“….. Although mankind desperately needs revolutionary leadership, America rests in national stalemate, its goals ambiguous and tradition-bound instead of informed and clear, its democratic system apathetic and manipulated rather than 'of, by, and for the people.' …..
“But we are a minority -- the vast majority of our people regard the temporary equilibriums of our society and world as eternally-functional parts. In this is perhaps the outstanding paradox: we ourselves are imbued with urgency, yet the message of our society is that there is no viable alternative to the present. Beneath the reassuring tones of the politicians, beneath the common opinion that America will "muddle through", beneath the stagnation of those who have closed their minds to the future, is the pervading feeling that there simply are no alternatives, that our times have witnessed the exhaustion not only of Utopias, but of any new departures as well. Feeling the press of complexity upon the emptiness of life, people are fearful of the thought that at any moment things might thrust out of control. They fear change itself, since change might smash whatever invisible framework seems to hold back chaos for them now. For most Americans, all crusades are suspect, threatening. The fact that each individual sees apathy in his fellows perpetuates the common reluctance to organize for change. The dominant institutions are complex enough to blunt the minds of their potential critics, and entrenched enough to swiftly dissipate or entirely repel the energies of protest and reform, thus limiting human expectancies. Then, too, we are a materially improved society, and by our own improvements we seem to have weakened the case for further change.
“Some would have us believe that Americans feel contentment amidst prosperity -- but might it not better be called a glaze above deeply felt anxieties about their role in the new world? And if these anxieties produce a developed indifference to human affairs, do they not as well produce a yearning to believe there is an alternative to the present, that something can be done to change circumstances in the school, the workplaces, the bureaucracies, the government? It is to this latter yearning, at once the spark and engine of change, that we direct our present appeal. The search for truly democratic alternatives to the present, and a commitment to social experimentation with them, is a worthy and fulfilling human enterprise, one which moves us and, we hope, others today. On such a basis do we offer this document of our convictions and analysis: as an effort in understanding and changing the conditions of humanity in the late twentieth century, an effort rooted in the ancient, still unfulfilled conception of man attaining determining influence over his circumstances of life.”
--Port Huron Statement; Tom Hayden; 1962
http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/huron.html![]()
Earlier this week, when I was discussing my plan to bring a series of interviews to the Democratic Underground, I asked for other forum member's suggestions. Several friends mentioned Tom Hayden, while one in particular suggested that it would be beneficial for progressive/liberal democrats here to read (or re-read) the 1962 Students for a Democratic Society statement of intent.
This was, an is, an amazing composition. SDS leaders met in Michigan from June 11th to 15th of '62, to create what they called a “living document.” It was authored at a time when John F. Kennedy was the President of the United States; the administration considered George Romney to be the toughest potential republican challenger to JFK in 1964. Romney, as older forum members will recall, was the top dog at American Motors Corporation from 1954 to '62, when he became the governor of Michigan.
Although the SDS members were not hoping to provide any support to the corporate republican machine, they were opposed to the racist southern “Dixiecrats,” and to some of President Kennedy's policies. Of particular concern was what they saw as the military industrial complex's influence in domestic and foreign affairs – what Hayden correctly called the “Warfare State.”
It's interesting to consider that this was written two years after what was the first “televised” presidential election. It was at a time when people read – even what no doubt may seem a long article for many people today. Yet this was the thinking of a group of highly motivated and socially concerned college students.
Much of what was at issue then remains equally significant today. There are some advantages for young people who share these basic values and concerns today: for example, there is a larger segment of the older generation that still carries this torch. Tom Hayden, of course, is one them.
Thomas Emmit Hayden is currently involved with the Progressive Democrats of America. It may be the type of organization that progressive/liberal forum members here would be interested in coordinating efforts with. See:
http://pdamerica.org/index.phpI hope that people here will take the time to read the Port Huron Statement. There is going tobe a test on it soon.
Peace,
H2O Man
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
