Remembering Michael Harrington
From In these times Remembering Michael Harrington, A Heroic Democratic Socialist Leader
In a lifetime of political engagement, Michael Harrington must have given ten thousand speeches, and of those, probably a thousand in New York City, where he had made his home since his arrival in 1949, age 21. He gave his final speech in the city 40 years later, in May 1989. Suffering from the cancer of the esophagus that would end his life in less than three months, he spoke that day to reporters and editors from the city’s union press.Dinah Leventhal, a 22-year-old activist, was in attendance. She was about to take on the job of youth organizer for Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the socialist group that Harrington helped found and led, and welcomed the chance to speak with him for a few minutes afterward. Mike reminisced about his own days as a young socialist organizer in the 1950s. “He said,” she recalled, that “he had felt an incredible degree of freedom and learned so much in those years”
He said I should make the most of it, being an organizer and traveling around, getting to see the country and getting to know what the country was all about. He really loved this country, and thought that you had to love the country to be a radical, to be a socialist, and to want to change it.
Over the years, Mike met and worked with many important and famous people, including Dr. Martin Luther King, United Auto Worker president Walter Reuther, Ms. Magazine founder Gloria Steinem, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy, and Prime Minister Olof Palme, leader of Sweden’s ruling Socialist Party, to name but a few. The publication in 1962 of his landmark study of poverty, The Other America, helped spark the Johnson administration’s War on Poverty. He had another best-seller in 1972 with the unlikely title of Socialism, which sold over 100,000 copies in paperback and influenced many readers with its argument that the “real Karl Marx” was a radical democrat, not a would-be dictator. His last book, Socialism: Past and Future, came out shortly before his death. He was an editor of Dissent, a commentator on National Public Radio, a frequent contributor to leading opinion magazines like the Nation and the New Republic. As a public intellectual and a moral tribune, in the 1970s and 1980s, he had few equals on the left, or indeed across the political spectrum. Harrington, Senator Ted Kennedy would write, “has made more Americans more uncomfortable for more good reasons than any other person I know.”
Perhaps Mike’s greatest political impact was on several generations of young radicals coming of age between the 1950s and the 1980s. He spoke before all kinds of audiences, in churches and union halls, and won applause from listeners who had probably never heard a socialist before. But he was most in his element when speaking on college and university campuses. He liked young people; he knew how they thought; he could reach and inspire them. He was, he liked to joke as the decades turned and his hair grew grayer and then white, the nation’s “oldest young socialist” and “a closet youth.”
I became a charter member of DSA because of Michael. DSA was to the right of my position after the intense radicalization I experienced as a leader in the movement during the 1960s and 1970s. Nevertheless he made sense and the organization had potential. I am still a member and am proud to be one.
In 1973, with the old SP in ruins, Mike and others created a new group, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC), which soon developed a vibrant Youth Section. In 1982, DSOC merged with the New American Movement (NAM), which had been founded some years earlier by former New Leftists. The merged organization becoming Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), with its own Youth Section, eventually renamed the Young Democratic Socialists (YDS).Like his predecessors Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, Mike Harrington believed that to waken the conscience and change the consciousness of a nation, one had to be prepared to build an organization, start a publication, speak in a thousand halls to crowds of hundreds, or scores, or tens, if necessary, recruiting comrades from those converted by the sound of one’s voice and the strength of one’s arguments. It was, and remains, a heroic vision.
Let us all think about what this man did for us. Bernie's campaign is one result but there is so much more.
Comments
The Contributions of Michael Harrington to American Society
His contributions were immense in changing how people thought of the poor in the 1960s.
Excellent essay, Don.
A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma
Thank you for that information.
I knew JFK had begun negotiating the Civil Rights Act. I didn't know he had also started work on the War on Poverty.
Which brings me to another Hillary lie.
During the 2008 primary, Hubris Hillary dared compare JFK and LBJ to Obama and her, with JFK having the pretty words (probably thanks in part to Sorensen), as did Obama (undoubtedly thanks in part to Axelrod). However, she claimed it took LBJ to actually get stuff done, the implication being that she is the modern day Lyndon "Git 'Er Done" Johnson.
In reality, JFK had been working on the two major domestic policies for which LBJ is remembered, and it took LBJ to complete them only because silly Jack "Pretty Words Only"Kennedy went and got himself killed. Typical Clinton self-serving deception.
Not only was that a lie, but it was one of two indirect comparisons of the first black Presidential nominee of either of our two largest political parties to Kennedy brothers who had been assassinated. Vile.
I remember that comment too . . .
but I think even giving JFK credit is wrong. Clinton's entire theory is at best misleading.
Politicians rarely lead. On most issues they are the ones who only stick their heads out when it is completely safe.
The most consequential legislation in our history is usually the by-product of years of work outside of politics, organizing around issues and putting politicians in office who will actually do the work. This was part of FDR's story when he met with Sidney Hillman and other labor leaders in 1932 "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it". I'd contrast Social Security and the Great Society with Obama's health care law. The ACA has some good elements, but as public policy goes, it was not the result of a grass-rooots movement. No grassroots movement would probably want credit for the legislation. The ACA was a classic piece of insider legislation -- it was probably more accurately the health insurance bailout act of 2010. The opposite is true of Social Security and the Great Society Programs.
The overwhelming share of the credit for what happened during the 1960s is a credit to the movements that forced politicians to act in ways that they never would have absent public pressure campaigns. The UAW, Walter Reuther in particular, working with Civil Rights Leaders played a critical role. Politicians deserve some credit, but I see a lot of the action as effectively doing the final 5 percent of the work, and then appropriating 90 percent of the credit. As a measure of the power of those political movement, I'd also look at Nixon's efforts on health care and the environment. The power of the organizing, particularly on environmental issues, was so strong that politicians in both parties felt the need to at least engage with those issues.
In this year's election when Sanders was talking about the need for a "political revolution" -- to my ears, he wasn't talking about some wild-eyed idea. I saw that as a realistic assessment of the challenge. Absent a mass mobilization, there will never be the kind of action that is needed on climate change, Medicare for All, or a program like universal public tuition for colleges. The potential is there -- when over half the country isn't even participating in the process, it suggest that there a significant amount of untapped potential. It's just a question of mobilization. Heighten the contrasts between what is currently "respectable" and "realistic" and give people more ambitious goals that require long-term involvement beyond just a single election cycle.
Clinton's marketing slogan "a politician who gets things done" I see as the really sick, cynical joke. The kind of change that doesn't require movements, and which can be done without public pressure, is typically not the kind of change that the overwhelming majority are going to want to see. The TPP is a classic example of the kind of legislation that politicians can only get away with if a large part of the population isn't engaged. The 2005 Consumer "Protection" and Bankruptcy Reform Act is another. At least in terms of their short-term calculations, the last thing that politicians like Clinton and Clinton's biggest campaign donors want is an engaged electorate.
What I said about Hillary & JFK vis-à-vis LBJ was 100% accurate.
In essence, Hillary claimed that a President who is a good speaker (like Obama) does not get things done (implied: as she does), while "forgetting" to mention that a major reason, possibly the only reason, that a good speaker like JFK never got the Civil Rights Act passed was that he got assassinated before he could do that.
Had my post--or even her comment--been about the motivation or historical background of the Civil Rights Act, or who in the nation deserved credit for it, my post obviously would have read very differently. I also very much doubt anyone was mislead about how major legislation comes about: Anyone reading 99 Caucus likely knows that major bills have a background and very likely also know a lot about the background of the Civil Rights Act.
All we posters on a board have is the credibility of our posts. Adding your own opinions or historical background to the accurate information in my post great, but please don't claim that what I post is wrong when it is not. Thank you.
Remember that JFK had a lot of anxiety over . . .
the March on Washington. If it had been his choice, the March would not have happened. JFK was extremely late to the party when it came to Civil Rights. To his credit he recognized an opening in the 1960 election when he intervened on MLK, Jr's behalf after he was imprisoned in Georgia -- Nixon who had better bonafides than Kennedy up to that point, basically chickened out because he had a different political calculation.
Kennedy's top priorities were focused on the economy, including cutting the upper income tax rate from 91 to 70 percent. He was not leading on Civil Rights. The Civil Rights Act might have happened if he had lived, but all of the groundwork was laid by others. Activists, not politicians, created the conditions for the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
A side note, the entire Clinton-LBJ analogy in 2008 was self-serving, and not particularly apt. Clinton's legislative reputation bore absolutely no relation to LBJ. Clinton has none of LBJ's political skills or charisma.
Obama was no JFK either (in terms of outlook, experience, or temperament).
I still see Clinton's closest comparison as Nixon.
Thank you for posting this.
His work is enormously influential on me. Politically, although I'm economically radical, I consider myself to be on the ever-shifting "left wing of the possible," the term he coined.
Here is a critical hard left look at his influence: https://socialistworker.org/2013/05/08/taking-sides-on-harrington
I don't necessarily agree with the criticism but because it is highly thoughtful and intelligent, I'm passing it on.
Bottom line, even his honest critics on the hard left deservedly appreciate him.
Harrington died in 1989, before Bill Clinton's
success as President cemented the influence of the DLC on the Democratic Party. I wonder if he would today see working within the Democratic Party as "possible." Apparently, Senator Sanders does, so perhaps Harrington would. I don't.
I think he would objectively and unemotionally
analyze the situation. You have identified a salient issue. One question is if most of the Sanders voters, who include the vast majority of the youth of the U.S., become active in the Democratic Party, will it be possible to take over the party or at least have a greater impact on policy than going to a third party. On this, I'm going to be closely listening to Sanders, who is no fool.
No matter what Sanders says, thinking we can take over
the Democratic Party is wishful thinking that ignores reality. Maybe a newer party can't be made viable either, especially now that Sanders has further divided his followers by urging them to vote for Hillary. But taking over the Democratic Party is an even heavier lift.
I've posted to that effect here several times previously, but I have no luck with this board's search feature and I am not inclined to search through all my prior posts.
You apparently feel differently.
Harrington was slated for internment!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Harrington
I didn't know of the existence of a list of those slated for detention, although I should have guessed. My God, almost every time I learn something new about this country, I shudder. I should probably re-locate to Lichtenstein.
Don, please consider writing a book, even if it is published only on the internet. We need to start preserving the personal recollections and experiences of people who remember administrations prior to Carter's. Your blog does that to an extent, but a chronological tale would be instructive.
Thanks for mentioning the Eisenhower detention list.
I have to laugh when I see so many comments that Ike was a good president and respected the constitution, etc, etc. In my view, he wasn't and he didn't.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I do as well! Duckpin, I am starting to think you and I
were separated at birth. I see so many Democratic posters praising Eisenhower and shake my head. Plus, he gets credit for so many things FDR did, like the tax structure that existed during his (Eisenhower's administration) and conceiving of the National Highway System and for simply not vetoing what his Democratic Congress enacted.
Maybe I will do a diary about the "highlights" of the Eisenhower administration one day when I have more time.
Thank you. If you do a diary please mention Herbert Brownell
"Engine" Charlie Wilson; and Ovetta Culp Hobby.
If it's not too unpleasant for you, the Dulles brothers, whose malign influence we still feel today, should be front and center.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Maybe you should do the diary! You know more than I do.
Charlie Wilson's War was the first time I heard of Charlie Wilson. I don't know who Herbert Brownell is and I have only a vague idea of what Oveta Culp Hobby did, other than having a memorable (to me) name.
The Dulles Brothers, on the other hand, most of us know to have been slimier than pond scum.
Okay, so you have given me more work to do if I do get around to the diary, but it seems as though you would produce a better one than I would. I hope you do!
Thanks for the compliment but I don't think I have the
skills needed.
Hobby was the first secretary of HEW(as the department was called back then): and Brownell was Ike's A.G. who said his #1 job was to put the National Lawyers Guild out of business because he considered them subversive. Ike was OK with this.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
You're very welcome. Your skill set looks fine to me.
I think you'd do a great diary.
However, I will bookmark this thread and, if I get to a diary on "Ike" before you do, I will give the topics you raised my best shot. Maybe I will even run it by you via pm before publishing it and give you a credit. Again, that's IF I roust myself and do it.
BTW, that line to McCarthy about at long last, have you no shame, was because McCarthy broke his word about the National Lawyers' Guild. On some documentary or other about McCarthy, I saw a clip of Welch explaining, many years later, what had prompted his rant to McCarthy about shame.
Welch said that McCarthy had learned that his (Welch's) law clerk had belonged to the National Lawyers' Guild while in law school. Welch also said that he (Welch) had learned something about Cohn that Cohn and McCarthy did not want made public. So, Welch and McCarthy had agreed that McCarthy would not reveal the NLG bit about Welch's clerk and Welch would not reveal the info he had about Cohn.
As Welch was saying this, the documentary cut to a clip of Cohn listening to McCarthy spew about Welch's clerk and Cohn is shaking his head and looking horrified, probably fearing that Welch would retaliated against McCarthy with whatever info Welch had about Cohn, given that McCarthy had broken his end of the bargain.
Even years later, in this clip, Welch did not mention what he had on Cohn. However, I suspect that Welch might have promised not to reveal that Cohn was gay, if McCarthy did not mention that Welch's clerk had been in the NLG.
I've thought about it many times
I've written three (two published). It is a lot of work. I have almost a thousand diaries on Kos. They would have to be worked on quite a bit.
An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the time. It stands or it falls on its own merits.
Well, at least two of the books are out there.
Recent history will be re-written by many. Having 99% versions out there is important.
Think he came out of the
Think he came out of the Catholic Worker Movement along with Dorothy Day and Daniel Berrigan. Could be wrong on this.
I saw Harrington speak at Blacksburg, VA and he was a riveting
speaker who connected with his audience. He seemed to possess boundless energy.
He was one of the good ones.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"