Monthly Archives: September 2013

“Students for a Democratic Society” SDS

by rt042636

P.193

In 1962 “Port Huron Statement,” issued by one of the new campus groups, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), put forth a sweeping indictment of American society for racism, inequality, complacency, and bureaucracy. But its suggested remedies- federal initiatives in the area of civil rights, poverty housing and economic realignment of the Democratic Party into a national party of liberalism- went only a bit beyond Fair Deal- New Frontier liberalism.

SDS was a major influence on social issues during the 1960’s. It was an activist group comprised of college students that organized themselves in order to voice their opinions, combat injustices and promote reforms. The significance of the SDS in the chapter is to show that these activists made up a large portion of the New Left. They organized rallies, teach-ins and protested for issues like the Vietnam War, civil/ gay rights and poverty.

Richard Nixon

by AMRITA SINGH

In chapter 9, Freeman discusses in detail the various interest groups that were now rallying under the politics of identity rather than class and ideology. Many of these social movements transferred into government practices and new laws under the command of President Richard Nixon. American society was in a state of uncertainty, as these social groups fought to defeat discrimination and better their lives. Nixon took advantage of the turmoil in order to assist his popularity in office. Freeman shows how Nixon had taken advantage of the fragility and confusion citizens and interest groups had during this period with his reforms that seemed to be favoring all sides. “He adopted centrist positions, bobbing and weaving in an effort to maintain support from both the liberal and conservative wings of the republican party…he adopted strategies so intricate that his actual views and intentions often remained hidden.” (pg. 267) To gain votes from traditional democrats in order to strengthen the Republican party, Nixon supported New Deal programs and at the same time had conservative positions on other issues. Freeman calls Nixon the master of “mixed signals,” abandoning his support for programs and movements such as his proposal for a guaranteed minimum annual income in the place of welfare as soon as it was rejected by the Senate, as well as his support for the environmental movement which he deserted after it presented unpopular issues. He also played opposing political opponents against each other by putting a hold on affirmative action policies in order to check labor costs and save capital for major corporations. By doing this he forced a barrier between civil rights groups and the labor movements that opposed affirmative action. By his second term in office, his presidency began to unravel with the revelations of the Watergate scandal, leaking the private views of the president which were so shockingly unfamiliar with the persona he projected to the public  that it caused the breakdown of his reputation as well as the trust of the American people in their government.

nixon2

Lyndon B. Johnson

by AMRITA SINGH

President Johnson expanded the United States’ involvement  in Vietnam from middle course, under Kennedy’s rule-to a full blown attack. Privately, Johnson expressed his worry of being blamed  for supporting an unpopular war, despite that his administration inflated the role of the military. Johnson and his administration had difficulty explaining their actions, although their main goal was to prevent a communist victory and to “maintain the credibility of the United States in carrying out its commitments.” (pg 228) Besides being blamed for  allowing communism to triumph, Johnson still worried about being criticized by conservatives if his efforts in the war failed. Although it was well aware that “if the public had a clear understanding of the situation in Indochina, it would reject either the war or domestic reform during it.” (pg. 231) Johnson believed that by progressing involvement in the war, yet disturbing domestic life of Americans as little as possible, he would be able to maintain public support and evade a negative view on his presidency. He did this by giving the public misleading information, and giving false statements about the proposal to increase troops. This fake “official optimism” did more damage than it did good, as skepticism grew within the military, it weakened willpower in combat and set the country up for future disappointment. Freeman discusses this facade being used by Johnson to explain the feeling of an approaching “apocalypse”  within American society. As the war in Vietnam escalated, so did the confusion and chaos, leaving a sense of uncertainty about the future of America. President Johnson initially saw Vietnam as a “limited” war, unalike the unrestrained global battles that the country was used to from the beginning of the twentieth century. Surprisingly it had turned into a dragged out race that was politically and economically draining, leaving the country wounded ideologically and causing differences between interest groups to become more distinct, perpetuating the country in its political and social divisions for time to come.

.539w

Barry Goldwater

by AMRITA SINGH

In chapter 8, Freeman discusses the climax of the Liberal movement in the 1960’s.  He talks about the disputes Liberal leaders and institutions faced by the growing opposition from every side,  from within, challengers such as the growing student population and civil rights activists. It was also being attacked from the right, as conservatives were joining together and rebuilding the right movement under the wing of Arizona state senator Barry Goldwater. Although Goldwater failed at both attempts for the presidency, “emerging as a bright star on the conservative horizon, he helped revive the movement by repackaging old themes in attractive new ways.” (pg. 195) Like the civil rights activists, Goldwater was also rallying for freedom, but in a different sense. In his campaign he promoted freedom from government interfering in the lives of citizens through regulation and the limitation of states’ rights. Freeman mentions this “New Right” in order to show the “intensification” of politics on all sides that were taking place during the late sixties. He explains that Liberalism at this point had been its strongest but had also reached its peak, and the defeat of Vietnam War on the horizon would soon diminish its appeal.

6a00e550199efb88330120a792b536970b-800wi

“Freedom Summer”

by vh138104

“On June 21, three project members, James Chaney, an African American from Meridian, Mississippi, Andrew Goodman, a white student from New York City, and Michael Schwerner, another white New Yorker […] on their way back from investigating a church burning, were arrested by a deputy sheriff in Philadelphia, Mississippi, and then released on the deserted road into a Ku Klux Klan ambush. Klan members killed all three and hid their bodies.”

I think that Freeman mentions that to show the importance and the scale of segregation and racism in the Southern states. He wants to show that with the first signs of emergence of civil rights in the South, especially Mississippi state, a lot of people became very resilient to it, not wanting to change or desegregate any part of their lives. The importance of this murders that took place on June 21 shows how the members of Ku Klux Klan were angry about any attempt of implementation any civil rights in the state. If before the victims of Ku Klux Klan were African Americans, so now there were white victims, which proves that it is not only the issue of racism but the issue of not giving up the old way of living in any case by any matter. In addition, the fact that the young civil rights workers were arrested by a deputy sheriff and then thrown into Ku Klux Klan den shows that the violence and terror was deeply integrated into state’s official structures.