Our ideals and goals were often commendable, but the process was flawed. Being young, we thought we could do it with revolutionary actions, but our sense of history was very limited and uninformed. We did plant many seeds and started a lot of progressive change, but so many never even bothered to vote, which was evident by two landslide victories by Richard Nixon.

It is with age and experience, that I've begun to realize that positive change comes incrementally with an occasional quantum leap here and there. You are right, I don't think Bernie has ever moved past that era and his rhetoric and ideas have barely changed over the years. I remember that the revolution of the sixties brought us Richard Nixon, two terms of Ronald Reagan, and one term of George H. Bush. Revolutions have consequences.

The Reagan economic narrative has prevailed since 1981 but I think, if we win the Presidency, House, and Senate, that Democrats will usher in a new era. No, not a revolution, but a change in the way society thinks.

Instead, we need to focus on legislative offices, every TWO YEARS, instead of just in presidential election years. If the party has one singular fault, it is in forgetting the legislative branches in federal and state politics. We need desperately to change that attitude.

A "political reset" is far more appropriate and with a Democratic controlled White House, Senate, and House, we can do that. Also we need more Democrats on the state and local level. We've seen over the years that a lot of progressive change starts on the state and local level and moves up to the federal level. Marriage equality and marijuana legalization come to mind.

Yes, there was a time when I thought only a revolution would bring change. But, that didn't happen. What the revolution, such as it was, brought was a reactionary result that, as you pointed out, gave us Nixon and Reagan and Bush. Each of those men set things back during their times as President. Despite that, we have moved forward, one step at a time, in some areas. In others, we have not moved forward at all.

Dissent Magazine still exists, and so does the Democratic Socialism it has always championed. I have no doubt that Bernie Sanders has been reading that publication all along. I used to read it regularly, back in the 1960s. I put it aside, though, because what it was advocating never seemed to gain traction or establish itself as part of American political reality.

I'm not famous. I don't even write about politics, except on discussion forums. I have never run for office. I have, however, campaigned actively for Democrats I believed would work to make change happen in ways that could actually work.

While I was deeply involved in revolutionary, radical activities in the late 1960s in the Washington, DC area, I moved on from that when I saw that it was not helping to cause change in itself. It was too unbending, unable to work cooperatively with actual legislators, nor able to see beyond a narrow window on society.

Bernie Sanders is still trying to put in place things that couldn't work in the 1960s and will not work now, either. He has not moved on. He is stuck in a past that is familiar to me, but no longer any more relevant than it was then, in terms of actual impact on society.

conjured up a lot of memories of people who were purists, often to the extreme, sometimes even embracing violence. That was never my style. I've wasn't one to burn everything down and rebuild from scratch, as there were many positive things I would have liked to salvage. I hated my mother's constant tired cliches, but the "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" certainly rings true.

I remember many very spirited and intense debates late into the night, but looking back, I can see we were very young, doing what young people do. A lot of change takes place because the young will boldly go beyond the limits, but there needs to be some stability and reason in order for those changes to last. And of course the ability to compromise!

I couldn't see how the things they wanted to do would be possible, or even accepted by most people. So, they wouldn't happen.

Anyhow, that tendency toward a purist approach is still around, apparently. I reject it now for the same reasons I rejected it then.

would pretty much tell you all you need to know about revolutionary change, which would indicate that a better educated population would hopefully approach change more rationally.

I don't like the purist approach in much of anything and I have to be very vigilant that I don't go there myself. When you discover some profound truth, it is pretty easy to believe that it is the one and only way, you want the rest of the world to see it too. Kind of like an evangelical.

good look at the Russian Revolution and what it brought to the Russians. I actually read the book a few years before the movie came out.

We were probably reading it at about the same time. I've always been fascinated with Russian history, especially early 20th century. It would seem that historically revolutions only serve to replace one autocrat with another, often worse than the original.

Iam younger than that now,but understand the angry old man,just looking to be heard with no solid plan,so let us move ahead to a person that has plans to carry on

with the ideas in the article but I believe change will happen incrementally. Achieving progress is traditionally done by the art of compromise. It’s just the way things are. I wish progress would happen faster and all at once but that’s not the way of the world.

things seems very archaic to me now. I never met him at the time, although I met and interacted with many others who were prominent activists.

Tom Hayden did finally take a legislative approach to change, becoming a legislator himself. He probably accomplished more in that role than he ever did as a revolutionary activist.

that I thought you'd appreciate. When we lived and worked in downtown Chicago, my ex husband used to go watch the Chicago 8 trial, because he started work later than me. I got to hear the stories first hand and then the next day read about it in the paper. Apparently it was incredible entertainment. Once he actually rode on the elevator with the defendants.

that Judge Hoffman order Bobby Seale gagged and bound. Another day one of them came into the court walking on his hands. As I said, a lot of entertainment, but not much progressive change came out of it all.

Once it became the theater of the absurd, though, it was clear to me that it wasn't going to result in anything particularly good.

I'm afraid that I became less and less enthusiastic about the publicly acclaimed leaders of the anti-war movement the more I encountered them. There was a lot of self-aggrandizement going around among that group. It's a common problem with any group, I suppose, but I was sorry to see it happen.

the "self-aggrandizement". I think most of them started out with admirable intentions, but somehow the egos took over, which brings us back to the many flaws of a revolution. Its interesting that some went on to lead very productive lives, working to bring about change in other more conventional ways, while others disappeared into obscurity. Abbie Hoffman was probably one of the saddest.

I can't say that I disagree with most of what they stood for, but their methods and the patriarchy of their movement never sat well with me. Extremes though initially enticing, tend to make me rather uncomfortable. I suppose it is the maternal side of me.

Nice trip down memory lane and always interesting to revisit the past from a hopefully more mature and experienced perspective. Still it truly was a fascinating time to be alive.

It was the late 1960s, and women in the movement were treated poorly, especially by the "leaders." I remember many young women with great ideas who were simply ignored. Most planning sessions were pretty much male-only at the time, which was hugely frustrating for the women who were involved.

I was pretty young at the time, and most of the leaders were in their 30s. I remember being puzzled that women were not more prominent, since I knew plenty of them whose ideas were at least as valid as the men who were running the show, pretty much.

I was more of a second-tier person when it came to planning and stuff like that. There were plenty of more assertive personalities involved throughout, and I wasn't ready to push that hard, I suppose.

After I left the DC area, I returned to California and went back to college. I didn't exactly drop out of things, but the school I attended wasn't on the forefront of political action, by any means. It was mostly an engineering and agricultural school. There was some activism, of course, and I was part of that, but it was not tightly focused there, nor highly visible.

After graduating, I stayed in that area of California and got more involved with the Democratic Party organization there. We managed to unelect the Republicans in the state legislature and our congressional representation in a few years. We shifted local government to the left, as well. Little by little we helped move that area into becoming a more liberal community. Ever since, I have been involved in Democratic Party politics on the local level, and that is enough for me, really.

being involved in the movements at the time meant ready access to sex and drugs. Women often were there to cook, clean, and serve the guy's needs. Not terribly enlightening. Even Jane Fonda took on that role with her husband Tom Hayden, often living in his shadow and adjusting her life to his, which is rather bizarre considering what a major public figure she was. Only a handful of women had found their voice by that time. We were still living in a man's world.

I never got involved in any of the actual movements, as I've never been much of a joiner. Once I married and had a child, we "dropped out" of society for a couple of years and traveled the country in a VW Van (I know, it is such a cliche). That way, I got to meet people on a more individual level. As a rule, I am really uncomfortable with people in large groups. I like small, intimate interactions with stimulating conversations. Those would be what I miss the most about that time, though that could just be a youth thing!

The conflict between poor white people and poor black people in some states is hugely unfortunate. Both groups have similar needs and stumbling blocks, but they fought each other instead of fighting to change their situations.

I have never lived in the South, but I've sure spent plenty of time there in the past.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to this post. I appreciate it very much.

Movement politics has usually been identified with the conservatives, but I think it’s a good description for Sanders.

I knew him casually, and we discussed doing an interview for DU after my interview with Mark Rudd.

The Port Hurn Statement provides a better example of his thinking, in my opinion.

https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111huron.html

I never considered sanders to be a serious candidate. sanders has zero major legislative accomplishments in part because none of his fellow Democrats really want to support his agenda. I do not understand sanders' political revolution and how this revolution would somehow force congress to adopt his agenda. The only thing that is clear is that sanders attacks on other Democrats and the Democratic Establishment have backfired

Link to tweet

Last edited Fri Mar 13, 2020, 10:22 AM - Edit history (1)

less drama and more sanity in the next president.

I can see that that is where his roots are, but they have become badly distorted.

That is what made me take every step I made in life not be be poor again.

That does not mean I have no compassion for those,who no fault of their own need a helping hand. Something I have had many times. We need to help others. Give them a hand up.

That is also why I am a moderate Democrat.

I too, remember Tom Hayden.

You made me think about the mentality of those who follow those movements, or cults.

Making a trip to Kroger’s early this morning I was shocked to see the full parking lots, loaded baskets of those scared to death people.

I truly see that same mentality of those who still follow Trump. The greed,anger,fear is really sad to see. Blaming others, terrified they will not get their share. R Laing there’s for their deficiencies, just like Trump.

since the bimetal populists were absorbed and milliam jennings bryan was nominated.

that is what must happen in a 2 party system. "establishment" democrats like our votes and our support.

the labor movement
the civil rights movement
the anti war movement
the environmental movement
the consumer protection movement, the no nukers, the laundry list of movements sponsored into the party by ralph nader in the 1970s.

you can name a few. many of us became democrats from various movements.

did i mention ralph nader? when party leaders act in a matter contrary to a movement's goals , movement leaders are fully justified in seeking other means to our ends.

the republicans themselves have absorbed a few movements that once were democratic. evangelicals and segregationists come to mind.

What a sad little man he turned out to be. Another Silent Generation patriarch who could not change his stripes. It didn't work out well for him, either.

and i'll stop there.

Not in any way. He is directly responsible for Al Gore not winning the 2000 presidential election. He took money from the GOP to run against him, and cost him the election in Florida.

Further, the book that made him famous, "Unsafe at Any Speed" killed one of the most innovative automobiles of the 1960s. I actually owned a 1960 Corvair. Driven normally, it had few faults. It wasn't a sports car, and if driven to its limits, it did have a stability problem. No question about it. By the time Nader's book came out, that had been fixed by GM, and the car was just fine. But, the book killed its sales.

It also set US car manufacturing back at a time when innovative design was most needed. As a car buff, I regret the loss of the Chevy Corvair quite a great deal. Its air-cooled 6-cylinder engine had great potential, which was becoming realized just about the time it was killed by Nader's book. The car's body design was ahead of its time, as well. So, on those grounds, I also reject any hero status for Nader.

Nader sucks. His third party spoiler tactics inspired other third party candidates, including Jill Stein, who also ran as a Green Party candidate. Votes for her in 2016 cost Hillary Clinton three states that gave the election to Trump.

No hero, Ralph Nader. Not in any way!

speak. I'm surprised he hasn't thrown in a few "right ons" and "power to the people" chants.

It's a little sad really as the causes he espouses are things we all want—I mean who doesn't want single-payer—but most have evolved in our thinking to know changes are going to be evolutionary not revolutionary.

It seems he hasn't but his pied-piperesque appeal still works on a lot of younger people—except all the way to the voting booth.

to vote for Bernie. Not in the numbers he was hoping for, anyhow.

Tom Hayden adjusted his rhetoric to reflect a broader philosophy, while retaining the core of his beliefs. Many others, including Bernie, did not.