Carl Oglesby, RIP 
http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/14/carl-oglesby-rip 



Jesse Walker | September 14, 2011 




Carl Oglesby, president of the New Left group Students for a Democratic Society 
from 1965 to 1966, has died at age 76. As the mid-'60s melted into the fiercer, 
harsher end of the decade, another SDS leader tried to sum up the mix that made 
up the organization: "We have within our ranks Communists of both varieties, 
socialists of all sorts, 3 or 4 different kinds of anarchists, 
anarchosyndicalists, syndicalists, social democrats, humanist liberals, a 
growing number of ex-YAF libertarian laissez-faire capitalists, and, of course, 
the articulate vanguard of the psychedelic liberation front." On that spectrum, 
Oglesby stood somewhere between the libertarians and the liberal humanists. He 
wasn't really a laissez-faire man -- he was capable of criticizing Eugene 
McCarthy for opposing a minimum-wage bill -- but he fell in with the 
libertarians anyway, famously writing in his 1967 book Containment and Change 
that "the Old Right and the New Left are morally and politically coordinate." 

In Ravens in the Storm , a memoir published near the end of his life, Oglesby 
explained the origins of the argument: 

[Richard] Shaull [Oglesby's Containment and Change co-author] had recently 
discovered two historians who rang my bells...One was the liberal William 
Appleman Williams, and the other was the conservative Murray Rothbard. They 
were both libertarians, and that is what I had begun calling myself. 

I still do. Libertarianism is a stance that allows one to speak to the right as 
well as to the left, which is what I was always trying to do. 

The center-left establishment, he felt, was much more dangerous than the 
free-market right. This was a natural extension of arguments that Oglesby had 
already been making. Even before his collaboration with Shaull, he had 
delivered an influential speech denouncing corporate liberalism: 

We are here again to protest a growing war. Since it is a very bad war, we 
acquire the habit of thinking it must be caused by very bad men. But we only 
conceal reality, I think, to denounce on such grounds the menacing coalition of 
industrial and military power, or the brutality of the blitzkrieg we are waging 
against Vietnam, or the ominous signs around us that heresy may soon no longer 
be permitted. We must simply observe, and quite plainly say, that this 
coalition, this blitzkrieg, and this demand for acquiescence are creatures, all 
of them, of a Government that since 1932 has considered itself to he 
fundamentally liberal. 

The original commitment in Vietnam was made by President Truman, a mainstream 
liberal. It was seconded by President Eisenhower, a moderate liberal. It was 
intensified by the late President Kennedy, a flaming liberal. Think of the men 
who now engineer that war -- those who study the maps, give the commands, push 
the buttons, and tally the dead: Bundy, McNamara, Rusk, Lodge, Goldberg, the 
President himself. They are not moral monsters. They are all honorable men. 
They are all liberals. 

But so, I'm sure, are many of us who are here today in protest. To understand 
the war, then, it seems necessary to take a closer look at this American 
liberalism. Maybe we are in for some surprises. Maybe we have here two quite 
different liberalisms: one authentically humanist; the other not so human at 
all. 

The decade wore on. The Stalinists took over SDS, and their faction fights 
ripped the group apart. Cast adrift, Oglesby turned to music, recording a 
couple of pretty good albums -- folk-rock with touches of blues, country, and 
psychedelia. And then he started chasing conspiracies, writing several books 
about the JFK assassination and the like. The best-known of those, The Yankee 
and Cowboy War (1977), argued that the American ruling class was divided 
against itself, with northeastern corporate liberals squaring off against the 
rising Sunbelt right. As sociology, it was a persuasive thesis, though it 
wasn't always so persuasive when it laid out the covert crimes that those 
Yankee and Cowboy warriors had allegedly committed against each other. 

I met Oglesby at a Libertarian Party convention in 1991. We had been seated at 
the same table during Ron Paul's dinner speech, an anti-imperialist stemwinder 
that left the old New Leftist dazed and awed. (At one point he turned to no one 
in particular and let out an impressed "Who is this guy?") There were three or 
so other people at the table, among them Jeff Tucker , who was covering the 
convention for the conservative paper Human Events . In one unexpected moment, 
Tucker had some kind words for Noam Chomsky and Oglesby replied that Chomsky 
was too left-wing for his taste. Any residual attachment I had to the 
left/right spectrum should have evaporated right then: I had to pause a moment 
to remind myself which was the Human Events reporter and which was the former 
president of SDS. 

Oglesby and I spoke occasionally after that but fell out of touch in the 
mid-'90s; the last I remember talking to him was when I solicited a short piece 
for Liberty about the death of his friend Karl Hess, a Goldwater speechwriter 
who had joined SDS. "I think the two of us were bookends," Oglesby wrote . "He 
came from the Right and recognized the importance of the critique from the Left 
of contemporary Western society. And I came from the Left, and through a 
variety of intellectual circumstances came very early in my period of being a 
public spokesperson against the Vietnam War to understand myself as operating 
in a tradition of libertarianism. My complaint about the war was a libertarian 
complaint. My complaint against the government that waged the war was couched 
in libertarian terms....We felt a real solidarity with one another in trying to 
work out, in practical terms, what that union of the libertarian Left and the 
social-conscience Right might be able to offer the country." It still might 
offer something, even if Oglesby unfortunately won't be around to be a part of 
it. 




. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Sixties-L" group.
To post to this group, send email to sixties-l@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
sixties-l+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sixties-l?hl=en.

Reply via email to