WGBH Roundtable; Extremists in the United States

WGBH roundtable presents a discussion of extremists and the American political scene tonight. Our guests are Gordon hall expert and writer on extremist movements and a James drone a reporter for The Boston Herald. Leonard Fein assistant professor of political science Massachusetts Institute of Technology will act as moderator this panel discussed the extremist movements two weeks ago. And because of the great interest our listeners expressed in the program we've invited them back to enlighten us further on current extremist groups. Now Professor fine. It's good to be with you again. I'm a little bit surprised that we're all still here. After the revelations of two weeks ago when we first discussed extremists I came away with the feeling that it might not be long until the extremists were doing the broadcasting we were doing the listening somewhere out there. I thought that tonight since we last time talked mostly about some of the specific organizations that we classified as extremists.

We might talk a little bit more about how we define extremists and about possibly their functions in the political system. I had in mind a couple of questions which Mike started off. It seems to me that when we defined extremism two weeks ago as any organization that doesn't play by the rules of the game we left the subject a little bit too rapidly we didn't expand as I think we might very fruitfully on what we consider the rules of the game to be because they're clearly not just our rules. They've got to be rules that everybody that is everybody except the extremists excepts understands believes in. So let me turn to you Mr. Hall. To start it off if you had to define briefly the rules of the game that classify extremists separate extremists from one

extremist How would you go about doing it. I would simply say. And non-extremist would recognize the democratic process. He would not only recognize it but in a system such as ours with a tradition such as I was he would be suspected and he would want to apply it in terms of whatever his particular movement mind stand for was an extremist would I think tend to be the opposite he would rule out the things that make up what I still would insist would be the broad and vital middle ground the extremist has no respect for the parliamentary system parliamentary procedures he has no respect for the democratic process. He has no qualms about resorting to secrecy. The use of fronts when we were talking about this last time I wasn't thinking of extremist only in terms of not playing by the rules of the game is although only a few I think there are many rules and I think that they have been kind of handed down from generation to generation

and I think that they're really at the heart of the whole American heritage and I would and I would insist that extremists completely overlook this a good good example would be just in terms of a specific and Mr Drone he remembers as well because he did some writing on it himself. You had a couple of candidates running last march out in Lexington for various posts from the school committee on down in the local elections Now granted the local elections in Lexington and not in the nationwide moment but they often people certainly in living in Lexington they're quite import. And then the three candidates listed all their other affiliations but failed to list the fact that they were activist in the John Birch Society which is really the most important organization in terms of what they're most devoted to and the motivation the motivating force behind their running rights and to capture certain key seats now because they had been activists in the League of Women Voters which nobody I think defines as an extremist organization and it failed to divulge that particular identification with the I kind of anyone doing I think it was

a I think that anyone that was a member of the league and active in it would divulge it. And anyway. If I am of the league rules from my wife's participation and if you can't run for office and and be a member can you or your kind be an officer I guess in the league and run for office. But in that Lexington situation it was. Absolutely they just. Fail to mention it and even denied it afterwards and one of them the academic chap threatened suit because we tied him into the John Birch Society so the American opinion Speakers Bureau which he said was not John very trying to Nicholas it is. And we proved to him so he dropped all talk about so well now from the definition that you've just given us Mr Holland from your comments Mr Johnny Unitas is still a partial definition I'm not suggesting this is this would be the only characteristics of those on the extremes going. Well what concerns me here is that there is in America and certainly in large parts of the world a very firm tradition of what's come to be

known as civil disobedience. People who insist that the rules of the game have to be changed. One could of course trace the history of the American Revolution as being a pretty good example of what civil disobedience can accomplish. Now if we're saying that an extremist is anybody who doesn't play by the rules that the non-extremists have to accept the democratic process which I assume means the legislative process is the basis for change. Are we going to lump all civil all adherence to the doctrines of civil civil disobedience as extremists. No I wouldn't do that at all and I think the reason you don't do that for instance in the south you have the White Citizens Council which I consider extremists on the other hand I do not consider that the people who staged the sit ins and so forth extremists and I think the other factor that comes into play here is a morality factor but they are sitting in for is morally right in my

judgment whereas what the others are doing is morally wrong so I would throw in some element of morality of personal rectitude rightness into any definition regarding extremists. I'll call it strong in a sense with that because if you're going to add another dimension to this discussion the business of what is moral and what is not. Certainly Governor Wallace who was in the city yesterday and gave several talks both on radio and sends that he would insist that his position is the model one on the subject of civil disobedience I would think that an important point to be made in respect to this tradition is that people who go down south for example and deliberately violate a local statute fully expect to go to jail in fact are not even reluctant to go to jail because they feel that the law is immoral. When a man like Governor Wallace breaks the law he feels that he's being persecuted even when he's outside the law he still insists it is inside the law but the sit

ins and the Newlands and the rest of fully cognisant of the fact that they have indeed broken the law and they're willing to go to jail and fill them up. So the law will be changed. Well I don't know is it an important distinction here. I don't see how you can. Governor Wallace anyone like him can ever argue that they are morally right. I figure this is an absolute I don't think it's a relative or a changeable thing or a changing thing I don't think there's a mutation I don't believe in slavery and I don't believe in and keeping people being held in effect in bondage and so anyone that tends to keep this system going I don't see how they can morally support themselves legally possibly the state laws the municipal laws in the south and so forth but not morally at all I don't see how Governor Wallace could could ever support himself morally while I'm not speaking I'm not speaking for myself and I completely agree with you Mr Dhoni and I would imagine that as a fine would agree with both of us on this particular point about what's moral here and what isn't.

I believe in first class citizenship period but I would insist that if we are to understand the other side of the fence on this question you must grant that they too may have some sincerity on this question and I listening to Governor Wallace I couldn't disagree with them all but I feel he probably believes is why down to his toe I don't believe you're sincere at all. I was in Alabama not too long ago and I did some. Relatively intensive inquiring among the industrial business and so forth community in Birmingham. And my impression was from what they said and these were the leading people in it who were looking for a solution. Who incidentally hate three people. Oddly enough they hate President Kennedy and they hate Martin Luther King and they hate Governor Wallace. Which I find the strained betting together but they hate Wallace because he did move in and interrupt their peaceful integration of the school system he brought Mista lingo and his troop was right in there and wrecked the whole thing and and Stott of what resulted probably in the bombings in slayings of those four girls. But Mr Wallace

to get back to what I started out to say when he started out he had a fine program about attracting industry into Alabama he had a relatively progressive educational program for the people and then one night out in the redneck country somebody asked him a question which was if negroes were to enter the University of Alabama what would you do when he said I'd stand in that door and stop that and they didn't. And so we picked that up I'm told and rode it and rode it and rode it rode right into office and expects to ride many other places with it and I don't think his motivation is sincere at all. Well now even if Governor Wallace is not sincere there's no doubt I don't think that there are a good number of Southern segregationists whom the three of us at any rate would probably classifies extremists who are sincere and take a historical figure by now take. The late and not particularly lamented Senator Bilbo. Now there's no question that Theodore Bilbo was very sincere and very convinced of the

moral rectitude of his position. Isn't morality after all in part a relative thing. Just as the rules of the game are relative to the members of the White Citizens Council. Put it this way sitting in Birmingham are just as convinced of their Maro rectitude of the rightness ethically morally and probably even legally of their position as we are of ours or is the snake. Well possibly they are convinced of it but that doesn't make them right. What they embrace and what they hold fast to and what they fight for is morally unjustifiable and morally wrong and I just think there are areas and maybe the word morality is a wrong word. But I think there are areas where it is immutable. I don't think it's unchanging I don't think it can become relative. That's all I'm saying. While I would insist that one man's morality becomes another man's immorality. Very easily and I having dealt with an extremist

individual personal level as well as of the group level I would say that I find the vast bulk of them hopelessly sincere and also hopelessly misguided and I would say that this would apply to both sides of the spectrum but I would not agree that the rules of the game in a system such as ours are that relative and I insist we're talking now about American extremists and we're not talking about Latin American extremists or underground extremist in any of the totalitarian countries in Europe because they're two different things entirely. Our situation is not static here whereas it is static in so many other parts of the world where you have a flexible situation. There must be rules of the game or you would have chaos and I don't think of the relative and I think a lot of them already have a us. Well we've been talking about the south here. Let me stay with the South for another minute and pose this kind of question. You have in the south or with respect to policy in the south. Two extreme positions whether we're going to call these reflections of extremism is another

question but two extreme positions one which says Never and one which says. Now now from what you've been saying I gather that the nevers that is the White Citizen's councils you would classify as extremists whereas the nows that is core in the end of the ACP and snake and so on. You would not classify as extremists. How do you go about distinguishing between the nows and the nevers both of whom seek changes in the system both of whom seek immediate redress of grievances neither of whom is prepared to rely exclusively or even primarily on the legislative process to attain its goals. Well I don't think I think we've gone through that I think it's a question of a immutable concept that is right. And in this area it's the right of a man to be free to be unfettered to be his own person. And I don't think you can change that I think this applies in Africa where you have the apartheid. I think it

applies in India where they are making reforms in their caste system and so forth I think it's worldwide and I think it's unchanging and immutable and I don't think that they can ever be justified in what they're doing. Well looking at it or looking at it perhaps someone in contemporary historical terms I would say that before May 17th of 1954 the kinds of people now making up say the sneck groups and the core groups and of course color was around the 1954 did not engage in the kind of activities that they now engage in and for the very good reason that we didn't have the ruling which which made segregation in the schools and in other places unconstitutional. Now when any group any group is on fully on the side of the law and pressing for a constitutional guarantees I would agree here with Mr. Dromi that these are constitutional guarantees and not asking for favors or asking for what is their rights as free born American citizens I don't consider

the pressing for a first class citizenship to be an extremist position. I do consider the business of first and second class citizenship as advocating that first class citizenship for whites and second class citizenship. And he goes that's a white explained position. Women usually have second class citizenship. That's my view. Let's not get that one would almost think Mr. Romney running for office. Well out of all of the I think we've talked made several references and particularly you know Mr. Hall to the vital center as I recall towards the end of our discussion two weeks ago. I would call it only too well it was almost not being a discussion this was their drug and I took some issue with the notion of the vitality of that center and wondered whether perhaps the center isn't just a big blob that sits there in the middle of the road doing nothing being terribly terribly crowded and not really moving the system

very far ahead. Would you care to talk to that point for and it's a lovely concept that bluff is not on my mind. Promised Well I would think the birth center and I when I include the broad center I include in that all kinds of liberals by the way not just necessarily new deal liberals or liberals I include in this area all kinds of liberals and reform minded people. I also consider in this area all kinds of conservatives. There is room for example although he's certainly not my choice in any sense but the one for Barry Goldwater and I George Romney and also invoke a felon a Clifford Case and all kinds of other people in this but I mean the thing that appeals to me the most about this broad vital center that I'm talking about although I too wish it were a more vital than it really is is that this is the only area in American life which acknowledges the fact that I may be six seven even eight sides to a given question where is the extreme left. You know it's and it's a ravenous would would

have us believe that we're the only one possibly two sides to a question of the extreme right is adamant about there being only one position and where you can find this kind of broad flexibility the recognition that ambiguity is part of the political process I think is healthy and I think is really the best place to be. Well I think doesn't say it but because it's the only place that makes any sense. I feel great. To me the middle of the road that Mr. Hall so eloquently espouses his middle of the road is not mine middle of the road of all my middle of the road other people who are uncommitted in any direction and sit in actual. In so far as their political motivation and their tendency are attempts to change society for the better off for the worse. Atrophied they are dry rotted and they just don't care I think the liberal tradition in the conservative tradition splendid and needed in our country because they have the actual Myst groups that do bring about the change so I consider

them not at the extreme right or the extreme left I consider them outside the middle of the road however I consider for instance Stuart you who ran for the Senate here and put some life into that particular campaign I consider him certainly not on the extreme left but I certainly don't consider him in the middle of the road I think there are other areas of the spectrum than left right and middle of the road. You know what you're saying I think Mr Grani is that there are some people who aren't on the road at all. These are the ones that you're concerned about. The railed ones if you will. I wonder whether if we can get back for a minute to what you suggested Mr. Hall we might not say that the problem if you will with saying that there are seven or eight sides to every question is that you're led then to say yes maybe if and but however and it's soon this open mindedness that all of us like becomes not an open mind but a sieve. I do nothing I

do nothing because you can see so many virtues to every proposal or so many things against every proposal that you end up not knowing which way to turn. You know why why must you put it I must you put it that way actually it doesn't work out that way. I think it's a realistic approach to politics and particularly it's the kind of approach that recognizes maybe the time to go light on one side in terms of of of a specific issue I was in Akron Ohio just a few days ago speaking in one of the aides to the mayor was an old friend of mine a known newspaper man from the one newspaper chain and he used to be the Washington correspondent for the nine newspapers was telling me that and he had to urge at a meeting of the city leaders to go on. An integrated kind of a swimming pool because at that particular moment they had something else going that would have brought about integration of other facilities almost overnight if the particular militant negro groups didn't press for overnight change in the swimming pool area this was late this summer

and so he took a position the gold light on one side because the just around the corner was it was truly a rainbow Now that kind of a many sided approach to a question doesn't mean that you stand still because you can make up your mind it's just again a recognition that by God there are many points of view and there are many different approaches and it's not as rigid as the as the kind that says there's two sides to every question well why don't you just you know really Mr Hall Don't you feel really that what Professor Fein says has considerable truth that there are large numbers of people who do look at five or six sides and do end up doing nothing. My idea of a good society is where people are doing things trying to change and better according to their own lights and these people don't I think they just sit there like blubs I think that's was a blob a globule you Blob was a. These are interchangeable I have rephrased I think of a person who will sit down and decide that maybe five or six sides of the question he must almost the very fact that he can recognize it is

that much to a discussion makes him a reasonably thoughtful open minded person to begin with because most people think in terms of this simply being two sides. There's the anti Medicare and those pro Medicare there's nothing in between or around it as just your vote. No but I again I think of a person as taking into account many many sides to a question he is automatically the thoughtful kind of a citizen who will come to a decision based on some real reflection and meditation we have very little of that in our political life from my point of view we have we have so much of the other and so little of this reflective kind of thing the kinds of people who say for example that every book shaking hands with Wallace yesterday the attorney general of the Commonwealth is either magnanimous act on one hand or dreadful thing and Uncle Tom act on the other is all that's the only consideration forgetting that. Here's Mr. Brooks faced with a man who flushed out his hand what are you going to do jam us in your pocket maybe shook hands because he had to. Maybe he didn't want to but already I've heard in just a few hours time that he shouldn't have done it or that it

was a big deal you say that it was a magnanimous maybe gesture maybe he had one of those electric buses in his hair. I notice that your paper Mr Johnny said that a grim faced tight lipped Chinese general shakes hands with the wind and Domino was I wonder how they determine that he was that it may have been that maybe the room was warm and something that's a little less editorial is an interesting question here I don't know whether we could fruitfully get into it because it's probably a little bit too complex to consider but I'd like to know why you two are so so violently opposed to any kind of a vital center. Well I'm supposed to be moderating this program but I'll step off the podium for a bit. You talk a great deal about pragmatism and about an understanding that politics is give and take. And I fully accept that. Two things still concern me. One is that I don't know. You know not whether in an atmosphere in which pragmatism is

highly valued in which political compromise is seen as the appropriate way to achieve goals and that is admittedly the atmosphere that we have whether this kind of an atmosphere can really breed commitment. And I'd like to see some more commitment in the system. I'd like to see some more people who say this is what I believe in and on this issue there can be no compromise. Now the question is the troubles me and I really don't know whether we have any evidence that we can bring to bear on the question. Can a person have that kind of firm unshakable commitment as Mr. Goni for example has on the issue of civil rights and still remain sufficiently tolerant of other people's positions and of other people's approaches and sufficiently flexible given the realities of politics to operate within the system without going off somewhere half cocked and doing all sorts of idiotic things.

Well I my own Westergren my own situation I am very much committed to the civil rights movement but I certainly can understand. The thinking that goes on in many minds the fears that develop developing now in Dorchester and that of panic in this city as exhibited by the school board vote in September and will probably be re exhibited tomorrow when they tally the votes up tonight. This is the fear thing. The negroes moving into the neighborhood in the neighborhood depreciating And so what I can understand that and I can sympathize with this but I would want to have some kind of a program launched to educate to get rid of to rip out this fear and get it that way. But I can understand it I don't I don't I'm not intolerant of people who are right. I'm just sort of sorry for them. They hold this way. Well I I personally think you would. So people who firmly say that this is my position this is what I believe whatever the belief may be on a specific question and.

I think there's no compromise this issue must be dealt with forcefully and so on I think the whims of filled with people like that. I think for example it's easier for an individual to say as Mr Dewani has stated that he is he's an uncompromising in the area of first class citizenship and I think that I am equally an on compromise here but I think for example that the current administration reflects no going back on the road to first class citizenship I see no evidence for example that the Kennedy administration and I don't speak now in partisan terms but I see no evidence that they are about to not send marshals in to protect the next James Meredith case because of the of the of what did happen in Mississippi I see only the fact that there is no turning back and I said I think the attorney general and the president are committed to a no turning back to well policy and here except it is harder to do it for one hundred eighty million people and it is for once I have one point only I think the civil rights program.

I think what they are attempting to do is splendid but my feeling and my somewhat let down with the Kennedy administration is based on the fact that I think they should have foreseen this kind of crisis coming up in 63 and have included in 1961 filed a civil rights bill then I think its maybe too little and too late. Well the question I think can be stated still more basically. Isn't the Kennedy administration. And I put this question in a fairly provocative manner purposely using the Kennedy it Kennedy administration is so concerned with matters of political process with the problems of compromise in politics and of getting programs across that it can legitimately be accused in some respects at least of tokenism of trying to do just enough to placate the negro without doing enough to really solve the problem. And isn't the liberal criticism of Kennedy that goes beyond the specifics of his civil rights program. That is that Kennedy basically is a politician who is too wrapped up in pragmatism and too

uncommitted to an involved in serious ideological commitment. Isn't that a telling Krib Good heavens doc to find his own like David Lawrence. I thought it was a liberal. Well I feel a lot of money in many areas they have. It's very easy to state that this is so I don't really believe it is true to the extent that it has been a spouse by many groups. I do not feel this way about President Kennedy. How do I feel that way about many of the people in this administration I do feel in the civil rights thing as I said they might have seen this coming and duns moved on it earlier so that you wouldn't have had the tremendous crisis that we are now and I feel he has. It hasn't been so apparent to me in other areas it may be apparent to you in other areas. I have not been aware of this Mr. Hall but you see I just operate from the basic premise that the old presidents of the United States are politicians and must be if they

are to get anything done at all. I'm not trying very swiftly if we may to perhaps a larger question because it seems that implicit in both of your attacks on me. This isn't my only joking. You seem to be implying perhaps that something that is most attractive for a country such as ours is to be kind of forever in a state of ferment that there must be change going on all the time there must be dramatic and terrific dialogue going on in all parts of the country. I would I would hold it given the context of the Cold War period. The move toward a kind of a national consensus is a good thing and not a bad thing I think the recognition of of power and the naked use of power on the part of a certain totalitarian countries and so on and the move toward a kind of a national party ideas. I don't I don't find this so distasteful the business for example of me too ism and both Democratic and Republican politics I think that perhaps we're moving toward that and I think it may

be an excellent thing and I don't think that we have to be forever and an unfinished country saw that we were constantly in a state of ferment. Is this necessarily what is arguable. Oh I think it's very undesirable to be a finished country. I would want the dialog always and forever. And if it isn't in the area of civil rights I'm sure when that is solved eventually there will be other areas and properly so which will maintain a dialogue and a heated dialogue and incidents like this I. I think this is most healthy guy. The National doesn't know don't make it sound so I'm saying that what we should strive for is a Finnish country we will always be what either one of us like it or not an unfinished country. Yes history has changed but I'm talking now about about endless ferment and those bitter dialogue and sharpness as it is this is such a desirable thing given the given the kind of a system that we have and the type of progress that we've made here. Well I have the feeling that if you do not have that much to hold if you do not have that you're going to have

more of what Professor Fein and I abhor which is the globs at least if you will the dialog run running on an area you're bound I think at least peripherally to excite the interest and maybe the commitment from some elements who do happen to follow it if you don't have something like that going they're going to sit and vegetate out there. Well I think that what we've been saying Mr. Hall is that the dialogue if it continues need not necessarily be a bitter dialogue and that the problem of consensual democracy is a problem because it may end the dialogue on serious issues you may be drawn together to such an extent on any given issue as for example the Cold War that you forget the debate on other issues is not only possible but is necessary now at this point it becomes appropriate to reintroduce ourselves as some of our listeners may have tuned in a bit late.

We're having on having a discussion on extremism and politics in America and our participants in the panel are Mr. Gordon Hall an expert on extremist movements. Mr. James Roney reporter on the Boston Herald and himself an expert on extremist movements. John your whole I'm Leonard Fein political scientist from MIT. If I can try to draw it together gentlemen some of the diverse strands of what we've been talking about in the last half hour. It seems to me that. At least in this group we have a healthy dialogue going there's not too much consensus. That makes it somewhat difficult to draw the strands together but we've said I think that an extremist movement is one that typically simply refuses to play the legislative game always and everywhere and that those organizations whatever their policies whatever their goals. That is that see the legislative

game as the appropriate one in which to achieve their goals. Fall within what we've called the rules of the game. Now this raises some curious problems. Today's an Election Day in Boston as we all know and. That great glob or blob that we've been talking about has now gone to the polls just about finished voting and has expressed itself. Could we talk for a few minutes about extremism. Not outside the party system but within the party system. I'm thinking particularly particular of not only of the John Birch Society in the Republican Party or the White Citizens Council members who are members of the Democratic Party but to a passing reference that you Mr. Hall made just a few minutes ago in which you casually said that Senator Goldwater though you disagree with him falls within the general definition of what a conservative is. Now there are a lot of people in this country would call Senator Goldwater an extremist at least the

senator Goldwater of a year ago if in fact he's changed in the last year. How do you distinguish him from the extremists. Oh well it isn't always an easy task to do this I mean let me put it that way first but I would say that allowing for the fact that there are all kinds of conservatives there are thoughtful ones there are knowledgeable ones the ones with a deep sense of history there are those with a profound understanding of the tragic sense of history all kinds of conservatives and oh what happens to be my idea of a rather simple minded conservative but he still remains a conservative because his basic pitch seems to me to be in the direction of limiting the powers of federal and state governments and that is so much a part I think of running conservative dialogue what Goldwater seems to fear more than anything else is not. Naked totalitarian power but rather a big government city state or federal.

And since he seems to be basing his entire campaign on the idea that we simply must limit the powers of the government I would put him certainly within the Bush confines of the conservative tradition not necessarily Again the you know the most thoughtful kind you have some Southern Democrats who are by and large liberal Southern Democrats in a sense a John Sparkman and yet they have some rather shoddy record in other areas and yet they cannot be considered extreme if that's all I meant well then to look towards Iraq when for instance you know he's fairly took a couple and there are some several like him down there who have impeccable records regarding foreign aid and foreign policy and things of that nature and I don't consider them extreme at all I don't consider Goldwater extreme. I don't I never get any ICP mind since it is someone like Spock when I say how I had raised on NASA how can you possibly say to John Sparkman isn't any sense you know part of an ongoing liberal tradition and yet he is. Well if that's what we're saying then don't we mean that extremism is not only were not even primarily a matter of one's

position on any given set of issues one can have if you will an extreme position on any number of issues without being an extremist. Oh yes extremism becomes a matter of how you choose to fight for the issues you believe in here so this insistence thing oh no it's not playing by the rules basically Goldwater who I'm sure would always play by the rules yes what's Parkman. And if our earlier definition holds of keeping within the legislative game and certainly that's where Senator Goldwater belongs in an adult is also on the shelf with certain people who might not always play by the rules of the game but you know I want of course he has said some of the finest people I know are members of the John Birch Society which rose up as a matter of fact and Melrose within a week in the election over there. And it's the polls are pretty closed putting a closed I wouldn't want to hurt the chances of the man involved particularly but it did arise wrongfully I feel. And his wife got up and said. She quoted Barry Goldwater to that effect and then she quoted herself as repeating it.

No as I understand our political system and it's not a terribly easy thing to understand what we've got is a system in which we try as much as possible to embrace a whole series of divergent points of view within a two party system. There are some fringe groups ranging from vegetarians to socialist labor to states rights parties and those awful prohibitionists right. I might add there are a lot of fringe groups I think it's a mistake to assume that few of them actually are a great many range groups and their zeal and their dedication make up for some of the. Greater numbers that are in this blog and blog that you're talking about. For example an extremist movement of a thousand people in Greater Boston can exert a wider influence ultimately than can the 50000 who are in active middle voters who merely vote and that's it. Vote a straight party ticket one way or the other and really are so frightened of controversy and all of us that they will sit on our hands a thousand John Birchers for

example in Boston could be a could be a force because they're at it every night of the week. T the one that isn't Isn't it curious how can you know come around to the position that Mr Dromey and I were defending a few minutes ago by saying that those people who are in the middle of the road tend not to be very seriously committed. That's the problem I said let's get some of those only mentioned by 3000 let me ask you this Professor is it really in your area handling the young people. How do you feel do you feel they have a sense of commitment a growing sense of commitment in areas or do you think that they are being manufactured in the in the Blubaugh glub tradition. Well I have feelings that there are large numbers of them who just won't commit themselves. Well you know it's become pretty standard to talk about this generation is the uncommitted generation. Yes it is. I think not. Incorrect to say that the civil rights movement has really shaken these people as prot them as nothing else has for a long long time. I'm not sure how far it can take them.

Certainly that's that's while it's an important horse it's not a horse that you can ride forever. Hopefully there won't be a civil rights problem within some years. Would I have stopped writing it. I have the feeling though that once they get dedicate consecrated and committed to one area they will continue that way for most of their lives I feel. I hope I can escape the conclusion here and. I don't mean to be put in the role of needling you both but I come away with a feeling here that you're both on a commitment per se that you like to see a young person or a middle aged person or person as long as they believe in something by God that's much better than not having any any any sense of commitment this you want of those who who who carry banners high. I don't feel this way at all for example I do a great deal of lecturing on college campuses and I urge students that if you're going to pick it fine but know what you're picketing for and against and be sure of your ground

have some sense of what the what the larger issues are involved in and stay home and do your homework once in a while and be out five nights a week on a picket line because I wanted to so many people on picket lines who haven't a clue as to what's going on really and I think I gather that you too would like to see the fact that at least a young person over in Harvard Square or somewhere else is out there cheering at during somebody now and correct me if I'm wrong maybe I'm doing you an injustice but. Well I think you're oversimplifying but really I just want to have one of my you know it's one of my favorite tactics. That's what my enemies say I oversimplify all the time. I see this tactic isn't it. I would expect this is my feeling. I don't I would not expect say the anti student body at MIT which is countless thousands I don't know the figure six and a half or seven so that they I would expose what I want is more of them to be committed I don't want them all to be jumping off rooftops and picketing and things like that Mr Hall but I do want a healthy and larger percentage of them.

I do but I would rather have a smaller and smaller and knowledgeable percentage then a very large cantankerous noisy kind of participation with no particular knowledge you know it's a little bit like the business of the 58 students who went to down to Cuba. Just let me make a valid point on this score they. American newspapers were applauding them for their enterprising going down to break the travel ban which of course would have made the newspapers in this country feel. It is a bad thing we shouldn't have travel bans we should have access to all foreign lands make up our own mind see and evaluate for ourselves and so on. Now a great many American newspapers editorially supported the students and the students felt that they really had public support on their side and yet many of the students who went down were applauding speeches before translations came from. This is what I'm opposed to because I think that it leads not to any kind of thoughtful young adulthood but it leads to a kind of extremism which rather than clarifying issues muddies them even further and drives the blog that you're so

concerned about into it in which to an even more blobby position. Well you know we're it's not something you're against zealotry and I am too young. I think we all are and I think what we're saying here very clearly I think we really are in agreement is that what we'd like would be the classic democratic citizenry in which people after judicious appraisal of the issues come to hold certain beliefs very deeply but are prepared to negotiate with others to achieve their goals. The problem is that as we know from tons and tons of research that's been done in this general area the large majority of citizens in any democratic society are never going to look very much like this ideal. And as a matter of fact some political scientists have even suggested that it's pretty healthy that they don't because if everybody were concerned if everybody were involved and if everybody were committed you would have a politics that would be so volatile that it would be impossible

to live with. So many of the chaos again practically let me test. Just another minor point to we talk about being unfinished in terms of a country. And I want to be always unfinished to I'd like the highways to be finished more than they are so I can I can stand the country being unfinished but I like to see us mature to the point where we have our national political leaders talking about things like the tragic sense of history and some of the ambiguities which are which are so fundamental From my point of view to both individual and national life if we could get into these larger issues. It seems to me that people could come to grips with the with the storms of life and they would be buffeted about so easily that we'll never get to that point if we're going to be spending our time defending the loyalty of a president or something else and I just don't think that extremist in America which is what we're talking about tonight exert a healthy influence simply because rather than clarifying issues and making people re-examine their consciences they tend to frighten and intimidate

people I'm just a drone and you know perfectly well how easy it is to intimidate a newspaper publisher by picking up the telephone and getting 25 of your friends to do likewise or sending a hundred canned letters to a newspaper economist under certain circumstances rather than clarifying the issues you can get the newspaper man fired and then well you know well I mean it's like I know you know you know managing editor frightened anyway. Well I will say that Mr. Johnnie's favor. You know in all fairness to it the publisher missed the Joad took on the Berges in a frontal assault on the front pages rather than not going on there but this I think is unusual yes but on other occasions I don't enjoy Donald wait who is who I hope is getting his comeuppance at the hands of the Newton voters. Presently he is Mr Welch as assistant paid assistant at Belmont in the John Birch Society at one time I used him in part of a story rather peripherally actually and he got on the phone and he raised such amount of this that he forced one of the officials of

up my paper into a position that was highly distasteful to me it was a backing down position where the whole thing was factual about was to wait there was no question about being able to prove what was claimed about him and he now openly embraces it anyway of course since he went on the salary out and the staff out there. But they can do it end up the first door John Birch story I ever did involve the town of Winthrop if I remember and it was an urban renewal matter and let me tell you the mail that I pulled in was just fantastic. These wild things you know only communists attack the John Birch Society and over and over again and I had a feeling at that time. They have since not been mailing so much to me because I figure they figure I'm a lost cause. I really do feel that they have a squad set up that anytime anything anti Birch appears in the paper they rush out and mail it because this. This particular article hit the

streets at midnight in the first edition of the world and one of the postcards was cancelled out of the Cambridge post office at 6:30 that same morning know how vigilant can you be pretty vigilant and I will and I will tell you this going all back to the beginning of this program tonight Mr. Downey that if you could ever really find out about these things and it's always hard to trace anonymous Melba you would find that they would regard these and I think they call them squads or whatever they do call them. I'm sure that in their own minds these truth squads. Yeah this is the truth as they see it and this gets back to the sincerity they have another dandy Tegra make no I don't know whether you listen to the talk programs that are so prevalent in the Boston area now but there's one over w e r I that I see many times here when I'm driving home in the evening and. I recognized the voices of the people that come on as Birch Society members that I know and they come on night after night after night and whenever there's anything to do with any of the precepts the Birch Society espouses and I just think this is bad technique on the radio

stations play from home now and on that very very question and question but on a very subject and I don't mean to get into the business of attacking other radio stations that's not what we're here for but here's a question where we now have from meant in most of the major cities in the United States we have ferment in the form of all nine talk shows I do them by the way all over the United States I'll never know why I consent to do all of these. And I don't mean a show like yours I would you know I would like to talk to this man. They have to show you and you can go home but you know what I mean is that you have these talk shows where people call in and a lot of people are saying well now we have people in Boston and elsewhere that is stirring up the populace and discussing issues and all of us. And yet if you listen carefully to these things they are enough to make your blood pressure rise because what passes is information very often on the part of the very moderate isn't commentators is misinformation and some of these problems in my judgment do a good a good deal of

damage as well as perhaps maybe and getting somebody somewhere along the line interested in politics. So I've been on a few of them and what I do is they don't ask questions they make speeches and tie ins. QUESTION At the end to mind immediately the lady who heads the Greater Boston League of Women Voters was on that show within the week or so I heard about that. And my goodness the whole issue was about the question period back again and again and again was the U.N. the U.N. all of which had really almost no relationship to what she had been talking about in the main body of her speech it was the birch thing. I think if. I can summarize again at this point so that we can move on to a new area. We're all agreed that most of the extremists are sincere men and women. I don't think there's any question if you take a look at what we would call extremist movements around the world let's say the Bolsheviks back then

that these people were sincere just as most Americans who are members of extremist movements of one kind or another are sincere which means only that sincerity really isn't the world's greatest thing. Now if we're agreed on that and I see somebody I know I don't know Mr. I am very naive I mean let me just break in as I recall Young Americans for Freedom which is this Goldwater camp has thrust all over many of the people who are in Young Americans for Freedom and then on campus for a good many years especially some of the leaders. But you know they sponsored Robert Welch up at Boston College this past spring and I might add that the administration then hired me to come in and speak behind him I spoke at the school to erase any notion that Boston College is a hotbed of birch ism but the Young Americans for Freedom justify this sponsoring rather wildly on the grounds of they wanted to they wanted the students there to see whether he was sincere or crackpot. I could have saved him a lot of money in telling these both of these a sincere crackpot.

Well I don't know but anyway I think it's interesting that in other words if he turns out to be sincere then his crackpot notions are somehow more acceptable I know that I don't mean them as you know and I'm going to pick on me who go I know you don't mean that and that but if a man is sincere he does I think in that in speaking of his you know his crackpot notions I think he gets across the sincerity which is an important supportive thing in his talk no. My thought was I don't believe that there are so many sincere I feel that many of the leaders of the extreme right wing groups are in it for the buck truly. I think men like Billy James Hargus and possibly Fred shore and certainly Gerald L. K. Smith people like that. I think they're in it for the money that they get out of it and boy they get large large amounts fortunately over the past year. All those three organizations that I mentioned. Smith's Hargus and Schwarzenegger all one word Christian in a title. Yeah they have launched an anti-Communist and so forth and but they have all gone downhill money wise and that's another thing that leads me to believe that the John Birch Society is becoming the

umbrella operation and the big money operation of all these people that share this extreme thinking but I am right am I not that the membership of these organisations apart from Quite apart from the leaders in the issue there is an assertive sincere and sick sincere and quite possibly sick which brings me to a quick point that I want to make and then I want to ask another question. One of the real problems and one of the reasons why any predictions that we want to make about this kind of problem tends to be tend to be gloomy predictions is that it's not a matter of education only. The problem is only going to be partially solved by going out and telling everybody how bad the John Birch Society is or how bad any other organization is and what a threat they pose. Some people will be scared away if you do that. But if as you suggest Mr. Gurney the appeal of these organizations is to sick people. Education doesn't cure sick people. It leaves them unmoved First of all they

don't listen. If they're right then well the therapy may be on some kind of a national basis maybe you figure out what the appeal is and you try to reconstitute things so that the appeal is gone. But it's not a question of education I don't think and that's that's really a frightening sort of thing to have to say you know especially for me. Well if you're talking now about salvaging members of extremist groups and I say I would certainly agree with you that this is a waste of time and I am not a soul saver in the kind of work that I do but how about the general business of. The again the blobs of the gloves if you will. I don't like the phrase but if you want to call them that I suppose it's as good as any. What about those who really have no way of knowing for example that a movement that calls itself Christian may be engaging in decidedly anti Christian practices a movement that calls itself anti-communist maybe engaging in tactics which are just like the communists. What about the necessary public education job in the area of showing why the churches for example have no right to call themselves conservatives when they have

no comprehension of the conservative tradition and they don't even try to apply it. Oh I thought about this kind of job people in the broad middle at an edge of good will I would insist on not all adjectival not at all I think that we would both agree with you it is us tickly on that point the point being much more limited one that is that the members and if you will the potential members of these organizations are people who have education isn't going to solve it. And I must add at this point that some of my best friends are globs or blobs Well this is the whole uncovered what I called thinkers a most interesting he was right here in Boston within the past few months which did not get the newspaper paper published that it deserved. Through his own efforts at uncovering these things he found a chapter of the national states rights party being formed here and I think you want to tell them who was behind it and how it came into being I find it most interesting. Mr. Hopewell briefly Actually the national states rights party is a Birmingham Alabama based group that goes back into Governor Wallace's backyard and I'm sure that he looked at me in the way great faith he has never criticized had the press conference the other

day. I asked Joe Sullivan who covered for us to ask questions about that and he disavowed almost any knowledge of the group which was very difficult to do since he's been indicted by the leadership of the national states rights party which all we've heard too is an SRP to save time since we're running short and they're under federal indictment down in Birmingham it's difficult to imagine how Governor Wallace would not know about them but in anyway they found a sympathizer here a young Boston University graduate who graduated as a matter of fact last June and who is now in service they found him to be. Sympathetic to the point of wanting to organize and this fellow set into motion a post office box in one of the suburban communities here and was recruiting with some of the most violent letters that I the Mr Dhoni I have ever seen. I showed Mr Downie these letters they were calling in a sense for Jewish blood flowing in the streets really that then we would have an underground movement we would be a terrorist organization and we would organize and get only the real hardcore kind of fanatic into

it we'd be underground like a communist about 20 years old I mean I would have to keep all this weight in the papers because the papers would destroy us which shows by the way the value of public exposure of these things but the thing that was interesting is this boy had been a not a student at Boston University and in the ROTC and all the rest. So here's a case where a man had been exposed to an education but it meant very little got which is the point that I was trying to make. Gentlemen we have just a few minutes left and I'd like to turn to a question that we raised briefly last time. Two weeks ago but didn't quite cover then and that is the question. That I think ought to engage our attention. Are extremist movements growing in size in America. Is what's happening today a departure from the American tradition or have we essentially always had extremist movements under one name or another with us. And have we learned how to live with these things fairly well. Is this something new or is it something old.

Mr. Gurney it's a problem I can see only as I think Mr. Hall is more knowledgeable nationwide and they have proliferation of these groups but my own feeling is that they are indeed expanding. I point to the increase of their importance in the Mountain States certainly in the south and. I think they are growing. Mr. Hall I think to begin with it's a very old thing it certainly isn't a new thing we have historically had extremist movements of one type or another and we have them right on to the present day but the very fact that they are growing is evidence by just a local pub a city and the nationwide publicity two weeks ago in The Sunday Times Jacob Javits did a feature piece senator liberal Republican senator from New York State did a piece stating that this was an issue within the Republican Party itself. Governor Wallace was in town yesterday representing a die hard bitter and a segregationist and which is an extremist than you have in the papers Sunday

and Monday and again today in The Globe and The Herald in the Christian Science Monitor just here in town all sorts of small stories about. Extremist activity at the local level school boards fluoridation fights and all of us. We indeed have them all around us and one of the problems I think is that there really isn't any concerted effort to oppose them and to pin them down each time it's. I think it's a rare newspaper men like Mr. Downie who will become personally involved in this and interested to the point of interest in his newspaper in it. That's an unusual kind of I think that newspapers are about. I think the newspapers are are at fault I think they should staff these things and I think they should let somebody become knowledgeable in the area and keep files and so forth so that they will know for instance I'm going to I hope I'm not school going to school myself but I'm most interested that North Brookfield is the place where they have banned this prayer and North Brookfield is the headquarters of the American opinion speakers bureau to me that makes two one two and I'm going

to try and break a story out on that this week. Well gentlemen we've just about reached the end of our hour. It seems to me that this week I would have a much harder job in summarizing what we've said than I had last time. In any event I think that some conclusions are called for. First clearly we agree that extremism has grown in this country in recent years. We agree that it's a danger we agree that its appeal is largely to people who may or may not be educated but who have certain personality characteristics that lead them to extremist movements and these generally are conclusions. And on that note I think it's just about time to say good evening to you. You've been listening to WGBH roundtable discussing extremists and the American political scene. Our panelists tonight included Gordon hall expert and writer on

extremist movements and a James drone a reporter for The Boston Herald. Leonard Fein assistant professor of political science Massachusetts Institute of Technology acted as moderator. This program was produced by Carolyn is of the WGBH FM staff. Next week at the same time listen to James Meredith on civil rights. This is the educational radio network.