting the war and were at least questioning the war, had a significant influence on other people generally. And again, they helped create this sense that politically the war was not, I mean, the country was going to hell in it.

SM (00:26:30):
Right.

TW (00:26:30):
Going to hell.

SM (00:26:32):
And also, the participatory democracy. I would like your definition of what participatory democracy is, because also, correct me if I am wrong, the Southern SNCC was based on participatory democracy. So, in reality, some of those people that were involved in going south, brought those ideas even back to SDS. Is that correct?

TW (00:26:54):
Yeah-yeah, that is true. Because there were a number of people in SDS, including in the leadership within South, the Civil rights department before.

SM (00:27:01):
Right.

TW (00:27:02):
So, you are right. That had a big impact. And I think what they were doing in SDS, I guess I would just call participatory democracy, democratic decision making at the grassroots level. Where everybody input at the [inaudible].

SM (00:27:18):
The next group was the weatherman.

TW (00:27:21):
Well, even the weatherman, they did some crazy things. They were fairly nutty. I mean, they lost it, but on the other hand, they were tremendously affected by the war. I think they were extremely angered by what Nixon was doing and looked like John had done before. They were very frustrated that Nixon was still escalating the war at various points. They were very frustrated before that. During the Johnson administration, when the war steadily escalated, they were very angered and frustrated by the bombing of innocent people in Vietnam. Just tremendously torn emotionally about that. They just, again, tremendously frustrated that they did not seem to be having that great an impact in the government because the work continued to escalate. John's administration and Nixon administration first times escalated the conflict, and he was not withdrawing troop nearly as fast they wanted. So, they felt they had to up the ante. And a lot of the stuff they did was absolutely nutty. But on the other hand, the Nixon administration did not like this stuff at all. They did not like the militant protest any more than they liked the large demonstrations in Washington because they created the sense that the country was, that they were in doubtful command, that the country was falling apart. And again, they knew this was affecting other people. They were concerned about how much this would grow. They were concerned about terrorism generally but concerned that the White House could be the next target. They were concerned for their personal safety, and they were concerned for their personal safety during some of these demonstrations in Washington. We had large crowds outside the White House. So, they did not like the militants. They did not like the militants a bit. I mean, I think they liked it when people looked little. I think they thought it was better for them, when some of the protestors looked unsavory and maybe some of the long hairs. I think it was better for them, if you had long hairs, tanning some crazy things, and if you had more mainstream looking people out there, but on the other hand, they did not like it. They did not like it, they did not like these mobs, and they did not like the nortons and they were concerned it was going to get worse and they were concerned it was, for the government and for themselves.

SM (00:29:23):
How about the Black Panthers and the Young Bloods? I put the Young Bloods in there, the Puerto Rican group. Because they kind of looked up for the Black Panthers and kind of did about the same thing. Were they violent?

TW (00:29:34):
Well, I mean, I think the Panthers whole thing was in the self-defense and they were going to arm themselves and that they were going to respond at the fact. I think they were certainly part of this current stuff, that we were moving towards a revolution, and they were going to play a role in it. But certainly, my knowledge of the Panthers is not great. But I think they also have a lot of social service programs that they were involved in, local levels in their communities that were valuable activities. But some of their rhetoric I think, was a little nut though.

SM (00:30:13):
How about the American Indian movement, which was a (19)69 to (19)73 whirlwind?

TW (00:30:20):
Yeah, well that was certainly part of this old current of National Liberation Movement, ethnic protests and just a lot of people. I mean, a lot of people were learning about the history of this country and the history of their racial oppression in this country. And a lot of people involved in the anti-war movement through the process of being radicalized, or through the process of participating in the Civil Rights movement, felt they should also involve supporting Black people and Native American [inaudible]. So, I think there is part of this whole political way thing, as invited support nationally.

SM (00:31:01):
How about the Vietnam veterans against the war?

SM (00:31:02):
How about the Vietnam veterans against the war?

TW (00:31:04):
Well, I think they had a credibility that maybe some other people did not, because they had actually fought the war. And they had more than one fairly dramatic protest where they were trying to basically bring the war home in a dramatic way, but not in an ultra-left way, where they were doing very specific guerilla theater. They had a very dramatic protest in, I think it was April or May 1971, where they had a series of activities in Washington at the same time there were other protests going on. But they had a very dramatic event where they returned their metals, their war medals to the government. And I think that was a very emotional experience for a lot of vets who return their war medals. And I think that they had a credibility with some people that maybe the other people in the anti-war movement did not. And I know that it was very gratifying to some anti-war activists that finally vets were really coming out, were in full force, because there was a lot of effort in the anti-war movement to organize active-duty service persons.

SM (00:32:14):
Yeah, they were not treated very well on college campuses upon their return.

TW (00:32:21):
Veterans?

SM (00:32:22):
Yeah, veterans. And Ron Kovic comes to mind as a very vocal member of that particular group. I think Bobby Muller was in that group as well.

TW (00:32:31):
Yeah, he was.

SM (00:32:33):
But boy, Kovic was a national person regarding the efforts of VVAW. How about the Young Americans for Freedom? A group that has not really talked about that much. A conservative group that was against the war, but their influence as conservative activists.

TW (00:32:52):
Oh, I did not know the Young Americans for Freedom were against the war. I thought they supported the war and I thought that... I must be wrong. But I thought that that is one of the conservative youth groups that the Nixon administration was supporting and fostering their activity. I know the Nixon administration was working with the College Republicans and the Young Republicans and other conservative youth groups in Detroit as part of its effort to basically surface pro-war sentiment, try to politically isolate the anti-war movement. And I thought Young Americans for Freedom was one of the sort of groups that supported it.

SM (00:33:35):
Think that Tom Hawkins was one of the leaders of that group.

TW (00:33:38):
Yeah, I remember the name.

SM (00:33:40):
And I interviewed him. He has got another book coming out. He wrote a book about the Vietnam War. But that is Buckley's group, and they started basically at his home, I think. But when I interviewed Lee Edwards, Lee Edwards said that people who write about the anti-war movement always exclude the YAF, because they were against the Vietnam War.

TW (00:34:06):
I did not know that. And there was an organization, Tom Huston, who was a Nixon aide, an ultra-conservative Nixon aide, and was pushing for the more oppressive stuff the Nixon administration talked about. I thought, "Who was that?" I thought Young Americans... I may be getting mixed up with another group.

SM (00:34:22):
Well, I think there is a book coming out on them. So actually, it is, Ron Robinson is writing a book on the Young Americans for Freedom.

TW (00:34:29):
Oh, are you are sure that they opposed the Vietnam War?

SM (00:34:34):
According to Lee Edwards. The other ones did not. Tom Hawkins, he was just in the group. But Lee Edwards is the historian in Washington, and I believe he is at the American Enterprise Institute, and I believe he is the one that says when they talk about the Vietnam War, they always exclude the YAF. And then he said, I have it on the interview, that they did not support that war.

TW (00:34:58):
I did not know that.

SM (00:35:00):
So, the other two groups are the National Organization for Women and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Those two groups.

TW (00:35:07):
Yeah, I probably would not be your best source on either of those. I know something about them. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference was not [inaudible] involved in that?

SM (00:35:20):
Yes.

TW (00:35:22):
Yes. And I think James Bevel was involved in that. And I think there were other leaders from that organization that were active in the anti-war movement. And of course, it was such a big thing when Martin Luther King came out against the war in 1967. That was a big step for the anti-war movement.

SM (00:35:39):
You bring up in your book a really good quote that I had never heard before. It was about H. R. Haldeman's thoughts on protestors. And if you could explain a little bit more about it, here is the quote, in your book, "H. R. Haldeman thought of protestors as people who want to get excited about something and they really do not give a darn what it is they are excited about." But then you bring up, or someone else brings up, I have got a quote here, that "Haldeman failed to grasp the essence of a working democracy. That a good many people do indeed want to get excited about something because they have the audacity to think that the government is theirs."

TW (00:36:18):
Yeah, I think that might have been Todd Gitlin's quote from the introduction.

SM (00:36:20):
Yes.

TW (00:36:23):
See, the Nixon administration, like the Johnson administration was very concerned about the anti-war movement and very concerned about student protests. And they were putting their heads together, so to speak, and trying to figure out what was going on and what were the sources of all this protest. And they came up with various theories. And they really misread the roots of protests. I mean, they had various theories, like Haldeman, they just want to get excited about something and they do not care what it is. Or Waskow had a theory that a lot of the protestors came out for what he called the soft subjects. And then these people in the hard subject of sciences, they did not have the same trouble fitting in, but a lot of people in the soft subjects were having hard time fitting into society, were challenged by it. So, they felt challenged by the complexity of society. And because they could not handle it, they were rebelled. And a lot of people felt that this whole movement was being supported, funded, and in some cases even orchestrated by communists, so to speak. And they felt that Moscow was behind a lot of student protests. But they had a lot of theories about protests, Kissinger had theories that permissive child-rearing practices were partly responsible for the protests. That they were self-indulged and that they had been raised by overly permissive parents.

SM (00:37:56):
Dr. Spock.

TW (00:37:58):
Yeah. And so, they had a lot of different theories about it, and partly because they spent an awful lot of time discussing this and sending memos back and forth about what people in the Nixon administration called the youth problem. And they came up with these theories. And a lot of people thought it was strictly draft protests, that basically kids were protesting because they're afraid of dying in Vietnam. They did not want to go to Vietnam. So, they had a lot of theories. But the fact is that the motive force of the anti-war movement was potentially oral opposition to what the government was doing in Vietnam. And because the government felt that what they were doing was right, that is not an explanation that is going to resonate to them. It is not the kind of explanation they're going to embrace over some of these others.

SM (00:38:46):
The one word that always comes out when I see these things and throughout your book, and all the other books I have read about the anti-war movement, is somehow on the side of the politicians or the government or whatever, is they just cannot believe that people were genuine. I use that word. I mean, that is really them. They really believe the war is unjust. And so, is this part of the problem here that they always thought that there must be another motive, that these people were not truly genuine when they were protesting the war?

TW (00:39:23):
I think they were maybe too eager to look for sinister and unsavory and unattractive impulses. And I think you are right. The fact that they were so convinced it was a just cause. And Nixon felt, "I am getting out of here, I am getting out of Vietnam. Do not they understand that? What is wrong with these people? Do they take too many drugs?" I think there was a real generation gap there between people in the government and the people outside, the young people. And I think Nixon had his aides feed him articles on student protests and even on deadly arms used on student protest. He wanted to read about this stuff, and he did not understand it. But I think he was frustrated by the fact that there was this big gap, that so many young people did not like him. I think he was very frustrated by that. And that was probably one of the reasons he went out that one time in the early morning hours before one of the protests in Washington, he cannot sleep at night. He goes out there to the Lincoln Memorial where the protesters gather, and he tries to relate to these young kids. And I got this one picture in the book...

SM (00:40:43):
Yeah, I saw, and he looked...

TW (00:40:44):
See them looking at him like, "Who is this asshole?"

SM (00:40:49):
His facial expression is pretty bad too.

TW (00:40:51):
Yeah, he looks... But I think he was frustrated by that, at least according to some of his aides, that he was not able to connect with young people. But at a certain point he concluded. But it is amazing how much attention they did pay to what they called the youth problem. And how much effort they put into trying to understand the roots of it and why students were protesting, what was behind all the following.

SM (00:41:19):
I have always thought, and I would like your thoughts too, that here we had a president in Johnson that had two daughters who were boomers. Or one might have been a little older than a boomer. And then we had Nixon who had two daughters and a son-in-law who were boomers. Did they ever talk to any of those five about their thoughts on the war, and it is like they are in the shadows?

TW (00:41:47):
It is funny. That is true. Because I do not remember hearing anything, really. I remember hearing about Nixon's daughter and certainly associating them with not protesting, not being countercultural in any way at all. It has been projected from the photos of them. And then Johnson, I do not remember anything about his kids, but there were a lot of government officials, in both administrations, Johnson's and Nixon's, who had kids who opposed the war and went out for protests. A lot of them did. That was a problem. I mean, to have their kids questioning the war. And Robert McNamara's son was strongly opposed to the war.

SM (00:42:29):
Yeah, I am trying to interview him. I just sent him an email.

TW (00:42:33):
Oh, well you should because he is good. It is amazing to me in retrospect that Craig McNamara, he was in prep school, I think he was 15, say in (19)65. And so, he was not that old. So, I think his father could probably, might have, to some extent written him off. Because he was too young to know better, so to speak. But I think it was also very painful for Robert McNamara that his son, his only son, was so strongly disapproving it what his father was doing in Vietnam. And I remember later, Craig McNamara... You really should talk to him, at this point.

SM (00:43:17):
I sent him an email to him and to Michael Fervor. I have not heard from him.

TW (00:43:20):
Oh, well he is good too. And they are both nice guys. So, he will probably... I do not know what, they are both nice guys and I hope you can talk to both of them. But Craig McNamara, Robert McNamara is going crazy there because the thing is it is not working out. And he had no idea that the Vietnamese were going to beat his plan, and all this bombing did not seem be doing anything. And he is getting criticized left and right for all the people who are getting killed as a result of his policy. He has got various liberal friends have turned against the war and are disapproving. And his own son. And not only his own son, but he had one or more daughters who were opposed to the war too. So, talk about a sense of speech. But there were a lot of other government officials, I mean a lot of them, who had kids opposed to the war and would come out and protest, that were active in protest. I remember Paul Nitze was a senior Pentagon administration official, pretty conservative.

SM (00:44:19):
Correct.

TW (00:44:20):
Real cold warrior. A quintessential cold warrior. Right. Paul Nitze. And he told me he was the mastermind for the planning of the defense of the Pentagon during the big protest at the Pentagon October of 1967. He had three or three of his kids out there, Nitze's up in the Pentagon. He has got three of his kids out there in that crowd protesting. But there were a lot of kids. I remember I was really struck by a guy named, just briefly, Marshall Green. He was a senior State Department official guy during the Nixon administration. And he was very emotional talking about his kids, his son, being opposed to the war. And after the invasion of Cambodia in 1970, his son, Green's, comes back from something. He comes back from Oregon, Green's son just condemns him and condemns his government's policy, administration's policy. He says, "I do not want to see you again." He just took off, and to think that he was literally driven to the brink of suicide. You really were. So, he was really emotionally wrought up over what the war was doing to his side of the camp.

SM (00:45:29):
Yeah. He is involved in the environment in California too, I think. Craig, he has got a really nice farm. Walnuts and vegetables and educating people about quality food. And I am not trying to link up with him. Maybe some people just do not want to talk about it anymore, but...

TW (00:45:51):
I just remember when I contacted him, he is the kind of person that is worth pursuing and he is a decent guy. And I remember he did not respond the first time. I sent him a letter and he did not respond. And I called him, and then once I got him on the phone, he was fine. And then I went out and interviewed him. But he was one of the people I had to call. If memory serves right, and I did not know about your experiences, but my experience with interviewing people for books, with a huge number of people. You got to call them, they do not respond to letters, and you get them on the phone.

SM (00:46:20):
Yeah-yeah. I have got some that respond. I do all mine in emails, but some respond. But they all say, "Well, geez, I just happened to see your email. I only look at it once every six months." Oh, my goodness. And then you cannot get ahold of them again after they have read it the one time, they say yes. I have got something here. Really what you have been talking about here is that Nixon and Johnson both misunderstood the antagonist, really.

TW (00:46:46):
Right.

SM (00:46:47):
But I remember that from the book. And they attributed the anti-war people to sinister external forces like the Communist Party, I think.

TW (00:47:00):
Yeah.

SM (00:47:01):
And character flaws. I remember that you said too.

TW (00:47:04):
Well, I remember Johnson one time said, he referred to some FBI reports that a lot of protestors had previously spent time in mental institutions or something like that. Yeah, how seriously can you take something like that. But they had some pretty wild ideas, but they were just very reluctant, I think, to acknowledge the primary motivation behind it.

SM (00:47:27):
Well...

TW (00:47:27):
The protest was simply moral opposition.

SM (00:47:30):
I want to ask a question to you because I think, again, you bring it up in the 1965 chapter. But the importance of the (19)50s played in shaping a lot of the boomer kids, or I would say young adults, particularly a quote here, and I want to put this on the record, if it is okay? And whenever I do this, I make sure you are going to see the transcript, as everybody will, that I interviewed, but you are talking, and his name is Doug Dowry, a Cornell University professor?

TW (00:48:02):
Yeah, he was great.

SM (00:48:03):
Yeah. And I want to read this, just for the quote, "Like other radical organizers who had gone through the political deep freeze of McCarthyism, he was basking in the warmer political climate." And I am just reading this for the record, if it is okay." All of a sudden it seemed to me that what I always thought would be impossible, namely a large-scale movement against a war that your country was in, began obviously to take hold. It seemed to me that was absolutely amazing. I was teaching at Berkeley during the Korean War. Jesus Christ, you could not get anybody to say anything against the Korean War. Everybody was scared shitless to identify themselves as being against the war because it meant quite obviously that you must be a ranking member of the Communist Party. In fact, I was accused of exactly that. So, to me, 10, 12 years later and the anti-Vietnam thing, all of a sudden it just seemed obvious that something was happening that was absolutely brand new. And I began to feel very different about the possibilities of the politics of the mid (19)60s. I really can remember that it was though spring had arrived after a very, very long fucking winter."

TW (00:49:10):
Yeah. I think that would certainly be true of a lot of the older activists, that had gone through the (19)50s. But I think it was very inspiring, invigorating to suddenly be part of something so big. And I think Doug there was partly talking about the spring of 1965, where protests and the teaching movement just spread, mushroomed, spread from campus to campus. And basically, the whole of campuses across the country were just alive with debate on Vietnam. And I think then the first national demonstration against the war, of course, at the same time, and SDS organized it. So, I think it was very invigorating and very just overwhelming for a lot of people. That when they saw the anti-war would take off like that, that so many people suddenly getting active. I think a lot of people saw a lot of potential at that point. Very exciting.

SM (00:50:07):
He also said, "So all of a sudden you get all these young guys, and a lot of it was fraudulent and a lot of it was in fact self-defeating. Nevertheless, their exuberance got sucked into everybody's spirit. It was a time of real anger, but also real hope." And I would like your thoughts on this, because I think even today, and people that have been outspoken against the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan, particularly when they make references to the Vietnam era, are really criticized. And this is something that again, he says about when he was a professor, "By the time when the mid-(19)60s came along, I had been at Cornell for a dozen years or more and had been very, very unpopular there because I was sort of outspoken. I used to give a lecture on why socialism was necessary in the United States every year, and everybody thought it was kind of loony. All of a sudden at Cornell in the mid-(19)60s, I was no longer a strange person. I was either someone who was being involved with a lot of other people moving in that direction, or I was a hated person." Do you feel that people that have been speaking up, because you have not only written about the (19)60s, but you are a professor in a university. And you have taught that today, people that were speaking up during the Bush years against the Iraq war early on, felt like that?

TW (00:51:28):
See, there were some tremendously large demonstrations that began. The first Iraq war, and we could go back to the Gulf War in (19)91. There were huge demonstrations. And a number of these, very large demonstrations, that I think people tend to forget that. And I am sure that was just tremendously satisfying, invigorating, and exciting for a lot of people involved in that. I think part of it was that in Iraq, first off, it did not drag on. It was over quickly. The first call for it was basically bomb the shit out them, then go in there and mop up. And Americans of course did not die in anything close to the numbers they died in Vietnam. So, I think it is different situations than Vietnam. And I think the second Iraq war, which is still going on, but also has not involved American deaths on anywhere near scale.

SM (00:52:35):
4,000 plus.

TW (00:52:39):
Not the scale of what took place in Vietnam. And I think it is as much there is no draft, right?

SM (00:52:47):
Um-hmm.

TW (00:52:48):
No draft. So, I think it is a much more difficult situation to sustain that kind of movement. Plus, you are talking about all these factors that fed into the student protests during the 1960s. But you're probably much more well versed than I am at this point. But all these different factors that could say, I mean, wait a second. Just like the fact we had a baby boomer generation and all these people in institutions of higher education. And all these people in a place where they can learn stuff which would lead them to protest. So, you did not have that demographic later on, too.

SM (00:53:21):
It seems to me, one of the questions that I asked Jack Wheeler III, who wrote Touched with Fire, he is one of the veterans that was written about in the Long Gray Line book, the class of (19)66 at West Point. Let us see, I just lost my train of thought here. It was a question. Oh, Steve, what were you thinking? I will get back to it. I lost my train of thought. I do not usually do that. I got off my questions here and I am got an order here and I do not know....

TW (00:53:55):
It has come to me recently; it is kind of like...

SM (00:53:57):
Yeah, I have my questions here, but I was thinking of Jack Wheeler and...

TW (00:54:01):
Is something about it wrong?

SM (00:54:05):
No, oh, it was about the generation gap. And the fact is that there is a book called, it was a book that came out around 1980, and they had a symposium in which Phil Caputo, Jack Wheeler, James Fallows, Susan Jacoby, they were all involved in this panel. And they talked about the generation gap. And I would like your thoughts on this. The generation gap was not as strong as people said between the parents, the World War II people, and their kids. And they brought up, I think it was Senator Webb, he was not a Senator then, Jim Webb, who said that the real generation gap was within the generation, it was between those who served in the war and those who did not.

TW (00:54:59):
There is both, I would think it would have been very depressing for a lot of parents when their kids are suddenly growing their hair long and are criticizing their government's policies and experimenting with drugs. And then there is some music that their parents are not into, I think that would be, I am sure it was very perplexing for a lot of parents. And somewhat frightening for some parents. And probably contributed to a lot of distance between parents and their children at that time. But I am sure there were also plenty of relationships between parents and their kids. But they just had close relationships. But they were able to talk through a lot of this stuff. And a lot of the parents, I mean, I say a lot, but certainly some of the parents were influenced by their kids and maybe participated to some extent themselves in various alternative lifestyles. So certainly, some of those, one of the themes among younger militant youth was questioning your parents, maybe rejecting your parents, and rejecting the whole establishment. So, there were a lot of divisions and a lot of distance, a lot of perplexity.

SM (00:56:19):
What are your thoughts though, of the generation gap, as Jim Webb said. That the (19)60s’ generation is often defined by what John Kennedy used to talk about, "Ask, not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." So thus, there is an expectation amongst many who served in Vietnam that one of your duties is to serve. When you are called to war, you serve. And then there is also the Peace Corps and Vista and alternative service. If you did not believe, if you are a conscientious objector, you still did alternative service. And he said he believes that when you talk about the (19)60s' generation, you are really talking about a generation that really did not believe in service. And history books will say, well, it was a very service-oriented generation because of the Peace Corps and all the things Kennedy was talking about. Your thoughts on that?

TW (00:57:12):
Well, I do not think the government ever had a problem in getting enough young people to serve in Vietnam. So, there is certainly plenty of people who were willing to serve. But I think if you think that what we are doing in Vietnam is a moral abomination, the idea of serving your country...

SM (00:57:28):
Hold on one second, I have got 30 more minutes here. I am going to turn my tape, there you go. All right, go right ahead.

TW (00:57:48):
Well, like I said, the government never had a problem getting enough young people to serve in the military during Vietnam. The protests never prevented them from having enough folks. But on the other hand, if you think that what we are doing in Vietnam is a simple mass murder, and is a moral abomination, then the idea of serving your country in the military is ludicrous. So, the idea that the younger generation during the (19)60s, there were none who were willing to serve their country. It was flat out wrong because there were plenty of young people, there were a lot of them, who supported that war. And a lot of people who entered the military service. So, there were quite a large number who believed in military service, [inaudible] the troops. And of course, you have people who joined the Peace Corps, who maybe you were talking about a different type of young person who's probably [inaudible].

SM (00:58:51):
One thing that I did not realize, there was a great anecdote, when you talked about Robert Lowell, the poet, who actually Senator McCarthy always looked up to. I think Senator McCarthy always wanted to be a poet. And when I interviewed him, he kept talking about Robert Lowell a lot. But you bring up the fact, in this little section, a very small section though, about artists against the war. You talk about Robert Lowell boycotting the White House Festival of the Arts. And how Johnson called them "Those sons of bitches who were boycotting and who had turned the culture of celebration into a platform on Vietnam." And then you had the Dwight McDonald situation, I forget who was really upset with him, somebody in the cabinet. But in the end, there was an FBI clearance after this for anybody who got involved or came to the White House. Just your thoughts, and the fact that artists are oftentimes attacked. That is writers, entertainers, are often, sometimes, are attacked for doing protests against war. Sean Penn comes to mind. And people are very critical of them saying, "Just go back to what you are doing. You have no right to make commentary here."

TW (01:00:17):
Yeah, I have never agreed with that at all. I do not see why just because they are an actor or an actress or a well-known artist, why that should prohibit them from speaking out on political issues. I disagree with that completely. And I think one of the things that the Johnson administration people were concerned about with somebody like Robert Lowell, they were well aware that when prominent people like that came out against the war, that those prominent people could easily influence other people. And I think that made them very nervous. So, they did not like that at all.

SM (01:00:54):
Of course, the most obvious one is Jane Fonda. Your thoughts on her?

TW (01:01:03):
I admire the fact that she played a role in opposing the Vietnam War. Now all I know is when she went to North Vietnam, the media really focused on, I believe she probably made a foolish judgment to pose next to a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft battery. But a lot of people went to the North, not a lot, but there were a number of people in the anti-war movement, particularly leaders who traveled to North Vietnam during that war to see what was going on, to get a firsthand sense of the war in North Vietnam. And I do not criticize her for going to North Vietnam. She had a right to go there. I think any American had a right to go there to try to get a better sense of what was going on there. I do not think she should be criticized for that. And she was also active in... I admire what she did. And she was also active later on in, I believe, when she was with Tom Hayden... I believe when she was with Tom Hayden in a group called the Indochina Peace Campaign that was involved in a lot of congressional laws towards the end of the war to get Congress to cut off US funds for the war, US supports for Thieu in South Vietnam and Lon Nol in Cambodia, and to pressure South Vietnam to release their political prisoners. I believe she was involved in that with Hayden and then everybody else in the Indochina Peace Campaign and other groups that were doing that the later part of the war. So, I admire her. I admire her.

SM (01:02:34):
Yeah, the musicians, they were all, well, not all of them, many of them were, in their songs, talking about the war and about civil rights and women's rights.

TW (01:02:46):
That is all part of the insight. That is all part of the movement.

SM (01:02:56):
Yeah. Part of the counterculture. The importance of teach-ins is... Teach-ins were very big when I was in college, but I did not realize that the very first teach-in was at Michigan.

TW (01:03:02):
Yeah.

SM (01:03:03):
And Carl Oglesby, you bring up his name, and he has written some pretty good books. And then they had the big one at Berkeley with Jerry Rubin and one other person when they were grad students there. Could you talk to how important teach-ins were? Because many people were really involved in them and historically the teach-ins' link to Earth Day is also very important.

TW (01:03:29):
Well, I think what they did, I mean once... You first had that teach-in in Michigan, and you had the big one at Berkeley, and there were teach-ins at campuses all over the country. And I think what they did is they got a lot of people interested, focused on Vietnam and the Vietnam War. They educated a lot of people to the history of US involvement in Vietnam, how we got involved and what we were doing there. And I think they mobilized a lot of younger people, and faculty members, professors against the war. And I think they were just a tremendous impetus to the growth of the anti-war... The debate about Vietnam just spread like wildfire during that period. And I think they were, well, they were a great source of concern inside the Johnson administration. Because Johnson wanted a quieter war. He did not want all these people out there talking about the war and protesting them on campuses. And they knew very well that this was a bad situation. And suddenly the campuses, all these students were talking about the war, and turning against the war as a result of participating in teach-ins and other people. So, they were very concerned about it. And initially, they sent some government officials out there to the campuses to participate in the teach-ins to have debates. But the government officials did not do so well at the teach-ins. They did not convince so many students of what the government was doing in Vietnam. So, they eventually withdrew them. They stopped sending people out to campuses because they realized [inaudible]. And there were some cases where high-level officials like [inaudible] participated in teach-ins, but they said a whole bunch of [inaudible]. They were not willing to go out there and get [inaudible]

SM (01:05:29):
Yeah. And I interviewed Senator Nelson many years ago, and if you read on the background on the preparations for Earth Day, he sat down with the... He and other organizers, I think Dennis Hayes, they made sure that it was okay to go ahead with Earth Day. They did not want to spend the anti-war movement. And they actually consulted with them in preparation for Earth Day. And they were very impressed with teach-ins.

TW (01:05:52):
Oh, for this 1970s?

SM (01:05:53):
That was 1970. The SNCC, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, those early activities from (19)60 to (19)64. Then you got Freedom Summer in (19)64. And then you had the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in (19)64 and (19)65. Could you say how important they were as events, in terms of shaping the leadership of the anti-war movement?

TW (01:06:22):
Well, I think that a lot of people got part of their political education from the civil rights movement, and learning about grassroots organizing and talking to people, going out and talking to people. And I think that was also just the general part of people's political education, in terms of learning about American society and the injustices in American society and probably radicalizing a number of people too. So, more than a few of the early anti-war leaders had been active in the civil rights movement beforehand, and in the Bay, Area were active in the free speech movement. So, you had a lot of leaders, even leaders early on involved in the anti-war movement. I think they learned a lot from their prior experiences. I think it helped the anti-war movement quite a bit, to have those sorts of people with those sorts of experiences getting involved.

SM (01:07:23):
Would you say those experiences, particularly of SNCC and Freedom Summer, where they went after voter registration after they were trying to have equal housing and all the other things, would you say that this is the epitome of what Dr. Barber was saying about the stronger the citizenry, the lesser need for a strong leader? Because here we had citizens who not only were not known to the public, but they just felt it was their duty to go south to help those who were in need of help at their own risks, and they were not after a lot of publicity.

TW (01:08:04):
No, I could not put it any better than you just put it. In the Barber quote I think that is exactly what he is talking about.

SM (01:08:13):
How did the new Left differ from the old Left? And what separated them and what united them?

TW (01:08:20):
Partly, it was cultural. The new Left was countercultural, much more likely to... The new Left was more likely to be countercultural, far more likely to be countercultural than the old Left. They were more likely to be militant tactically. The old communist party and the Socialist Workers Party, probably the two most prominent old Left groups were fairly conservative tactically in the anti-war movement. They were not into militant civil obedience, anything approaching "mobile tactics". But people in the new Left were much more open to that sort of thing, and much more, in terms of lifestyle, were inclined to be countercultural in all the various facets of countercultural lifestyle, participate in those. The new Left was much straighter, probably the organizations, much more intellectual, self-disciplined organizations. I do not know if they were talking about practicing democratic centralism, but probably, I guess. But in both of those two groups, they'd come up with a line, the Social Workers Party or the CP, which, by the way, hated each other, they would develop a line, they'd have a political line in the group, and members of those groups were expected to promote that line in the anti-war movement. New Left was more decentralized, much looser, younger, generally, and again, more countercultural.

SM (01:10:04):
We made reference to this earlier on because William Buckley, I guess, was the founder of the Young Americans for Freedom. They met at his house. How important were conservative student groups in the (19)60s and (19)70s? Because we do not hear a whole lot about them.

TW (01:10:21):
They were not nearly as important as the anti-war [inaudible]. When they turned out at protests, say as a counter protest or a pro-war protest, generally, which both governments, Johnson and Nixon administrations were involved in organizing and fostering at various points. They were much smaller. Their numbers were much smaller. Their active visible presences were much less significant than the public presence of the anti-war students. There were an awful lot of young people who supported the war, but in terms of the activists, the active conservative young people were, they were insignificant compared to the protests.

SM (01:11:13):
One thing that is not discussed very much is the friction between what we call the intellectual students and the fraternities and sororities on campus. There was a lot of tension. And so, many times when there was an anti-war protest or students would block recruiters from coming on campus, the ones that were on the other side were mostly fraternity and sororities and sometimes athletes. How serious was that division on college campuses, say in the mid (19)60s to late (19)60s, between fraternities and what I call the more... And do not forget, I advised a fraternity, and there is a lot of smart intellectuals in fraternities and sororities, but there was a perception that was written at that time, it was called the non-conformist intellectual as opposed to the conformist fraternity and sorority brothers and sisters and athletes. How serious was that?

TW (01:12:16):
Well, my guess is you know more about that than I do at this point. And I would think there was a lot of shouting matches, but I do not know at what point the anti-war organizers and activists generally just decided to write those people off, to talk to other people. I am sure in 1965, the [inaudible] movement was taking off, they were trying to reach everybody they could. I am talking about the anti-war activists and organizers. They were trying to reach their fellow students generally. And there has been a huge amount of, a lot of debate and a lot of arguments, a lot of animosity, and probably a certain amount of fights between the two sides. But I would imagine at certain points, and again, I am sure more about this than I do by this point, that they said, the anti-war people said, "We are going to talk to other people. We are not going to waste [inaudible]."

SM (01:13:15):
Well, the anti-war people had a tremendous influence on a lot of presidents and administrations in terms of banning recruiters on campus. That was somewhat successful. And now you read that it is so popular to have recruiters on campus. It is a difference of night and day.

TW (01:13:34):
Yeah, that is my understanding too. I think, actually my son, he is just starting high school, but I think we had to sign something to say we did not want... Yeah, I agree that there's much more access, but I think they can call people and I think they [inaudible].

SM (01:14:00):
The part here on statement, I made reference to it earlier, is about participatory democracy. And they inferred someplace within the document that they feared that this generation would be the last generation on earth. Would you say that was more of a fatalistic approach to take regarding democracy and liberty in the future, or were they just expressing the fears of many of the youth of that era based on what they learned in the (19)50s and early (19)60s because of the society they grew up in, which was with the bomb, the threat of nuclear war, the fear of speaking up a la McCarthyism, the hidden realities of race and poverty in America that were exposed in Freedom Summer and the SCLC experiences? Just your thoughts on that.

TW (01:14:50):
Well, I think there were a number of people who were involved in the (19)60s who had been active against the bomb, like you said earlier, which would have fed into some of that. And I think a lot of people were very, during the Vietnam War, a lot of activists were very concerned that this wound really get out of hand. They did not know how far the government would take this. And they were pretty cynical about the people in the government. So, they were concerned that this could lead the World War III. And there was a certain amount of apocalyptic thinking, I think, which took place. It was a heady time. A lot of stuff was going on, and not only in the United States, but in other countries. And there was a certain amount of apocalyptic thinking, and so there were certainly people who were concerned that this could really bad [inaudible] nuclear conflict.

SM (01:15:53):
One of the things I try to... I have not asked too many people, but I wanted to ask you in more detail is what was the impact of the war within or on the university campuses in the (19)60s and (19)70s? Bear with me, I am going to throw these all out, and then you can answer as you want to. The questions are this: how did universities change due to dissent? Number two, were the changes permanent? Number three, students challenged the multi diversity and the knowledge factory mentality, were they successful? And have universities today forgotten the lessons learned via what I consider amnesia about what happened back in the (19)60s and (19)70s? And I think we learned a lot because of the experience of Tiananmen Square in 1989, that when school started in the fall of (19)89, no one was hardly talking about that event.

TW (01:16:52):
Well, I think in terms of the universities changing, that probably affected the course offerings quite a bit. More critical courses on American society and various aspects of American society. And I think there were more much student-led courses, student [inaudible]. I think a lot of university, like you mentioned Ted Hesburgh earlier, there were a lot of university presidents who got pretty nervous and concerned that there is building occupations and other form of student developments were just going to get worse and they were going to lose control of their place. And I do not know how that played out in terms of policy for its students, but my guess is it led to certain [inaudible], they were really going to lose the control of the place.

SM (01:17:47):
Yeah. I think when the Free Speech Movement, when Mario Savio spoke, he talked about, the issue was ideas. The university is about ideas, not about the corporate mentality in our society. And I interviewed Arthur Chickering, one of the educators who wrote the book Education and Identity in the (19)70s that I studied in graduate school. And he is a conservative, but he said at the very end, I said, "Is there any criticism you have of today's universities?" And he says, "Yes, the corporations have taken control again." And that is what the students fought against in the (19)60s, is the corporate mentality, the knowledge of... Knowledge is important, I am not talking about that. But when they talk about the knowledge factory, the assembly line, everybody come out the same, no questioning, just accept everything. I am starting to see, and I do not know if you see it, some trends that, as if the (19)60s never happened.

TW (01:18:57):
Well, you probably know, but my guess is there were a lot fewer people decided who were business majors at that time and a lot more people [inaudible] liberal arts. So, I am guessing it had a big effect in the curriculum at universities. But I do not know that.

SM (01:19:17):
Could you talk a little bit about, I brought up Father Hesburgh, and to me, it's one of the best six to eight pages in your book, when you talk about what happened, his revelations that he did not think (19)64 was... He thought it was an isolated incident at Berkeley, and that the Columbia Rebellion really turned his head. And then he said he looked at the pad and in the pad over 100 presidents had been fired for one reason or another.

TW (01:19:54):
He was the president of Notre Dame, and he had, earlier in the war, had been a war supporter. And he was very upset by student protests on his campus, and how far they were taking things. And he was not just upset, he was unsettled by it. And he noticed that a lot of his fellow university presidents were basically fighting with that. They were being forced out. They were either being forced out because of whatever they did to respond to student protests, or they were resigning. And he felt he was one of the few of his colleagues who was still there. But he just said that the anti-war youth really had a big influence on him in terms of leading him to question the war a lot more. And my understanding is he initially took a fairly hard line toward student protests. And he spent a lot of time talking to the students. He was out there with the kids. And they had a big impact on his attitude towards the Vietnam War. I believe he said something to the effect of, the young people really turned the tide on this one. They influenced from [inaudible]. He was very upfront about the fact that the youth had a big impact on his views on Vietnam and played a big impact on the clinic and the war. He is one of many influential people who were affected by younger protestors, by the end, and leading them to question the war more. There are a lot of other people. John Oakes at the New York Times was the editor of the editorial pages of the New York Times. He was very forthcoming [inaudible] that the protests had a big impact on him and on the New York Times editorials before and getting him to question the war more. And the clinics were also concerned again about what protests was doing for American society and causing society to fall apart. So, Hesburgh was one among many influential people who were affected to some degree by anti-war protests.

SM (01:22:15):
Do you think those students, and again, I was on [inaudible] campus, I saw this, they would have demands, and then if those demands were met, they would come up with more demands, knowing that none of these demands could totally be okayed by them. It was a strategy they were using just because they were frustrated with anybody in any role of leadership anywhere. There did not seem to be any trust in any person of responsibility back then. And whether you were a president, or even the vice president of student affairs, or the mayor of the city, or the congressperson, or senator, or even your rabbi, or your minister, or priest. Anybody in a position of responsibility was looked down upon for a variety of reasons. Do you think that is why the attacks on this generation at times, I use this word genuine, many of the them continue to be genuine, like Tom Hayden was genuine, but those that win into these tactics really hurt the image of the movement overall, and thus people nowadays, when they look back, they can criticize the entire group based on the antics of a few.

TW (01:23:28):
Yeah, I think that is true, that some of the more, we say the more way-out youthful protestors, it hurt the overall protesters public image. That is undeniable. But on the other hand, again, I do not know that the people in the government made a lot of distinctions between these different forms of protests. I think to them it was really just part of one ball of wax. And all of that stuff fed into the government's perceptions that the Vietnam War was not sustainable, and this could even get worse. All of that stuff played a part turning around [inaudible]. But on the other hand, yeah, they... But some of the stuff, people might have been turned off by some of the more outlandish public displays of some of these protesters, but again, with the public too, it's all part of that phenomenon out there, which is causing a lot of people to start to think about Vietnam, whereas they would not have otherwise.

SM (01:24:31):
Right. Do you believe Black Power was a good thing?

TW (01:24:35):
Yeah, I do. Because why should Black people have more control over their lives?

SM (01:24:46):
What are some of the myths of the Vietnam War, the myths that are out there about, as you call the war within, and the myths of the war from without or outside the war?

TW (01:25:03):
I do not know. As we were talking about earlier, I think a lot of people are not aware of just how early on senior people in the Johnson administration realized that they were up against it, and that the war was maybe unwinnable, just how early they were coming to that conclusion. I think a lot of people are unaware of that. Other myths about the Vietnam War, that it was a good cause.

SM (01:25:45):
That is a myth. How about Ron Reagan says it was a noble cause. Is that a myth?

TW (01:25:48):
Yeah. I do not think we had any business being there in the first... No, I think that was not a noble cause. I think we just did not have any business... I am just generally of the view that we should stay out of other country's affairs.

SM (01:26:03):
Right. Can you go a couple more minutes here?

TW (01:26:08):
Yeah. I am going to meet a friend for a beer at 4:00. That is okay. I can call. I will get off the phone. I can call.

SM (01:26:15):
Yeah. I think about 30 more minutes. Is that okay?

TW (01:26:19):
Geez. God. Steven, can... Let us see, I have got about... I would probably have to leave here no later than a quarter till.

SM (01:26:33):
Oh, that is only 12 minutes from now. Okay. I bring up-

TW (01:26:34):
I am sorry. I just already set it up.

SM (01:26:35):
That is okay. We all know about things like the enemy's list of President Nixon and the COINTELPRO and McCarthyism, the rise from leaders, the infiltration within organizations that were against the war, where they tried to destroy character and careers. Speaking up, why is it that in a country that claims that we are a democracy and we go to war and die for liberty, which is all the freedoms that we know, but people who speak up, people who we do not become a yes man, people who challenge the system, people who see wrongs and try to right them, people who believe everyone is equal, and people who have the belief that we are all somebody, why is it that these people oftentimes are hurt the most?

TW (01:27:37):
Because the government does not like the spin against their policies, particularly when that dissent seems to threaten the policies, and because the government is often hypocritical. Government officials are often very hypocritical when they talk about, we are fighting, or we are fighting for freedom. It is so much empty sloganeering. It does not really mean that, unfortunately. So, it is not surprising that they will try to undercut their [inaudible]

SM (01:28:18):
Yeah. As I hear, what do these realities say about America, that Boomer youth experience, is this typical of the American way? Big Brother is watching us, especially if we are dissenters?

TW (01:28:35):
Well, I think it might have been of a larger scale during the Vietnam period than it has been fair in terms of the amount of government attempts to undermine the protest movement in all the different ways. They would send in undercover agents or try to stimulate infighting among the protestors through various means, [inaudible] pen letters or whatnot, and tapping telephones, and even breaking into some protest groups' offices. I think it was on a larger scale then, because of scales of dissent was a lot larger and quite a bit seemed to be at stake at that time, because, again, they were not sure how far this was going to go. Some people in the government were pretty concerned that this was going to grow to such an extent, you are talking about the threat of something really major, like insurrection or something. So, I think the stakes were higher at that time, and again, the scale of dissent with a lot greater. And I think that people are more aware of that now too, those [inaudible]. People learn how far the government will go to try to undermine the dissent during that period. So, people are more aware of it now.

SM (01:29:54):
Do you think we as a nation now, now this is two main questions I had for everybody since Senator McCarthy in (19)96, that we are a nation that has a problem with healing, particularly the Boomer generation? I took a group of students to Washington (19)95 and we met Senator Muskie, and the students came up with a question, because he had been the vice-presidential candidate in 1968, and they saw the videos of other disruptions, they knew about the assassinations and the so forth. So, this was their question. Due to the divisions that took place in the Boomer generation when they were young, divisions between Black and white, male and female, gay and straight, those who supported the war, those who were against it, those who supported the troops and those who were against them, that this may generation is going to go to its grave like the Civil war generation did, not truly healing.

TW (01:30:48):
I do not think that is true. I think a lot of people who were involved... I can just speak for myself. I am much less inclined to, I do not want to contest somebody's political views that I disagree with now than I was back in the (19)70s, (19)80s. I am much more accepting of other people's political views and just basically of the feeling that this friendship is not worth getting [inaudible]. Whereas in the (19)70s, I would not have said that at all. I would have wanted to argue it out almost all the time. And I think a lot of other Baby Boomers would probably have the same sentiment, that they are much more accepting and honor other people's political views. And again, a lot of those people, of course, they are more [inaudible] anyway. But I have changed a lot in that regard, and I am quite sure that is true of a lot of other [inaudible]

SM (01:31:50):
Well, Senator Muskie, they thought he was going to talk about 1968, he did not even mention it. He said, we have not healed since the Civil War and the issue of race, and that is what he-

TW (01:32:00):
Oh, race, that is a whole different animal.

SM (01:32:03):
Yeah, that is what he talked about. Honestly, you are well-read, and you read a lot of books that came out in the (19)60s and the (19)70s, what were the books that you liked the most, the books that were written about the period of the (19)60s and (19)70s?

TW (01:32:19):
Well, I loved because Patrick Sale's book on SDS. That was really inspiring. I am looking at my bookshelf here. I like this collection of Greetings on the Weatherman, was interesting. There was another earlier book, early SDS, Democracy is in the Streets by James Miller, which you have probably read. I read a lot of various stuff on student protests, some of which is good and some of it is not. I am trying to get down to look at... I basically read everything I could get my hands on, on student protests. I cannot see half of my bookshelf.

SM (01:33:03):
Did you-

TW (01:33:03):
And that is where... I am afraid I cannot see how [inaudible 01:33:03] my books though.

SM (01:33:03):
Did you think that The Greening of America by Charles Reich and The Making of a Counterculture by Roszak were good books?

TW (01:33:11):
I did not read the first one. And the second one, I remember I read. I am hesitant to even say anything, but I did not really like Roszak's book. I do not remember.

SM (01:33:19):
Erik Erickson wrote some pretty good books too, and so did Kenneth Keniston.

TW (01:33:23):
Yeah, I have got several of Keniston's books. Those are some of the ones I read. But I have basically got four bookshelves full books.

SM (01:33:26):
Yeah. Strawberry Statement by James Kunen and-

TW (01:33:34):
[inaudible].

SM (01:33:34):
...The Student as Nigger by Jerry Ferber. Or Farber I think.

TW (01:33:38):
Yeah.

SM (01:33:40):
And Harry Edwards' Black Students was a great one. There is a lot of good ones. Do you like the term, Boomer?

TW (01:33:50):
It does... It is never bothered me. It is the biggest generation in history. American [inaudible]. Boomer and it was a boom. Boom and burst, right?

SM (01:34:01):
Yep.

TW (01:34:01):
Is that what we are talking about?

SM (01:34:05):
Yeah. Some people have had a problem. That do not like the term. And they do not like any terms that define a generation.

TW (01:34:11):
Oh. Well, that does not bother me.

SM (01:34:17):
Do you... I am looking here before my last question here. How important were the Beats in the... For the (19)60s?

TW (01:34:27):
You had some. I think they were... Were they not a precursor to the later counterculture?

SM (01:34:34):
I think so. Yes.

TW (01:34:35):
Yeah. And you had... They were a literary group, right? A literary countercultural group and a bunch of pretty smart guys. So, they were certainly a precursor for later counterculture. I am not sure how much they influenced the later counterculture.

SM (01:34:54):
When I took sociology class in the '60s. Well, I took it in (19)67 from Dr. Lee. I still remember we had to read See Right Now, The Organization Man-

TW (01:35:03):
Right.

SM (01:35:04):
...and some of those books. The Lonely Crowd by David Reisman. They really talked about the (19)50s and... Or post World War America leading up to 1960. And you learned a lot about the era and why the (19)60s may have come about. The last thing is...

TW (01:35:24):
I am sorry. Go ahead.

SM (01:35:24):
Yeah, go ahead. You are sociologists. Are those important books to you?

TW (01:35:33):
Mills was read by a lot of the student activists at the time. And Marcuse. Herbert Marcuse. Go ahead.

SM (01:35:38):
Yeah, this is... Since you only got a couple minutes here. Just what do these mean to you? These are real fast responses. What does the Vietnam Memorial mean to you?

TW (01:35:50):
Recognition of all the people who lost their lives in an immoral and senseless war.

SM (01:35:57):
What does Watergate mean to you?

TW (01:36:03):
The lunacy of the underside of the Nixon administration.

SM (01:36:06):
What does Woodstock mean to you?

TW (01:36:12):
Counterculture.

SM (01:36:12):
Yeah. And what does counterculture mean to you?

TW (01:36:14):
Long hair, music, and a more liberated lifestyle.

SM (01:36:18):
What do the hippies and the yippies mean to you?

TW (01:36:22):
Well, the hippies are somewhat different because the hippies generally I think were more politically active. And they were politically active in a creative way. In some ways it maybe was not always that productive, but I associated a good sense of humor with the Yip. Yeah. Funny.

SM (01:36:38):
How about 1968? The year?

TW (01:36:42):
Well, a lot of stuff seemed to be coming to a head at that time for a lot of people back.

SM (01:36:47):
The free speech movement. Berkeley (19)64, (19)65.

TW (01:36:51):
Well, I think a lot of people at Berkeley found their voice.

SM (01:36:56):
Kent State and Jackson State in 1970.

TW (01:37:05):
Pouring fuel on the fire.

SM (01:37:06):
[inaudible].

TW (01:37:12):
No. Illuminating. Horribly illuminating.

SM (01:37:15):
Tet.

TW (01:37:19):
Turn around.

SM (01:37:21):
Earth Day.

TW (01:37:21):
That was a whole different scene.

SM (01:37:26):
The Black Panthers.

TW (01:37:26):
Militant.

SM (01:37:31):
Yeah. And of course, one thing I have had someone... Several people have said, "You cannot use the term straight Black Panthers. You got to talk about the personalities." And of course, they are referring to Huey Newton, Bobby Seal, Eldridge Cleaver, Kathleen Cleaver, H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael. They are... He said they are all unique personalities.

TW (01:37:54):
Well, I think you might find some people, probably including myself even, are hesitant to criticize the Black Panthers. Which was true at the time because you were concerned about other people perceiving you as racist. I think there was a lot of that going on at that time. A lot of it. Some of it still.

SM (01:38:10):
Stonewall.

TW (01:38:12):
Gay liberation.

SM (01:38:13):
American Indian movement.

TW (01:38:18):
Russell Means and what is the guy? Banks?

SM (01:38:20):
Yes.

TW (01:38:21):
Yeah.

SM (01:38:22):
The National Organization for Women, which is Betty Freidan and-

TW (01:38:25):
Gloria Steinem.

SM (01:38:25):
...Gloria Steinem.

TW (01:38:25):
Yeah.

SM (01:38:34):
And why do you feel... I will end with this. Why do you feel of all... Of the people in the... These are the people that I think when you think of the (19)60s and the (19)70s were the most disliked by the anti-war people or anybody on the left or anybody in the end. These are the ones that really set fires going. Left or right. And these were the names. Jane Fonda, Robert McNamara, Henry Kissinger, Spiro Agnew, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and William Westmoreland. There is something about them that really stirs people when you mention their names.

TW (01:39:14):
Well, I went... When you say both on the left and the right, I do not know if the main premise says everybody on the left. But I would just pick out the most visible architects and prosecutors of the war. Most inclined stuff to elicit that kind of reaction.

SM (01:39:36):
Are there... My last question. Are there any character? I know one of the things that they said. Only 15 percent of the Boomer generation was involved in any kind of activism.

TW (01:39:46):
Oh. Huh.

SM (01:39:46):
Some people felt that is even high. It is really more 5 percent.

TW (01:39:51):
Oh, really? Yeah, I do not know.

SM (01:39:52):
Yeah. See...

TW (01:39:52):
I am curious.

SM (01:39:54):
Huh?

TW (01:39:55):
I would be curious. Because I know it was always a minority and there were plenty of conservative students out there. But again, it was both. Conservative students. Because they act just the same.

SM (01:40:09):
Well, sometimes people used that to lessen the impact of a generation. That it was a minority. But it was a large minority, if you consider there was 74 million people.

TW (01:40:23):
Activists were always a minority.

SM (01:40:23):
Right.

TW (01:40:23):
In fact, I just... Briefly, I will tell you before I leave. When I got a bunch of these government officials to talk to me for that book, I spent a lot of time trying to phrase out my letters to them. And I decided I had better describe the anti-war movement as a vocal anti-war minority.

SM (01:40:35):
Say that again?

TW (01:40:38):
I decided after talking to several people that I better describe the anti-war movement as the vocal, anti-war minority. To try to get the government officials from Johnson and Nixon administration to talk to me. Particularly because I was a graduate student at first.

SM (01:40:52):
Right.

TW (01:40:52):
I was trying to come up with a way that would make them less likely to perceive me as a just Berkeley guy.

SM (01:40:59):
Wow. Yeah. And when you were trying to get people to be interviewed, were you getting one Yes and one No. Was it 50-50?

TW (01:41:09):
No, I was astounded in that. You mean the government people?

SM (01:41:12):
Oh, no. All the people you tried to reach for the book.

TW (01:41:16):
No, it was a definite majority. A substantial majority. I was... Yeah, it was a small minority that would not talk but it was... It was one of the most exciting times in my life. Getting responses from the Johnson and the Nixon people. That was exciting. I remember one day I got a positive response from Richard Helms, Dean Russ and somebody else like [inaudible]. Same day. That was exciting.

SM (01:41:41):
How would you even reach those people?

TW (01:41:42):
Oh, I tracked them down through Who's Who in America mostly. Now it is a lot easier with the internet, but it was mostly Who's Who in America. And then the anti-war activists, I called them all by phone. I just screwed up my courage, and I would get on a roll and call a bunch of people at once.

SM (01:41:57):
Well, so you were calling them. And so sometimes they did not respond to letters, but they responded to calls.

TW (01:42:04):
Well, I am talking... Actually, I am thinking more about my other two books in terms of not getting a letter. Not responding to a letter then having to call them. Because I was sending letters to almost everybody later. But yeah, I just found a huge number. In terms of what you are going through now, I think you are probably going to have to call a bunch of people and even keep pestering them. Not in a... In a nice way. But there were people I had to leave messages a bunch of times before I would find them. But I just did not give up. It is kind of the way I am.

SM (01:42:32):
Yeah. Well, I was getting just about everybody in the beginning. And now that I am almost completed, I have all these names. I do not know. They know who I have interviewed, and I am not getting as much of a response to some of these.

TW (01:42:46):
Oh, really?

SM (01:42:47):
Yeah, because I...

TW (01:42:48):
I think email is bad. I think email generally is probably not the best because some people get... There are people out there, maybe you are one of them, they get a huge amount of email.

SM (01:42:56):
Right.

TW (01:42:57):
And I think it just gets scary. And they are dealing with so much that I think it is much easier... I think you are going to have to call and maybe write letters and then it's... I know it is time consuming, but it is... I give up sometimes just because I do not feel like screwing my courage up to get on the phone. Keep the contact to somebody through a letter or email first. But third point, it is like, "Okay. If I really want to talk to this person, I got to try."

SM (01:43:17):
I am surprised how many people have never seen the email.

TW (01:43:21):
Oh, really?

SM (01:43:22):
Yeah, they get the email, but...

TW (01:43:24):
Well, that is...

SM (01:43:25):
Yeah. Some people do not even read their emails very often.

TW (01:43:29):
Yeah.

SM (01:43:29):
So, there is a lot of that. So probably the phone call is important.

TW (01:43:34):
Yeah, I think it is. I think there is probably... You will probably have to do more of that.

SM (01:43:35):
Yeah. All right.

TW (01:43:35):
I better go.

SM (01:43:42):
Yeah. The last. What do you think the lasting legacy will be of the Boomer generation, when the best sociology and history books are written 50 years from now?

TW (01:43:49):
The (19)60s.

SM (01:43:56):
The (19)60s will be the legacy?

TW (01:44:00):
Well, I see... Like I said, I am not really a student of the Baby Boom generation. When I think about the Baby Boom generation, I think about the (19)60s. About that-

SM (01:44:09):
You are part of it, though.

TW (01:44:11):
...and the universities.

SM (01:44:11):
Yeah. You are part of it though. Because you were born in what? (19)55?

TW (01:44:17):
Yeah, but I do... I was in the middle of the... Essentially the middle of that demographic.

SM (01:44:19):
Right.

TW (01:44:20):
On the other hand, I really was not part of the (19)60s protest. When I graduated from high school... I am 73.

SM (01:44:27):
Right.

TW (01:44:28):
So, I was not part of it.

SM (01:44:29):
So, any other things you want to say or basically that is it?

TW (01:44:33):
No, I actually better go. In fact, I got to call my friend and tell him.

SM (01:44:36):
Okay.

TW (01:44:38):
Hey, thanks very much Stephen. I enjoyed it.

SM (01:44:39):
Yeah, somehow, I got to get two pictures of you.

TW (01:44:42):
Okay. Two?

SM (01:44:44):
Two pictures. You can mail them to me. That is the best thing.

TW (01:44:46):
Can I take one on my computer?

SM (01:44:48):
Yep, you can do that as well.

TW (01:44:50):
Okay.

SM (01:44:51):
Thanks. Have a good day.

TW (01:44:51):
Yeah. Nice talking to you.

SM (01:44:53):
Same here. Bye.

(End of Interview)

Date of Interview

2010-08-19

Interviewer

Stephen McKiernan

Interviewee

Tom Wells

Biographical Text

Dr. Tom Wells is an editor, historian, and author. Dr. Wells wrote several books and contributed articles to multiple books on the Vietnam War and the 1960s. He has also received dozens of fellowships and grants from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, among other institutions. He has a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Berkeley.

Duration

216:23

Language

English

Digital Publisher

Binghamton University Libraries

Digital Format

audio/mp4

Material Type

Sound

Description

2 Microcassettes

Interview Format

Audio

Subject LCSH

Editors; Historians; Authors; United States—History—1961-1969;Wells, Tom--Interviews

Rights Statement

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.

Keywords

Activism; Women Strike for Peace; Nineteen sixties; Anti-War Movement; SDS; Weathermen; Baby boom generation; Counterculture; Radicals; New left.

Files

tom-wells.jpg

Item Information

About this Collection

Collection Description

Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s and 2010s. The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and… More

Link to Collection Overview

Link to Browse Collection Items

Citation

“Interview with Tom Wells,” Digital Collections, accessed March 29, 2024, https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/952.