There’s nothing like coming home late from the airport, exhausted from a day of travel after a grueling out-of-state recording session with friends, and finding a three foot tall stuffed rat dressed like a rabbit laying on the ground in front of your house. I don’t know if I would have been so freaked out, had I not been hung over, and had my kids not been screaming about the possibility that it might have been left by an evil clown, but I was totally terrified as we pulled up and saw it there, illuminated by our headlights, it’s beady little eyes staring at us. I knew it wasn’t likely, but I couldn’t help but think it was possible that a little person might be inside it, just waiting for me to get close enough before leaping up like a Chucky doll and chasing me through the neighborhood. So, like a coward, I got out of the car, found a long stick, and poked at it a few times before finally grabbing it by the ear and dragging it away from the kids, who, by this point, were standing close by, screaming that I should call the police… Now that I know we’re not in any danger, though, I’m wondering if I might be able to convince Arlo to get inside of it, and just lay still on the lawn of my neighbors until they come out to investigate.
The giant rat that was waiting for me upon my return home
Tom Hayden, famed ’60s anti-war activist, dies at 76
I just woke up to find that Tom Hayden passed away last night. Here, for those of you who may have missed it the first time around, is our discussion from 2012, which, sadly, I’ve yet to finish my transcription of. You can still listen to it, though.
Earlier this evening, I had the occasion to speak with activist and author Tom Hayden about his role in the drafting of the Port Huron Statement, the circumstances which gave rise to this widely influential manifesto of the New Left, and his evolution from student journalist to impassioned activist. Hayden, who is often credited with having giving rise to the culture of protest that was pervasive in the 1960s, will be in Ann Arbor later this week, addressing those gathered on the campus of the University of Michigan to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Port Huron Statement. The entire agenda for the three day event, which is free and open to the public, can be found here. Hayden’s keynote, entitled “The Future of Participatory Democracy,” will be delivered at 7:30 PM on Thursday, November 1, at 1324 East Hall. Those interested in attending can register online.
My intention is to eventually type up all of my notes and post them along with this audio file, but, as the 50th anniversary events begin tomorrow, I thought that I should probably just go ahead and share what I have already.
I hope that you enjoy this discussion as much as I did.
And here are my very rough notes on our discussion. If you should happen to find anything that needs editing, or requires clarification, please let me know…
SEVERAL TIMES DURING MY DISCUSSION WITH HAYDEN, I reference an earlier conversations with Alan Haber, the founder of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the organization responsible for the production and disseminated the Port Huron Statement, which, as most of you know, was primarily authored by Hayden. Video of my discussions with Haber, for those of you who are interested, can be found elsewhere on this site (Part I, Part II).
HAYDEN AND I BEGIN BY DISCUSSING THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN IN 1957. He doesn’t mention it here, but, in a previous conversation, he tells me that, by the time he reached campus, the specter of McCarthyism had lifted somewhat. (As you may recall, when I spoke with Haber, he mentioned that one of his first memories at U-M, as a freshman in 1954, was interacting with a small group of faculty, on the steps of the Union, protesting the dismissal of professors Chandler Davis, Mark Nickerson, and Clement Markert, all of whom had been fired for having refused to “name names” in front of the House Unamerican Activities Committee.) Hayden’s introduction to progressive politics, it would seem, was more gradual.
Hayden was interested in journalism at a young age, and, when he came to the University in 1957, he found a home for himself at the Michigan Daily, where he eventually became the paper’s editor. In his capacity as a student journalist, Hayden began writing about the sit-ins and lunch counter protests taking place in the south, and the activities of fellow students, like Haber, who were seeking to organize like-minded individuals on campus. Over time, as Hayden traveled across the United States, covering student movements for the Daily, he felt himself becoming more political… Hayden hitchhiked from Ann Arbor to Berkley in 1960 to report on the activities of students there, and, that same summer, he attended the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, reporting on Kennedy’s nomination. Things finally started to crystalize for him, however, in the spring of 1961, when he and some friends drove to Fayette County, Tennessee, to work with share croppers who were fighting for the right to vote. The sit-in movement, he says, hit him viscerally. And, as a result, in the summer of 1961, he joined SDS, alongside Haber.
He says that Haber, Bob Ross and Sharon Jeffrey had been encouraging him to get involved for a while. Haber, according to Hayden, wanted him to be a pamphleteer for the group, producing written materials, and traveling to other northern campuses, in hopes of starting additional SDS chapters. Hayden says that he was different from the others in the group, in that he didn’t come from a UAW, old left, labor background. He describes himself at that time as being a “non-conforming intellectual with an affinity toward Jack Kerouac and On the Road.” He was primarily interested, he tells me, in traveling, getting to know those individuals who where putting their lives on the line to fight for equality, and documenting the struggle in print. This evolution continued to the point where, in 1961, Hayden chose to take part in the Freedom Rides, putting his own life on the line to challenge the status quo of the segregated American south.
HAYDEN MENTIONS IN OUR DISCUSSION THAT HE’S WRITTEN A NEW PIECE FOR THE MICHIGAN DAILY, on the 50th anniversary of the Port Huron Statement. As luck would have it, the article just went live a few minutes ago. Here’s a clip.
…Nothing turned out as I once imagined. There was one constant: the tides of movements and counter-movements kept churning. Movements based on participatory democracy eventually gained some meaningful reforms: voting rights for southern black people and 18-year olds, the fall of two presidents, amnesty for 50,000 war resisters in Canada, the Freedom of Information Act, democratic reforms of the presidential primary systems, collective bargaining rights for public employees and farmworkers, the Roe v. Wade decision, the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species acts, a long list of reforms gained in less than a decade.
Social change did occur, precious inch by bloody inch, becoming sacred ground that had to be protected, decade after decade, from both reaction and oblivion.
Underlying all of this tumultuous history lay the rocky river of participatory democracy – “the river of my people” – which kept flowing.
Now, to paraphrase Port Huron, we are the elders of this generation looking uncomfortably to the world we leave behind as inheritance. The reforms we achieved are under constant assault from the right and stagnating with the passage of time.
We are in the process of a new beginning, signaled by the deep American discontent with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the threat of more wars to come and the immense diversion of trillions of tax dollars from our needs at home for health care and affordable education. Like the ’60s, another imperial presidency is on the rise, unleashing covert military operations in multiple countries without serious congressional oversight or civic awareness. Like the ’60s, the long war leaves greater economic inequality and environmental depletion in its wake…
MORE LATER…
Now, with just 19 days before the election, is not the time for Democrats to start talking about corporate tax cuts
It’s being that Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, in an interview yesterday with CNBC’s John Harwood, said that one of his top two priorities next year, if he and the Democrats take back control of the Senate, would be to push for a tremendous corporate tax cut. The following comes by way of The Intercept.
Speaking of himself in the third person, Schumer said that “we’ve got to get things done… The two things that come, that pop to mind — because Schumer, Clinton, and Ryan have all said they support these — are immigration and some kind of international tax reform tied to a large infrastructure program.”
American multinational corporations are now holding a staggering $2.5 trillion in profits overseas, refusing to bring the money back at the current tax rates until they get a special deal.
Revenue-starved Democratic leaders have broadly hinted they are prepared to cave, either for a “holiday” period or permanently.
In an exchange with CNBC’s John Harwood, Schumer confirmed that the latter is in fact in the works. When Harwood asked Schumer if “it would be a permanent lower rate, not a holiday rate,” Schumer replied, “Yes, you can’t do a one-shot deal.”
While the idea makes sense on one hand, as it would perhaps give us the revenue we need to fund an infrastructure bank, allowing us to finally address our nation’s crumbling highways, bridges and tunnels, putting American’s back to work in the process, it would, on the other hand, be a – to use the words of Senator Elizabeth Warren – “a giant wet kiss for the tax dodgers” who have taken advantage of loopholes for the past several decades to hide their profits oversees.
I suppose I should withhold judgment, as it might well be the case that President Clinton and the Democrats could negotiate an awesome deal for the American people to bring corporate profits back to our country, where they could fund projects that would lay the foundation for future American growth. I can’t help but think, however, that, we the Democrats win in November, especially if they win in a landslide, as some are suggesting, that there might be an opportunity to do something more ambitious than pass a corporate tax give-away. I mean, if Clinton comes to office with a mandate, and if we retake the Senate, do we really want our first order of business to be a tax cut? Again, I get the up-side, and I understand that it would be great if Clinton could get an immediate “win” that could bring conservatives to the table, but I don’t know that this is the kind of thing that you and I had in mind when we sent checks to her campaign. And that’s what concerns me. I’m afraid that talk like this will keep progressives from the polls on November 8, and we can’t afford to see that happen. So, yeah, I’m pissed at Schemer for bringing this up right now. Even if it just makes a small fraction of voters from coming out on election day, it could have a huge impact.
I should also mention that there’s some question, given the history of such initiatives in the United States, as to whether this plan of Schumer’s would even work. The following comes from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
A good idea? Congress’s last tax amnesty, in 2004, was a flop. Executives of large global U.S. corporations had argued that the amnesty would allow them to reinvest their overseas earnings in America. But a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 92 percent of the repatriated cash was used for dividends, share buybacks, and executive bonuses. “Repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, employment or R.&D., even for the firms that lobbied for the tax holiday stating these intentions,” the study concluded.
Again, I’m hesitant to pass judgement at this point, as it could make sense, depending how how well we negotiate with these firms, but, on the face of it, something seems wrong about offering an enormous corporate tax break, which could come the American people tens of trillions of dollars over the next several decades, in order to repatriate $2.5 trillion that should have never left the country in the first place. What’s more important, though, I think, is the impression this gives to voters as we’re now just 19 days away from the election. I don’t mind having this debate. I just don’t want it now. I’m of the same opinion as Bernie Sanders on this. Job number one has to be to get Hillary Clinton into office. On November 9, though, we need to change focus and go at her from the left, keeping the pressure on her to serve as President for all the American people, and not just the corporate elite.