American Democracy: Reprise

{1} "Sean Wilentz is well known as a leading historian of his generation. With this magisterial work, he establishes himself as a major figure in all of American historical scholarship." – Randall Kennedy, Harvard Law School; author of "Race, Crime, and the Law"; from his review of Sean Wilentz’s 2005 book "The Rise of American Democracy"

On Wednesday, February 27, Sean Wilentz’s article "Race Man: How Brack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton" was published on The New Republic. In the days since, supporters of Senator Clinton have held the article up as proof that their candidate’s campaign has not engaged in gutter politics. Some of her supporters have pointed to Wilentz’s status as the director of American Studies at Princeton as lending credibility to the position he took in the article.

A number of other people, including supporters of Senator Barack Obama, have disagreed with Wilentz. Among those opposed the Princeton historian is Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson. The two’s heated exchanges have been published on The New Republic.

Other Obama supporters have made snide remarks about Wilentz’s credentials, including comments that "Race Man" is evidence that Wilentz will do anything in his quest to be the Clinton’s version of Kennedy historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

Schlesinger is my favorite political historian. I also think very highly of Wilentz’s work. Though I disagree – strongly – with his "Race Man" article, I do not think it takes away from his value as historian. And rather than continue with a debate that should have ended when Senator Clinton apologized for her husband’s offensive comments, I think it might be more interesting to put Wilentz’s position into a historical context.

{2} "But modern study of the subject owes the most to Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.’s Age of Jackson, published in 1945. Before Schlesinger, historians thought of American democracy as the product of an almost mystical frontier or agrarian egalitarianism. The Age of Jackson toppled that interpretation by placing democracy’s origin firmly in the context of the founding generation’s ideas about the few and the many, and by seeing democracy’s expansion as an outcome of struggles between classes, not sections. More than any previous account, Schlesinger’s examined the activities and ideas of obscure Americans, as well as towering political leaders. While he identified most of the key political events and changes of the era, Schlesinger also located the origins of modern liberal politics in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, and in their belief, as he wrote, that future challenges ‘will best be met by a society in which no single group is able to sacrifice democracy and liberty to its interests’." – Sean Wilentz; The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln; 2005; page xix.

In the debate regarding Wilentz’s "Race Man" article, some of his supporters have focused on his being a "professional" historian. I do not think that does justice to his work. "Professional" simply means that he gets paid for what he does; "amatuer" comes from "amatus," meaning "to love." Wilentz’s passion for US history is what makes it outstanding.

While I am acquainted with some of his other works, it is "The Rise of American Democracy" that stands out for me. In it, he documents the shift from the United States being a republic to a democracy. In the book’s preface, he notes that republic comes from "res publica" meaning :public thing"; this implied the public good would be secured through the efforts of "the most worthy, enlightened men."

Democracy, on the other hand, comes from "demos krateo," or "rule of the people." His book traces the struggles between the end of the Revolutionary War and the beginning of the Civil War. It is far more than a list of the people and events involved in the transformation of American politics. Wilentz is brilliant, and he is able to interpret and explain how these events unfolded, in a manner that is of value to everyone interested in the struggle to restore our Constitutional democracy today.

The best historians are able to channel their passion for their topic, yet remain objective in reporting on it. I think that "objectivity" in this sense can be defined as someone standing outside of a frame describing a picture. "Subjectivity," on the other hand, is defined as a person trying to describe a picture from a position inside the frame.

Wilentz is an outstanding historian. He is objective and passionate. However, in his role as a Clinton campaign supporter, he is by definition subjective, and that, added to his passion for his candidate, is why I view the two roles as distinct. I also recognize that there are difficulties inherent in attempting to fill the "Schlesinger role" with any politician.

{3} "Of course the old rigmarole did not disappear. I was sworn in as Special Consultant behind closed doors and it was hinted that I not follow the usual practice of hanging my commission in my office. When the time came to move from EOB to the White House, President Johnson made one emphatic stipulation: I was not to occupy the part of the suite previously used by Schlesinger." – Eric F. Goldman; The Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson; 1969; pages 159-160

There was a front-page story in the January 2, 1964 Washington Post, announcing that Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., was going to resign from the Lyndon Joghnson administration, and that he was going to be replaced by Princeton historian Eric Goldman. The story angered members of the administration. "You are not the Johnson Arthur Schlesinger," Walter Jenkins told Goldman. "Nobody is going to be the Johnson Schlesinger. Nobody is going to be the Johnson anything of Kennedy. This is a different administration." (Goldman; page 34)

Goldman was aware of the role that his friend Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., had played in the Kennedy administration. He remembered JFK telling a journalist, William White, that, "Arthur has nothing to do with making policy. He works over there (the East Wing) and he is a good writer. Period." (Goldman; page 477) But LBJ was also aware of the role that Schlesinger had played, and after his attempts to secure Arthur’s services failed, he was intent upon replacing him. President Johnson believed that loyalty to his administration was gauged by submission, and Goldman didn’t measure up. When Goldman was unable to meet his needs, and the two split under less than friendly terms, Johnson would hold a grudge. LBJ’s "off the record" attacks on Goldman were likely a major reason that no attempts to re-create a Schlesinger in the White House were made after 1968.

{4} "[Back in New York] Sean Wilentz, a bright and lively historian at Princeton, had been talking to me during the week of the 12th [of October] about the constitutional implications of lowering the bar to impeachment. We decided that this is a point that might well be made publicly by a group of historians. Sean drafted a statement along these lines; I revised it a bit; we called the group Historians in Defense of the Constitution and added Vann Woodward to the team of sponsors. Then we circulated the statement during the week of the 19th. The response was astonishing, as iff historians had been waiting the chance to express their outrage over Kenneth Starr. In a few days, aided by E-mail and the Internet, over 400 historians were on board." – Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.; Journals; November 2, 1998; page 834.

When the republicans in Congress were pushing for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, Professor Wilentz helped lead a brave stance in exposing their effort as a sham.

In November of 1998, Schlesinger was among those who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution. There were other legal scholars and historians who argued for and against impeaching President Clinton.

In his journals, Schlesinger tells of how a republican from South Carolina viciously attacked him for expressing his opinion on impeachment. Schlesinger also tells of Washington journalists such as Christopher Hitchens attempted to discredit him by stating he "was not known to me before as a historian of any kind." An ugly article in the November 11 National Journal had one "nice quote," Schlesinger writes: "He is the great liberal Democratic intellectual of our time," the article quotes Sean Wilentz as saying.

"I have not enjoyed such a fusillade for a third of a century," Schlesinger wrote. "It makes me feel young again." He knew that he had accomplished his goal. He had presented the members of Congress with a history of impeachment; expressed his opinion on the current events; and got parts of the media to shift the focus of their coverage away from President Clinton.

{5} "So why Hillary?"

"I think Hillary is important because the election really is the culmination of what’s been a 40 year struggle for the Democrats to rediscover who they are. …"

"Why (not Obama)?"

"It’s like Adlai Stevenson. In some ways, Barack reminds me of Stevenson. …There’s always a Stevenson candidate. Bradley was one. Tsongas was one of them. …It’s beautiful loserdom. …" –Sean Wilentz; Making the Case …for Hillary Clinton; Newsweek blog; November 16, 2007

It’s almost ironic that Professor Wilentz chooses the first presidential candidate that Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., was closely associated with, to compare Obama to. More, he goes back to the LBJ era, in saying that Clinton represents a solution to the democrats’ 40 years of struggle in the republican wilderness.

Even as an Obama campaign supporter, I can appreciate that Professor Wilentz was making a sincere and intelligent choice in backing Hillary Clinton. He enjoyed a close association with President Clinton and Hillary, and was among a core group of party activists who had been planning for Senator Clinton to recapture the presidency in 2008. His motives were because he believed that she offered the best option for leadership for this country, after the severe damage that republicans like Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes have done to our democracy.

If he had thoughts of being a Schlesinger-like figure in the Clinton 2 administration, I think that it was from a passion for providing the public with information about the need to struggle – to reclaim our Constitutional democracy ("rule of the people") rather than the republican elitists’ "res publica."

And, if it were not for Senator Barack Obama, I believe that Hillary Clinton would be our party’s candidate, would win the election, and would be a very good president.

But as Professor Wilentz notes in "The Rise of American Democracy," there are struggles between groups of people within the political parties themselves. The Clinton campaign did not anticipate the strength of the Obama campaign. More, Professor Wilentz wrote about certain individuals who rise up from the soil of America, and play outstanding roles in our nation’s history. The citizens who are in the Obama campaign are convinced that Barack Obama has the potential to be such a historic figure.

Time will tell. And, at some future point, another great historian will record if President Obama is in the ranks of our nation’s great leaders.

A Tale of Two Sources

"By the end of September, the president’s war resolution was no sure thing. The White House had trimmed it back, dumping the language that authorized Bush to go to war to achieve stability in the region. Still, the White House faced a threat. Senator Joe Biden and two Republican senators on his foreign relations committee – Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel – were pushing an alternative that would narrow the president’s authority further. Under their proposal, Bush would be able to attack Iraq only for the purpose of destroying Iraq’s WMDs and only after seeking UN approval. If the United Nations said no, Bush would have to come back to Congress and demonstrate that the Iraqi weapons threat was so ‘grave’ that only military action could eliminate it. The Biden-Lugar measure was attracting support from both Democrats and Republicans. And, according to Biden, he and his allies were getting backdoor advice and encouragement from the administration’s reluctant warriors: Powell and Armitage. The White House was worried about Biden’s endeavor, and Bush was furious. ‘I don’t want a resolution such as this that ties my hands,’ he told Senator Trent Lott. The president, according to Lott, gave him an emphatic order: ‘Derail the Biden legislation, and make sure its language never sees the light of day.’

"But it was Dick Gephardt, the Democratic leader in the House and past and future presidential candidate, who derailed the bipartisan effort. He had already said he thought Iraq was a threat and that he was open to backing the president. …Gephardt’s thinking had been shaped by the former Clinton national security aides, including Holbrooke, Pollack, and James Steinberg, who were arguing that Saddam had to be confronted. But Biden and other Democrats wondered if another factor was influencing Gephardt: presidential politics. Gephardt, an earnest and dogged politician, was determined to run in 2004. …Eleven years earlier, he had voted against the first Persian Gulf War. If he cast a similar vote now, he could expect to be tagged by Republicans as soft and too hesitant to use military force. Gephardt reached an agreement with the president’s negotiators. At 1:15 in the afternoon on October 2, the White House held a Rose Garden ceremony with a crowd of senators and representatives from both parties to announce a resolution had been finalized. Standing right next to Bush, along with Hastert and Lott, was Gephardt.

"Gephardt had been urged by his political advisers to be by Bush’s side at the White House that day. …. Gephardt’s decision to back the president’s resolution killed Biden’s bipartisan alternative in the Senate and guaranteed a victory for the White House. When Biden consulted with Senate Republicans, they all said the same thing: How can we be to the left of Dick Gephardt? Biden’s effort to impose conditions on Bush’s march to war was finished."
--Michael Isikoff and David Corn; Hubris; 2006; pages 127-128.

{1} The above quote comes from Chapter 7, "A Tale of Two Sources," from Corn & Isikoff’s book. I think it is important information to consider when discussing the 2008 democratic primary, for a couple of reasons.

We have two candidates who are hoping to run against Republican John McCain in November. In the fall campaign, the issue of the war in Iraq will play a central role. McCain supported President Bush’s push to war in Iraq, and has stated that he thinks the US may need to remain in Iraq for at least another 100 years.

Senator Hillary Clinton voted for the war, but has since said that if she knew then what she knows now, she would have voted differently.

Barack Obama was not in the US Senate at the time, but is firmly on record as being opposed to the Bush-Cheney march to war.

Democrats backing each of the two candidates take very different positions on the significance of Clinton and Obama’s positions at the time the administration was pushing for war. Some Clinton supporters believe that members of the congress simply didn’t know the administration was lying about the "threat" that Iraq posed. The quotes from "Hubris" and from Bob Woodward’s "State of Denial," quoted below, suggest otherwise.

More, in "Hubris," we see that Dick Gephard was willing not only to ignore the information that was available, but would betray both democrats and republicans who were trying to keep our nation out of an unnecessary war. Why did Gephardt behave in such manner? For one reason: he placed his presidential ambitions above anything and everything else.

Some people are pointing to Chuck Hagel’s support of Senator Barack Obama as if it undercuts Obama’s credibility. When we take into account the actual history of Hagel’s opposition to the Iraq war, it is those attacks on Hagel which lack credibility.


"On September 29, 2005, I went to the Senate to have breakfast with Senator Carl Levin, 71, of Michigan, a 26-year Senate veteran and the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. … Before the war, he had believed that Saddam had WMD but he didn’t think that was a good enough reason to invade. Levin voted against the war ….

" ‘I tried in 10 different ways to get that declassified,’ Levin said. ‘Because if we could have brought out in advance of the attack that we had not shared with the U.N. all of the sites that we were suspicious of, it would have put a chill on the decision to go to war.’ ….

"Levin said that the inspection process was incomplete, not thorough. It could have delayed the war, he believed, but not stopped it. He complained about ‘all of the shadings, exaggerations, and hype’ about WMD by Bush and Cheney and said it ‘showed the most willful and purposeful intent’ to create a deception. ….

" ‘Powell had the potential to change the course here,’ Levin continued. ….’If he told the president that this is the wrong course,’ Levin said. ‘I don’t think he ever realized what power lay in his hands, and that’s an abdiction. I think Powell has tremendous power.’ He said Powell had a number of things he could have done to slow down if not possibly stop the war. He could have threatened to resign or insisted that the U.N. weapons inspectors be allowed to continue, Levin said. When Bush asked Powell in January 2003 if he would be with him in the war, Levin said, Powell was at the peak of his influence.

" ‘Can you imagine what would have happened if he’d said, "I’ve got to give that a little thought"? Can you imagine the power of that one person to change the course? He had it’."
--Bob Woodward; State of Denial; 2006; pages 415-417.

{2} From Woodward’s book, we find more information that shows there were reasons for democrats in congress to question the Bush march to war in Iraq. Claims that congress didn’t know that Bush and Cheney were pushing misinformation are without simply wrong.

Senator Levin raises a most important point for democrats to consider. It goes beyond what role Colin Powell might have played, were he motivated by conscience in 2003. Rather, it has to do with the power that an individual has to seek the truth, and to stand up for their country and do the right thing, regardless of the consequences.

Colin Powell lacked the spine to stand up to President Bush and VP Cheney. Dick Gephardt was so intent on becoming president, that he blocked out all thoughts about the horrors that his support for the war would cause. He needed that Rose Garden photo opportunity.
We need a different type of leader.

When our democratic nominee debates Senator John McCain this fall, the topics will include the war in Iraq, national security, and US policy in the Middle East and other lands. Do we want the democratic candidate to be Senator Clinton, who voted for the war? Or for Senator Obama, who spoke out against the war? I think the choice is obvious.

A Sane Society

"Many people are seized by one and the same effect with great consistency. All his senses are so strongly affected by one object that he believes this object to be present even if it is not. If this happens when the person is awake, the person is believed to be insane. … But if the greedy person thinks only of money and possessions, the ambitious one only of fame, one does not think of them as being insane, but only as annoying; generally one has contempt for them. But factually greediness, ambition, and so forth are forms of insanity, although usually one does not think of them as ‘illnesses’."
--Spinoza; Ethics; IV Prop., 44 Schol.

{1} The 2008 democratic primary presents the us with a significant option: our party will not only nominate either an African-American man or a woman as our candidate for president, but we will offer the American public a choice between a continuation of the Bush-Cheney policies or the possibility of restoring our Constitutional democracy.

There are risks associated with such an opportunity. Some of those dangers are being promoted by agents of the republican party, who are intent on dividing democrats into hostile groups that are incapable of uniting in November. Others are found within the party itself, and involve the diseases of racism and sexism. In the past three months, we have witnessed an increasing amount of tensions that could divide our party, and fuel republican victories in state and national elections.

Today, I’d like to examine some of the issues involved in the contests. My goal is not to try to sway anyone to support either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Rather, I think it might be worth looking at some of the concepts associated with matriarchal and patriarchal influences on our society.

Sociologists debate if human society has produced any "pure" matriarchal cultures. A couple of valuable resources are the writings of Austrian intellectual Bertha Diener and Swiss sociologist Johann Jakob Bachofen. Diener, also known as "Helen Diner" in some American texts,authored "Mothers and Amazons" in 1930. I am familiar with Bachofen primarily through Erich Fromm’s books "The Sane Society" and "To Have or To Be?"

Fromm was interested in the concepts of matriarchal and patriarchal influences on the relationship that individuals had with each other, and how those relationships translated into the social fabric of various cultures. Let’s take a closer look at some of his ideas.

"All passions and strivings of man are attempts to find an answer to his existence or, as we may also say, they are an attempt to avoid insanity. (It may be said in passing that the real problem of mental life is not why some people become insane, but rather why most avoid insanity.) ….All cultures provide for a patterned system in which certain solutions are predominant, hence certain strivings and satisfactions. Whether we deal with primitive religions, with theistic or non-theistic religions, they are all attempts to give an answer to man’s existential problem. The finest, as well as the most barbaric cultures all have the same function – the difference is only whether the answer given is better or worse. The deviate from the cultural pattern is just as much in search of an answer as his more well-adjusted brother. His answer may be better or worse than the one given by his culture – it is always another answer to the same fundamental question raised by human existence. In this sense all cultures are religious and every neurosis is a private form of religion, provided we mean by religion an attempt to answer the problem of human existence. Indeed, the tremendous energy in the forces producing mental illness, as well as those behind art and religion, could never be understood as an outcome of frustrated or sublimated physiological needs; they are attempts to solve the problem of being born human. All men are idealists and cannot help being idealists, providing we mean by idealism the striving for the satisfaction of needs which are specifically human and transcend the physiological needs of the organism. The difference is only that one idealism is a good and adequate solution, and the other a bad and destructive one."
--Erich Fromm; The Sane Society; 1955; pages 34-35.

{2} Fromm recognized that societies, like individuals, had the potential for both good and bad. Healthy, or sane societies, tend to have some differences from unhealthy societies. Some of these are measured in the frequencies of things such as certain types of mental illness, substance abuse, violent crime (including the various types of domestic violence), and suicide.

Nation-states with high rates of these dysfunctions are more likely, I believe, to identify people such as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as "leaders." It is safe to say that in the world community, the United States is considered an unstable neighbor, with family members who range from good and decent to those who are hostile and aggressive. There are times, including in the democratic primary discussions and debates, when those ranges behaviors are attributed to matriarchal and patriarchal influences that translate into racism and sexism. Not surprisingly, there are times when people confuse those traits.

Fromm identified both the good and bad potential in matriarchal society. The positive attributes include a sense of affirmation of life; the sacredness of life; equality among people; a sense of personal freedom; and humanism. The negative attributes include the sense of being bound by nature to one’s bloodline and the soil, in a manner that blocks individuality and reason.

In terms of patriarchal society, he identified the positive attributes as being reason, discipline, rationality, objectivity and individualism. The negative attributes include inequality, oppression, and submission to man-made "laws" and the modern state.

Often, these potentials find their expression in human relationships in the matriarchal influences seeking equality and cooperation, and the patriarchal in hierarchy and competition.

"In the Middle Ages it was the vision of the City of God that inspired us. Then, beginning in the 18th century, it was the vision of the City, of Earthly Progress, the sense that we must understand nature in order to dominate it. Now this has all ended in what looks like the Tower of Babel – that which was progressive in the Middle Ages and in the 18th and 19th centuries has been lost. What we now desperately need is a synthesis between the faith of the late Middle Ages and the reason and science of the last two centuries. That’s the only way I see that we can be saved from a sort of technocratic fascism."
--Erich Fromm; To Have or To Be?; 1976; page 1.

{3} In the 1800s, Lewis Henry Morgan, a lawyer from New York City was tasked by the "men’s club" that he joined, to create a set of guidelines based on the Iroquois Confederacy. The Iroquois were a matriarchal society, with family structure defined by female lineage. Morgan became fascinated by Iroquois culture, and became an early social anthropologist. His book "Ancient Society" influenced Engels to write "Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State."

Fromm believed that the combination of the best matriarchal and patriarchal influences would result in a form of democratic socialism, which would still encourage individual accomplishment.
The United States has had glimpses of that best potential: certainly, the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) is the best example of this in theory. There are numerous other examples, some great and some small, of this potential for a Great Society.

There are also historic examples of the sinister potential: fascism, nazism, and Stalinism stand out as stark examples of man’s inhumanity to man.

The severe problems that we face today – including the environmental crises, the energy shortages, the health care failures, the economic depression, and the domestic and international violence – are systematic. Our nation cannot resolve them by simply voting in new "leaders" ….and yet they surely cannot begin to deal with them so long as misfits like Bush and Cheney remain in power.

"Mental health is characterized by the ability to love and to create, by the emergence from incestuous ties to clan and soil, by a sense of identity based on one’s experience of self as the subject and agent of one’s powers, by the grasp of reality inside and outside ourselves, that is, by the development of objectivity and reason."
--Erich Fromm; The Sane Society; page 58.

{4} The 2008 presidential election will help to influence the ability of our society to move towards being a constitutional democracy, or to continue on the path towards a technocratic fascism. It’s a choice between a sane society and an insane society.

The good and bad potentials that Fromm identified are not exclusive to the Clinton campaign, or the Obama campaign. These are qualities found in the majority of us, as we engage in this most important struggle. We are faced with the choice of achieving victory by cooperating, or risking failure by continuing the ugly competition within the democratic community.

"Come, my friends, ‘tis not too late to seek a newer world." –Tennyson

All in the Family

One of the curious aspects of the 2008 primary is how different groups of democrats view Bill and Hillary Clinton, and how those different groups view each other. I think it is interesting to compare what is happening today with some history from the 1990s. Let’s take a few minutes to review some information from the journals of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

Schlesinger was a liberal democratic historian, who is most closely associated with John and Robert Kennedy. He had worked with Adlai Stevenson before the Kennedys, and continued to be active in liberal circles until his recent death. He was a strong opponent of Richard Nixon, and authored "The Imperial Presidency," which remains one of the best books on impeachment.

In the late 1980s, Schlesinger believed that the liberal wing of the democratic party had two potentially strong national leaders. Both were experienced governors: Mario Cuomo and Bill Clinton. He believed that either of the two would be able to provide the leadership the party needed in 1988

Schlesinger was pleased when Clinton did enter the ’92 race. He assisted the Clinton campaign in the general election. One of the things that stands out in his journals is that when the media began to attack candidate Clinton, that Arthur was uncomfortable with Bill’s response.

On February 20, 1993, Arthur and some democratic members of Congress were discussing concerns with the way the media was defining President Clinton. Schlesinger felt that some members of the press had been pro-Clinton early in the election, and were trying to compensate in the early days of the administration by attacking him. He disagreed with his friends’ belief that President Clinton should react by attacking the media. He said that "every time a politician wants to win applause from a crowd, all he has to do is attack the press." (page 743) Instead, Schlesinger advocated that Clinton use the tactics that JFK used when dealing with reporters.

On August 3, 1994, Schlesinger and friends were concerned that the media was being used in a manner that took the Clinton administration off course. A friend attempted to talk to President Clinton about changing his approach to the media. But she told Schlesinger that "it’s very difficult to know how much of it really penetrates. He feels so terribly hurt and frustrated and beleaguered and sees himself as the object of persecution by the press." When he asked if Hillary was any help, his friend said, "No. She is worse."

Schlesinger wrote, "Presidents are congenitally angry at the press and never feel they are getting the credit due them. But Clinton seems to lack both the temperamental detachment and historical perspective. JFK, though he would blow up (briefly) at the press, was saved by an ironic slant on life and an objectivity about himself." (page 770)

On October 28, 1994, President Clinton called Schlesinger, to ask his help on an upcoming speech to the United Nations. Schlesinger said he would be glad to help. "Then he digressed into his general situation and went into a rambling attack on the media." Clinton told Schlesinger that he had been treated worse than any other President in US history. Being a presidential historian with a keen interest in the role of the media, Arthur Schlesing was able to correct Clinton on this; he mentioned, for example, FDR.

"But the air of incipient paranoia in Clinton’s wail of exasperation is a little disquieting," he wrote. Schlesinger continued to take note of what he called President Clinton’s "Nixon-style paranoia about the ‘media’." (pages 774 and 789)

In November, 1995, when the press confronted him about an inconsistency in a speech about economics, President Clinton replied, "My mother told me I should never make a speech when I am tired." A few days later, at a ceremony at the Truman Library, Schlesinger made an attempt at humor when he quietly said to President Clinton, "Don’t forget what your mother told you."

He wrote that this "seemed to irritate him greatly, and he went into an annoyed and defensive account of how he had been misrepresented, etc. I tried to move on (we were in a receiving line), but he held me by the arm and continued an angry and largely incomprehensible explanation." (page 793)

A few days after that, President Clinton called neoconservative journalist Ben Wattenberg, and had an hour-long conversation in which he explained that he had been "too liberal" in his first two years, and had decided to "reform and take the Democratic Leadership Council line." (page 793)

Schlesinger would continue to support Clinton, and was among the experts who testified before Congress that the efforts to impeach the President were unjustified. However, he noted that there were times when it was unclear "what Clinton stands for, if anything." He concluded that Bill Clinton lacked one of JFK’s strengths: "Kennedy made mistakes but generally learned from them. Clinton generally repeats his mistakes."

For many liberal and progressive democrats, Schlesinger’s descriptions of Bill Clinton seem to apply to Hillary Clinton. It’s not that we started off with an anti-Hillary agenda, and we certainly recognize that she would be 1000 times better than John McCain as president. But we see areas where we think she is more like her husband, and where Barack Obama is more like John Kennedy.

In response to the concerns about Rev. Wright, Obama delivered one of the most positive and powerful speeches in our lifetimes. In response to the misrepresentations of her Bosnia trip, Senator Clinton responded much like Schlesinger describes her husband. These examples illustrate the differences that we see between the candidates, and why the liberal and progressive democratic communities are supporting Senator Barack Obama.

Allowances

(Note: This is my daughter's letter to Obama, which included a donation to his campaign.)

March 18, 2008

Dear Barack Obama,I would like to start off with this note: fantastic job on your speech today. "Worthy of President Lincoln," as Chris Matthews said. It's nice to see that someone is actually standing up for unity in this country. After all, isn't that what this country was built on? Uniting many diverse cultures and people to make one nation? That was how this country was created. I am very grateful.

Secondly, I would like to say without prevarication, I hope you are the next President of the United States and that I believe you will be. You have given many Americans hope that people really aren't as divided as some people suggest, that we really are one nation. I may only be fourteen years old, but I can certainly tell what prejudice and segregation has done to humans. I mean, just look at what has happened in our country for the past 7 years. Our country was becoming more and more and more divided.

Then you came along.

Politicians were not meant to be sneaky or power-hungry, and you are neither of those things, a great politician. The government was made to serve the people, and I honestly think that is what you want to do. Serve the people, unite the people, stand up for the people. That is what the very core of you is made up of. Essentially, that is you.

To be fair, I do think that the democratic candidates you were competing with really did want to help the people as well, especially at the beginning of the campaign. Sadly, power reared its ugly head again, and now they are controlled by a lust for power. It is quite strange, because I would not think someone running for President of the United States would be power hungry. I think your opponent is, and that is what made me decide to support you, instead of Senator Clinton.
Just to let you know what really matters to me, here are a few things:

1- The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 2- The economy in the United States (and the rest of the world) 3- Health care 4- Global warming 5- The United States' foreign policy

And, most importantly, division in America and throughout the world. I think we could probably solve all the problems in the world -- if we just worked toward and succeeded at getting unity first. To be candid, I think it is perfectly stupid and ignorant to be distracted and divided by race. When I say that, I mean it is stupid to judge someone based on what color skin they have. Prejudice in general...that's something that matters to me. My extended family is, like your own, a wonderful mixture of colors and backgrounds.

"Prejudice is the child of ignorance," and prejudice and ignorance are some of the biggest causes of failure I have seen. I do not care if you are a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, from the Green Party. I do not care if you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or any other form of religion. I do not care if you are black, white, red, yellow, or blue. All I see when I look at a person is just that: a person. I'm not saying it doesn't matter where you come from or who you are; obviously it does. You should be proud of the person you are. It helps each of us contribute to your family, your school, your community, and your country. That’s why I am writing this: because my sister (age 10) and I want to contribute to your campaign. We have saved our allowances, and want to be part of your campaign.

One last note: please, talk more about how to end the war in Iraq, and bring the US soldiers home.

Candidly yours,

Remembering Martin Luther King, Jr.

" I thought I had to say something. I don’t know if ‘careful thinking’ would have caused me to revise the speech. I was politically unwise, but morally wise. I think I have a role to play that may be unpopular. I really that someone of influence has to say that the United States is wrong, and everybody is afraid to say it. What I did was go beyond the point that anybody has done who is of influence. I have just become so disgusted with the way people of America are being brainwashed by the administration."
--Martin Luther King, Jr., to Stanley Levison; April 5, 1967; FBI tape 100-106670-2877; Book III, Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities; US Senate

{1} As we approach the 40th anniversary of the death of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr, it seems appropriate that the nation is involved in a discussion involving issues including race relations, the connection between racism and US foreign policy, the relationship between that foreign policy and the US economy, government spying on citizens, and the often stressful marriage of religion and politics in our society.

Many of us old enough to remember the role Martin played in the civil rights movement are encouraged by the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama. His speech on March 18 was compared to King’s "I Have a Dream" message to America in 1963. I was not surprised by the reaction of some people who said that Obama does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as King. This is because, I believe, our nation has yet to fully understand who Martin Luther King, Jr., really was.

Charles Willie, who was a college classmate of Martin’s, has noted that, "By idolizing those we honor, we do a disservice both to them and to ourselves. By exalting the accomplishments of Martin Luther King, Jr., into a legendary tale that is annually told, we fail to recognize his humanity – his personal and public struggles – that are similar to yours and mine. By idolizing those whom we honor, we fail to realize that we could go and do likewise."

That concept was further examined by Diane Nash, who said, "If people think that it was Martin Luther King’s movement, then today they – young people – are more likely to say, ‘Gosh, I wish we had a Martin Luther King here today to lead us.’ If people knew how that movement started, then the question they would ask themselves is, ‘What can I do?’" (David Garrow; Bearing the Cross; 1986; page 625.)

"I still have a dream today that one day justice will roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream. I still have a dream today, that in all of our state houses and city halls men will be elected to go there who will do justly and love mercy and walk humbly with their God. I still have a dream today that one day war will come to an end, that men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, that nations will no longer rise up against nations, neither will they study war any more. I still have a dream today that one day the lamb and the lion will lie down together and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid. I still have a dream today that one day every valley shall be exalted and every mountain and hill will be made low, the rough places will be made smooth and the crooked places straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."
--Martin Luther King, Jr.; The Trumpet of Conscience; 1967

The media tends to focus exclusively on King’s civil rights efforts during the annual holiday. Little mention is made of his efforts to combine the civil rights and anti-war efforts. The above quote, taken from the collection of sermons that comprise the 96-page book, shows that his anti-war sermons were closely related to even his "I Have a Dream" speech.

The sermons and lectures from the book are included in "A Testament of Hope,"1986, the editor notes that Americans "considered his stance to be anti-American and thoroughly irresponsible. Many of his closest ‘friends’ deserted him. His stance, however, proved to be prophetic." (page 634)

The five sentences that make that paragraph also show the influence of the prophets of old. Let’s look at their connections: (1) This is from Amos 5:24; (2) Micah 6:8; (3) Isaiah 2:4; (4) Isaiah 11:6 and Micah 4:4; and (5) Isaiah 40: 4-5.

In fact, the majority of Martin’s speeches, sermons, and writings bring the message of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah to the civil rights and anti-war movements. King was influenced in his understanding of the role of religion in politics while in college. Two professors in particular had introduced Martin to two theologians, Walter Rauschenbusch and Reinhold Niebuhr, who believed that religion could play an important role in American society.

Both Rauschenbusch (1861-1918) and Niebuhr (1892-1971) were of the post-Darwin era, when scientific realities moved the creation story of the bible from a literal interpretation to mythology. This, of course, allows thinking people to re-evaluate the ministry of Jesus. Rauschenbusch was one of the originators of what evolved into "liberation theology." He viewed mainstream Christianity as erring in its focus on ritual and individual sin vs salvation, rather than the social justice demanded by the prophets, including Jesus.

Rather than dying to redeem individuals’ "sins," Rauschenbusch believed that the cross symbolized the shortcomings of society. Those shortcomings included the church being compromised by its connection with the rich and powerful, rather than serving as the advocate for the poor and downtrodden. He believed that the "kingdom of heaven" was a goal that could be accessed by the evolution of human consciousness on earth, as defined by the sermon on the mount.

Niebuhr took a similar position, though he concluded that human nature predisposed people to behaviors that were stumbling blocks to reaching that "kingdom of heaven." His views were different in large part because he had, like Rauschenbusch, experienced not only WW1 – the "war to end all wars" – but because he saw the horrors of the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, and WW2. He believed that true Christian consciousness demanded opposition to the forces of human evil.

King’s college writings, which were closely examined by US intelligence agencies, show a young man who begins to question the capitalist economic system of the country. The genesis of his social ministry is found in the papers he wrote as a student, and those forces who opposed King – including FBI Director J Edgar Hoover – were upset by King’s ability to communicate these beliefs to not only the civil rights movement, but to the "New Left" when he started to speak out against the Vietnam War in 1967.

"There were times – especially when the criticisms came against him on his Vietnam position – that he naturally would begin to evaluate ….his whole image and just what people thought of him in terms of his leadership, whether or not he could continue to be an effective leader."
--Coretta King (Garrow; page 711)

{3} In his evolving civil rights ministry, King was influenced by many "non-Christian" sources, including Gandhi and a number of non-religious "humanist" philosophers. One of the most influential thinkers of the era was Erich Fromm, who believed that "progress can only occur when changes are made simultaneously in the economic, socio-political and cultural spheres; that any progress restricted to one sphere is destructive to progress in all spheres." This quote, from the foreword of his 1955 "The Sane Society," is part of one of the most interesting examinations of the pathologies of modern society. Fromm believed that in an "insane society," those who were actually "healthy" would be viewed as "maladjusted." King began to see that his ministry would be viewed as "maladjusted," first by those religious leaders who opposed his civil rights efforts, and then by the larger society when he combined the civil rights and anti-war movement. (See chapter 5 of "Martin Luther King, Jr.: The Making of a Mind; John Ansbro; 1982)

On March 29, 1967, King went to Louisville for a Southern Christen Leadership Conference board meeting. He met with heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali, who was involved in a struggle with Uncle Sam over the draft. Years later, it would be revealed that the FBI was monitoring King’s telephone conversations with Ali, in which Martin expressed support for Muhammad’s conscientious objection to the Vietnam War.

The next day, King told a New York Times reporter that he believed "it is necessary to stand up against the war in Vietnam."

On Tuesday, April 4, 1967, Martin delivered his revolutionary "A Time to Break Silence" (aka "Beyond Vietnam") speech at the Riverside Church in New York City. In it, he called the United States government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today," and stated that the war in Vietnam was "but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit." King called on all young American men being drafted to declare themselves conscientious objectors to the war, and attacked the military industrial complex, declaring that, "If we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a ‘thing-oriented’ society to a ‘person-oriented’ society."

"(King) has done a grave injury to those who are his natural allies ….and …an even greater injury to himself. Many who have listened to him with respect will never again accord him the same confidence. He has diminished his usefulness to his cause, to his country and to his people. And that is the great tragedy."
--The Washington Post; April 5, 1967

{4} The response to King’s speech was severe. The Pittsburgh Courier claimed Martin was "tragically misleading" his followers; the New York Times called him "reckless"; and Life magazine referred to his speech as "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi." Newsweek magazine claimed King was guilty of "simplistic political judgement" that indicated he was in "over his head."

Carl Rowan, Ralph Bunche, Whitney Young, Roy Wilkens, Jackie Robinson, and Senator Whitney Young all publicly disagreed with King. Years later, Martin’s closest associates noted that not only had the rejection hurt him, but that he became depressed and distant after the speech. Ralph Abernathy described his last year of life as a "lonely" time, even when surrounded by friends.

Garrow notes that "the Johnson White House and J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI …evaluation was far more negative. Presidential advisor John P. Roche told Johnson that King, ‘who is inordinately ambitious and quite stupid,’ had ‘thrown in with the commies’ because he was ‘in desperate search of a constituency.’ The ‘Communist-oriented "peace" types,’ Roche alleged, ‘have played him (and his driving wife) like trout..’ ….. The FBI interpreted the latest turn of events even more seriously, as Hoover explained in a private communication to Lyndon Johnson. ‘Based on King’s recent activities and public utterances, it is clear that he is an instrument in the hands of subversive forces seeking to undermine our nation’." (Garrow; pages 554-555)

The government surveillance on King increased significantly after the Riverside address. The FBI found that the "New Left" was supporting a proposal by Dr. William Pepper to have King run for president along with anti-war activist Dr. Benjamin Spock. (Garrow; pages 557-558)

Martin also began to plan the "Poor People’s Campaign," in which he would create a "tent city" in Washington, DC, to bring attention to the plight of the poor in America. Pepper’s 1995 book "Orders to Kill" details how the concerns expressed by Hoover about the "threat" that King posed lead to US military intelligence keeping a close eye on his every move. In fact, congressional investigations in the mid-1970s showed that military intelligence was engaged in surveillance on King in Memphis in April of 1968.

"For maximum effectiveness of the Counterintelligence Program, and to prevent wasted effort, long-range goals are being set. …. Prevent the rise of a ‘messiah’ who could unify, and electrify, the militant black nationalist movement. Malcolm X might have been such a ‘messiah’; he is the martyr of the movement today. Martin Luther King, Stokely Carmichael and Elijah Muhammad all aspire to this position. Elijah Muhammad is less of a threat because of his age. King could be a very real contender for this position should he abandon his supposed ‘obedience’ to ‘white, liberal doctrines’ (nonviolence) and embrace black nationalism …."
--FBI memorandum; March 4, 1968

{5} In 1968, King was planning the Poor People’s Campaign. He needed funding from liberal institutions in order to accomplish this and continue with other SCLS activities. Part of his organizing included attending a "Ministers Leadership Training Program" sponsored by the Ford Foundation in Miami. Among the presenters was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the author of a controversial report on black families. Although Martin agreed with much of what Moynihan had to say, others did not. Moynihan would report to Ford president McGeorge Bundy that it was "the first time I have ever found myself in an atmosphere so suffused with near madness … The leadership of the meeting was in the hands of near demented Black militants who consistently stated one untruth after another (about me,about the United States, about the President, about history, etc, etc) without a single voice being raised in objection. King, Abernathy and Young sat there throughout, utterly unwilling (at least with me present) to say a word in support of non-violene, integration, or peaceableness." (Garrow; 598-599)

On March 29, 1968, as the Poor People’s Campaign loomed closer, Senator Robert Byrd took to the Senate floor to attack King. "Mr. President, we have been hearing for months now that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., has been planning a march on Washington and a ‘civil disobedience campaign’ in the Nation’s Capital in April. …. If this self-seeking rabble-rouser is allowed to go through with his plan here, Washington may well be treated to the same kind of violence, destruction, looting, and bloodshed. … This man, who suffers from the delusion that only his eyes have the divine insight to detect what is wrong in our country, claims he wants to dramatize the plight of the poor. … This will be no spontaneous demonstration, Mr. President, no grassroots movement. This task force he wants to bring here, by King’s own admission, must be recruited and ‘trained.’ Some of the recruits, it is said, will come from cities that went up in flames last summer. One can only assume that they will be riot-hardened veterans. One can properly ask, I think: What sort of ‘training’ are they now being given? Why, Mr. President, do citizens, if their cause and their grievances are just, have to be trained? It seems to me that there is something sinister here. … King lovingly breaks the law, like a boa constrictor. He crushes the life from it. … The English language is like putty in King’s hands, but his incantations are loaded with hidden land mines."

He then called upon the federal government to take action to prevent Martin Luther King, Jr., from proceeding with the Poor People’s Campaign.

It is hard to believe it has been 40 years. Thank you, Martin.

Luck of the Irish

{1} On March 17, we celebrate the life of a man born 1619 years ago in Britain, who was kidnapped and brought to Ireland. The feast day for this giant among men will be held in the USA, Canada, parts of Africa, Europe, India, Australia, the Pacific Islands, New Zealand, and China.

The New York Times carried an article on March 18, 1981, that told of "Mayor Koch, swaddled in a huge green, white, and gold scarf on top of a bulky Irish sweater, arrived as members of the St. Gerard Majella drum corps of Hollis, Queens, warmed up, giving it everything they had, which was considerable.

"The Mayor held forth on his theory that the lost tribes of Israel settled long ago in Ireland and that therefore he was Irish. The crowd loved this ….." (100,000 Step Up Fifth in Salute to St. Patrick; William Farrell)

The role of the Irish in history is fascinating. Many American citizens know, both from written and oral histories, the story of how their ancestors migrated to this country in the 1800s. And most know about "the Troubles" that have caused so much suffering among those still in Ireland in the decades since. Today, I thought it would be interesting to examine some connections between "the Troubles" in Ireland, and the destruction of some of the ideals expressed in the Constitution of the United States.

When we think of the role of the Irish in human history, we often think of the individual and group events of centuries past. There was Brendan’s sailing; the adopted Patrick’s adaptation of Christianity; the victims of the Great Starvation; the immigrants who won the US Civil War for the north; and, as Thomas Cahill noted in his 1996 "How the Irish Saved Civilization," a largely untold history of the heroic Irish effort to save higher learning during the era known as the Dark Ages.

In 1997, Michael Coffey and Terry Golway published "The Irish in America," a tribute to the 40 million US citizens who then claimed Irish roots. The book had six chapters: (1) The Great Famine: Between Hunger and the White House; (2) The Parish: The Building of a Community; (3) The Precinct: Working from the Inside; (4) The Work: Where the Irish Did Apply; (5) The Players: Irish on Stage; and (6) The New Irish: Keeping a Culture Alive.

And the Irish are poets by nature and nurture: let me quote a verse from a schoolgirl from Belfast named Natalie Hardwick:

"Bomb City, Bomb City, Bomb City drummed into us,
Night and Day minute by minute.
Strangers pity and question: How can we poor,
terrorized people live surrounded
by bigotry, bombs, and bullets?"
(Ireland in Poetry; Charles Sullivan; Abrams Publishing, NY; 1990; page 6)

When I read those lines, I can’t help but think that they are the same thoughts and emotions that schoolgirls in Iraq have been thinking in the years since George Bush and Dick Cheney began the US war of occupation in their lands. I note that England "created" the nations of "Northern Ireland" and "Iraq" at about the same time. In both cases, it was an attempt to secure access to the natural resources of foreign lands to prop up the decaying "British Empire."

{2} Roibeard Geroid Seachnasaigh was born in Northern Ireland in 1954. His Catholic family was forced to move about during his childhood, in part because of the limited economic opportunities available to the Irish in their own land, and partly because of the constant threats of violence they faced. Better known as Bobby Sands, he too was a poet; in his haunting verse "The Rhythm of Time," he spoke of the universal drive in human beings to be free from foreign oppression:

"There's an inner thing in every man,Do you know this thing my friend?It has withstood the blows of a million years,And will do so to the end. ….

"It is found in every light of hope,It knows no bounds nor spaceIt has risen in red and black and white,It is there in every race. …."

In the 1960s and early ‘70s, there was a civil rights movement in Northern Ireland that was heavily influenced by the light of hope shining in the United States. The Catholics in the occupied counties recognized the connection between their circumstances, and that of the black and Native American peoples in the United States. Not surprisingly, the response of the "powers that be" in both Northern Ireland and England to the Catholics’ civil rights movement was similar to Uncle Sam’s tactics with the black and Indian movements. The English’s reactions were in some important ways more extreme, and when we examine them closer, they shed some light upon the Bush-Cheney administration’s policies in the "war on terror."

The following information comes from two books by the Irish author Tim Pat Coogan; the books are "The Troubles: Ireland’s Ordeal 1966-1996 and the Search for Peace," and "The IRA." I recommend these books to anyone interested in the politics of Ireland.

As the civil rights movement began to gain strength in the Catholic neighborhoods in Northern Ireland, the Protestants began to engage in systematic intimidation. Many of the Catholics subscribed to the beliefs of Gandhi and King, and were willing to turn the other cheek. But others responded to the threats of violence by forming local units that they identified with the groups that their ancestors had belonged to over the centuries. The Irish Republican Army (IRA) was the best known of the groups, and it had roots in Irish history.

As the violence between the Catholic and Protestant groups escalated, the British government introduced more English troops as "peace-keepers" in Northern Ireland. The English military’s leadership became convinced that most of the IRA’s support was being "imported" from the Irish Free State. The began a coordinated crackdown on the borders and in the Catholic neighborhoods of communities experiencing unrest. Coogan noted that "the British Army was the IRA’s best recruiting agent. The saturation was such that at one stage there were 2,000 soldiers billeted in Paddy Devlin’s Belfast constituency alone, one in every ten voters. On a specimen Saturday night Devlin counted thirty army vehicles in the district. Soldiers moved along in groups of twenty or more, dispersed on both sides of the street, guns at the ready." (The Troubles; page 137)

Paddy Devlin himself described the British military’s tactics: "I was downright angry at the mindless harassment, degrading obstruction, and casual brutality the soldiers meted out to all who came in their path. I spent hours boiling over in anger and frustration, incoherent with rage, complaining to arrogant, overbearing British officers who failed to see the damage they were doing, the way they were walking into the trap the ruthless Provos had laid for them and how they were only acting as recruiting sergeants for the Provos." (ibid)

Devlin then identifies the single factor – the poor quality of military intelligence, which resulted in the misguided British "surge" – which plunged Northern Ireland into an anarchy that resembles the Iraq that Bush has created. "They failed to understand that many families shared common surnames, but were not related ….they arrested fathers when they wanted the sons and the sons when they were after the fathers. Innocent teenage boys and old men thus found themselves held at the point of a British rifle, and many of the people I dealt with then were so alienated by the experience that they joined the Provos and later became notorious terrorists." (ibid)

As the conflict intensified, it became obvious to the British military intelligence that the IRA was growing in strength in Northern Ireland. It had become impossible to pretend that infiltrators from the Irish Free State were causing all of the Troubles. The sealing of the borders, curfews, and raids had failed to make the Catholic population docile. Hence, a committee known as "GEN 42" began to meet at Downing Street in England to consider new tactics to combat the rise in Catholic nationalism.

{3} GEN 42 created what they called the "toothpaste policy": the British military would squeeze the Catholic community in Northern Ireland until it vomited out the IRA. They would focus less on attempting to identify those who committed acts of violence from the shadows, and instead concentrate on applying pressure on those who openly advocated "revolutionary ideas" – with those ideas similar to the ones expressed in the US Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights being identified as dangerous.

The "toothpaste policy" was defined as a necessary part of a "sustained opposition to terrorism." This was code for a combination of internment without trial, and torture to coerce "confessions." The British had "plans for the systematic employment of torture against detainees. This policy had its origins in earlier British experience, in theaters such as Aden, Cyprus, Kenya, and in the brainwashing techniques employed against American and British servicemen in Korea. These were subsequently adopted by the British Army against EOKA during the Cyprus campaign. This type of expertise was unknown in the RUC and the British had set up a special team of instructors to train the RUC Special Branch. The nature and extent of these preparations were both fully understood and sanctioned by the proper authorities within the Ministry of Defense, British intelligence, and the upper echelons" of the British government, Coogan writes. (The Troubles; page 149)

The "toothpaste policy" was not new. The British already had lists of specific individuals to be detained without any court hearings, but more, they had four secret locations to where the suspects would be interned and tortured. Known as "Operation Demetrius," this series of actions was never as successful as it was brutal. It started it a "trial run" that netted 48 suspects; this allowed those who were actually engaged in terrorist activities a two week warning to go underground.

Next, the British intelligence attempted to round up 450 "targets." Because the actual terrorists had gone underground, the British were only able to find 350 suspects. Those gathered included some men who had been active with the IRA in the 1940s, but who had been long retired; people who were picked up as a result of mistaken identity; and many who were guilty of nothing more than writing about freedom.

Of the 350 suspects, 104 were released within 48 hours. The secret police had picked up the wrong person in 104 of 350 cases, indicating that the military intelligence had a rate of absolute error in approximately 30% of the cases. And although the 104 men were released within 48 hours, each one had been subjected to torture by the British intelligence. The remaining 246 suspects were subjected to the same tortures for extended periods of time.

The tortures endured by the Catholics held prisoner without being charged or having any court hearing may sound familiar to US citizens who oppose the tactics of the Bush-Cheney administration. These techniques included hooding; sleep deprivation; white noise; starvation; forced standing for extended periods while spread-eagled and leaning against a wall on finger-tips; and forms of sexual humiliation. Some men were forced to run bare-footed on broken glass. Many were kicked in the testicles, and raped with batons.

Coogan writes: "These techniques were accompanied by continual harassment, blows, insults, questioning. This treatment usually went on for six or seven days. It produced acute anxiety states, personality changes, depression and, sometimes, early death. I spoke to a psychiatrist who had the thankless task of trying to rehabilitate some of the interrogation victims, at the behest of the British government, and he told me that they were ‘broken men,’ most of whom did not survive into their fifties." (The Troubles; page 150)

Global community outrage forced the British to set up a committee to investigate the abuses. Known as the Compton Inquiry, it gave new meaning to the term "white-wash" when it determined the men had been subjected to "ill treatment" but not "brutality." After an independent human rights commission concluded the Irish Catholics had indeed been tortured, the case was sent to the European Court of Human Rights. After being dragged out for over two years, the ECHR ruled that there was no "systematic torture." Instead, the ECHR concluded that there were a few low-ranking officials who had gone beyond the use of "inhumane and degrading treatment" and engaged in actual torture.

It is interesting to note that it was during this period that the IRA enjoyed the most wide-spread support that it ever had in Northern Ireland. As a result, there was a terrible increase in the explosive violence that maimed and killed far too many people. Young and old, male and female, Catholic and Protestant, Irish and English, hundreds of people – the vast majority innocent bystanders to the horrors of war – died in the reign of terror that resembles the Bush-Cheney occupied Iraq.

{4} Enemy Encounter

Dumping (left over from the autumn)
Dead leaves, near a culvert
I come on
a British Army Soldier
With a rifle and a radio
Perched hiding. He has red hair.

He is young enough to be my weenie
-bopper daughter’s boy-friend.
He is like a lonely winter robin.

We are that close to each other, I
Can nearly hear his heart beating.

I say something bland to make him grin,
But his glass eyes look past my side
-whiskers down
the Shore Road street.
I am an Irish man
and he is afraid
That I have come to kill him.
--Padraic Fiacc (Patrick Joseph O’Connor)

Immigrant Soul

{1} "I am glad to hear that any words of mine, though spoken so long ago that I can hardly claim identity with their author, have reached you. It gives me pleasure, because I have therefore reason to suppose that I have uttered what concerns men, and that it is not in vain that man speaks to man. This is the value of literature. Yet those days are so distant, in every sense, that I have to look at that page again, to learn what was the tenor of my thoughts then. I should value that article, however, only because it was the occasion of your letter.
"I do believe that the outward and the inward life correspond; that if any should succeed to live a higher life, others would not know of it; that difference and distance are one. To set about living a true life is to go (on) a journey to a distant country, gradually to find ourselves surrounded by new scenes and men …."
--Henry David Thoreau; March 27, 1848

Among the pile of books that my daughter Chloe brought home from the public library this week were two collections of Thoreau’s works. "Letters to a Spiritual Seeker" is a collection of 50 notes from the years 1848 to 1861; the second, "Thoreau," is a collection of four of his books, including "Walden" and "Cape Cod."

The first chapter of "Cape Cod" is titled "The Shipwreck." Thoreau describes walking on a beach at Cohasset, Massachusetts, in October of 1849, and finding parts of a ship wreck. It was the St. John, which was destroyed about a mile from shore by a storm. He saw a handbill that read "Death! One hundred and forty-five lives lost at Cohasset," as he watched the immigrant Irish from near-by communities, searching the beach for any signs of survivors.

He came upon the body of a young woman, who he believed "probably had intended to go out into service to some American family." And then he was overwhelmed by what followed: "All their plans and hopes burst like a bubble. Infants by the score dashed on the rocks by the enraged Atlantic Ocean! No! No!"

Some 160 years later, I think that Thoreau would be pleased that an 8th grade student like Chloe is reading his works. I know that I am.

{2} "I do believe in simplicity. It is astonishing as well as sad, how many trivial affairs even the wisest man thinks he must attend to in a day; how singular an affair he thinks he must omit. When the mathematician would solve a difficult problem, he first frees the equation of all encumbrances, and reduces it to its simplest terms. So simplify the problem of life, distinguish the necessary and the real."
--Thoreau

When society begins to spin and spin at an increasingly rapid pace, I enjoy being able to retreat to my one-room cabin near my pond, at the edge of the woods. I can move at my own slow pace, and spend hours reading and watching the snow melt. Because March 17th approaches, I find myself thinking of crossing the near-by creek, and walking along the abandoned railroad tracks to an isolated pioneer cemetery, the final resting place of people who died from approximately 1800 to 1875.

Years ago, a railroad historian who had previously used my late father as a resource, had called me to ask about the site. He had made several attempts to find the grave yard, but couldn’t locate it. I took him and my daughters on the short walk, and showed him where, shortly after the Civil War, a group of immigrant Irish were buried outside of the cemetery’s stone wall. They had died from one of the diseases that took the lives of men living in cramped quarters, and the local Protestant community refused to consider granting them proper burial within the cemetery. Thus, they were buried in a mass grave along the bank.

The tiny crossroads community that saw the turnpike replaced by the railroad is long gone, and more than a hundred years had passed since the flag station near the cemetery had ceased to function. In all of the years that I have lived in this area, I have never seen anyone at the cemetery except those few people I have brought there. I sat quietly as the railroad historian took some pictures; the only noise was that of my daughters, who were happy to find evidence of the trains that used to pass by here every hour of every day.

The historian walked over to me and said, "This is really a sad place. You can feel the loneliness." I asked him what he meant? He said that these men had come to the United States in hopes of finding a new life, and were working in order to send money to bring the next group of their families to America. They had died in a place where no one cared, and buried in a mass grave. No one had contacted their families, and no one even remembered their names.

"But we are here," I said. "We are here now, today." And there are the happy voices of itty-bitty Irish-American girls, laughing and singing. This spot is powerful, in that it has a strange mixture of tragedy, history, beauty, and the laughter of little children, full of life.

He said it was too bad that there were so few records of the immigrant workers, or photographs where individuals could be identified by relatives today. "Come to my house," I said. "I’ll show you some photos, including some tin-types from the Old Sod. And I will tell you some stories that have been handed down."

As we headed towards my house, I told him how my father used to say that every railroad tie served as a headstone for an Irish immigrant who had died building the track.

{3} "Lamh foisneach abu!’ ("The gentle hand to victory!")
--Clanna O’Sullivan-Mor motto, from ancient times

My ancestors’ ancestors came from the southwestern section of Ireland, known as the province of Munster, from the clanna (or tribe) of O’Sullivan-Mor. In the 100 years between 1650 and 1750, the English had stolen much of the land that had belonged to the branch of the family to which I belong. They were forced from their property in places such as Trughanacmy, Ballymcelligott, Carriggnafeal, Ardballa, and Ballnagrillagh.

The English imposed the Penal Laws of 1698, in an attempt to destroy the native culture. It became a crime for an Irish Catholic to buy land; to live in a "corporate" town; to practice a trade or a profession; to vote or to hold public office; to educate their children; to practice their religion; to own a firearm; or to own a horse worth more than 5 pounds.

One of my "great" grandfathers became a famous "hedge master" outside of Limerick in the late 1700s. He taught classical literature; geography; algebra; bookkeeping; and languages including Greek, Latin, and the Irish, Scottish, and Manx dialects of Gaelic. Several of his manuscripts are housed today in the Royal Irish Academy.

He also taught political science. The people he associated with read the writings of men like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Along with a cousin, he joined with leaders including Edward Fitzgerald, Oliver Bond, and Wolfe Tone, in forming the United Irishmen. They paid tribute to the American Revolution by beginning their war of liberation with the Battle of Ballygullen on July 4, 1798.

My "great" grandfather and his cousin were among those captured by the English, and sentenced to death. He served time in a dungeon, and wrote a poem while awaiting execution; the poem was smuggled out of the prison, and I have a copy of it given to me by one of my father’s cousins. My "great" grandfather had his life spared.

His cousin, Robert Emmet, delivered one of the most powerful of speeches upon being sentenced to death by the English lord Norbury. It can be found in "The World’s Famous Orations," by William Jennings Bryan (Vol. VI; pages 137-146; copyright 1906; Funk & Wagnall Co.; New York) Here is part of the speech:

"My lords, it may be part of the system of angry justice, to bow a man’s mind by humiliation to the purposed ignominy of the scaffold; but worse to me than the purposed shame, or the scaffold’s terrors, would be the unfounded imputations as have been laid against me in this court: you, my lord, are a judge, I am a supposed culprit; I am a man, you are a man also; by a revolution of power, we might change places, though we could never change characters …."

{4} Malone: "My father died of starvation in Ireland in Black ’47. Maybe you’ve heard of it?"
Violet: "The famine?"
Malone: "No, the starvation. When a country is full of food, and exporting it, there can be no famine."
--George Bernard Shaw; Man and Superman

In 1845, the potato crop that the Irish depended on for their daily bread was infected with a fungus, Phytopthora infestans. Within the year, the crop had been reduced to less than one-fifth of its normal yield. For thousands of families, particularly in the southwest, this created a crisis.
These families had experienced the same reduction in status as had mine: they went from land-owners to tenants on tiny plots of a foreign landlord’s estate. Thus, although they produced bumper crops of barley, oats, and wheat, the British landlords demanded these for the rent.

British historian Robert Kee noted that on a single day in November of 1848, the following items, produced entirely by the Irish Catholic farmers, were sent from Cork to England: 147 bales of bacon; 120 casks and 135 barrels of pork; 5 casks of ham; 300 bags of flour; 300 head of cattle; 239 sheep; and 542 crates of eggs. As Shaw’s Malone noted, when a country is full of food, and exporting it, there is no such thing as "famine."

Under the leadership of British representative Robert Peel, attempts were made to feed the poor. Citizens from the United States were sending contributions, including loads of corn. Help came not only from Irish-Americans, but from other groups, most notably the Quakers. Even the Choctaw Indians from Oklahoma, themselves victims of poverty caused by the theft of their lands, sent $170 to buy food. It is said that although there was suffering, no one starved to death under Peel.

However, the British landlords were able to influence their government to make changes: Peel was removed, and a cruel bureaucrat named Charles Trevelyan assumed power. He believed that the British market was inspired by divine law, and that the donations to feed and cloth the Irish Catholics were an offense against God. He put an end to the donations of food and clothing.

"The great evil with which we have to contend," Trevelyan stated, was "not the physical evil of the famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people." He identified the need to change the nature of Irish culture, rather than to save lives, as the most important goal. The media of the day fell in line; "The Times" of London editors responded to calls to help the suffering poor with a single cold line: "It is possible to have heard the tale of sorrow too often."

Ireland had a population of 8 million people in 1845. By 1851, more than a million of these human beings had died of starvation and the diseases that feed upon malnutrition. Two million more had boarded the "Famine Ships," sailing towards North America. They would become the nation’s first "huddled masses."

Edward Laxton’s 1996 book "The Famine Ships: The Irish Exodus to America" helps to tell of the horrors associated with those journeys. It puts the story into a context that is too often overlooked. The British involvement in slave trade, in which ships from Europe picked up slaves in Africa, dropped them off in America, and returned with cargo including sugar, cotton, and other goods produced by slave labor, had ended. Many of those same ships were put to use as the famine ships that transported the Irish the US and Canada, and returned with cargo. A number of circumstances, including the unhealthy people being cramped into the slave quarters, and the deterioration of the ships themselves, resulted in the high rates of death on the ships and the numerous ship-wrecks, suck as the one Thoreau witnessed washing ashore.

The majority of the Irish immigrants faced harsh conditions in the Irish ghettoes of the eastern seaboard cities they lived in. "Nativism" was among the problems: George Templeton Strong, a New York lawyer-politician, wrote that, "Our Celtic fellow citizens are almost as remote from us in temperament and constitution as the Chinese."

Over half of the adults who immigrated to the cities would die within the first five or six years after arrival. A large number of the men would end up fighting in the Civil War. About 15% of the men would move westward, finding employment on the railroads.

{5} "I’ve been working on the railroad,
All the live-long day;
I’ve been working on the railroad,
Just to pass the time away."
--Author unknown; based upon "The Levee Song," by slaves building levees on the Mississippi River in the 1830s.

Some of my family had come to the USA during the Great Starvation, and found work as stone-cutters first on the canals, and then on early railroads. Some worked to build the railroad that used to pass by here; they were immigrant laborers on the line at the same time the group of men died of either cholera or diphtheria in the camp near the creek. They worked to earn enough money to send back to Ireland, to help pay to bring the next group of family members over. They settled in the towns that were connected to the eastern cities by the railroads.

My grandfather was born in Ireland in 1874, and came to this country with his family at the age of five. Because the US provided his extended family opportunities they were denied in Ireland, he and his siblings had the advantage of formal education. The family went from stone-cutters, to telegraphers, to station agents, to police officers and civil engineers in a relatively short time.

In the NYC-New Jersey area, they did have the struggles that often pitted them against other groups of immigrants. Those relatives who were old enough to remember life in the early 1900s used to tell me, for example, of the competition between the Irish, the Italians, and the Jews in the sport of boxing.

That was a different time, in a different space. It also is as close as the unmarked mass grave of the Irish immigrants is to me as I type this.

"But the bell rings, and I must get off the track and let the cars go by; --
What’s the railroad to me?
I never go to see
Where it ends.
It fills a few hollows,
And makes banks for swallows,
It sets the sand a-blowing,
And the blackberries a-growing,
but I cross it like a cart-path in the woods. I will not have my eyes put out and my cars spoiled by its smoke and steam and hissing.
Now that the cars are gone by, and all the restless world with them, and the fishes in the pond no longer feel their rumbling, I am more alone than ever. For the rest of the long afternoon, perhaps, my meditations are interrupted only by the faint rattle of a carriage or team along the distant highway."
--Thoreau; Sounds; from Waldon