Dupes

  If there are any pressing questions you wish to discuss, Mr. Greenblatt will be in Paris for a few days.

  We hope that the current Paris discussions go well for you. The news from South Vietnam seems very good indeed.

  We hope to see you this summer in Paris or at a later time.

  Good fortune!

  Victory!

  /s/ Tom Hayden

  Tom Hayden

  Hayden's valediction would seem to speak for itself: he hoped for “Victory!” by the Vietcong—that is, victory against Hayden's own country, the United States.25

  David Dellinger, referenced in Hayden's letter, had helped organize Mobe and became its chairman. So active was Dellinger that, the Washington Post reported, he organized a September 1968 antiwar meeting in the heart of the Soviet bloc, in Budapest, Hungary. According to the Post article, which carried the eye-grabbing headline “U.S. War Foes Met with Hanoi Group,” the meeting included representatives of North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front, for the purpose of reviewing the war and discussing antiwar strategy for American campuses.26

  Any reasonable observer who read Hayden's letter, and who knew the publicly available background on him and his fellow antiwar organizers, would not fail to understand that Congress needed to look into this matter immediately. But when the House Committee on Un-American Activities and its successor, the Committee on Internal Security, did so, the American Left responded with howls of “fascism!”

  The desire for Communist victory over America in Vietnam was also the position at The Militant, a popular publication for New Mobe leaders. The Militant candidly explained that “representatives of the [Trotskyist] Socialist Workers Party and Young Socialist Alliance” regarded themselves as “partisans of the Vietnamese liberation struggle.” These Communists, The Militant explained, had an “obligation to build a broad mass movement in opposition to the war from the viewpoint of aiding the Vietnamese revolution.”27

  War opposition was not so much about American withdrawal as it was about Communist victory.

  Blowing up the Democratic Convention

  The Communists were emboldened as American public opinion shifted dramatically against the Vietnam War in that brutal year of 1968. The radicals’ capstone would come in late August, in the very city where the American Communist Party had taken root in 1919: Chicago. The Windy City was hosting the national convention for the party that controlled the White House and Congress—the Democrats. For many months Communists and their fellow radical peaceniks plotted to turn the Democratic National Convention into a fiasco, an international humiliation for the Democrats. They wanted to provoke shocking images that would show America under siege, a kind of warzone at home.

  The other message the radicals wanted to convey to those millions watching on television was that these students, this next generation, were primarily concerned about “peace”—for America and for Vietnam. They would demonstrate for an end to the war in Vietnam so people there, too, could live in peace. Most run-of-the-mill marchers desired just that, but certain antiwar organizers had other goals—goals they carefully concealed in order to dupe their fellow protesters.

  U.S. officials understood that radicals were planning an uprising at the Democratic National Convention. In fact, so much evidence surfaced early on that Congressman Ichord warned fellow members of Congress on two occasions, May 13 and June 26, 1968, that radicals were planning to throw the August convention into chaos.28 What Ichord had warned about came to fruition.

  A congressional investigator sent to Chicago, James L. Gallagher, concluded that “the basic purpose of the Chicago demonstration can perhaps best be summed up in one word, ‘Vietnam.’” By this, Gallagher meant that demonstrators were not only antiwar but also pro-Vietcong—that is, they supported the objectives of worldwide Communism. “Many placards, projects, and pieces of propaganda,” he reported, “indicated that the proposals advocated by the demonstrators were clearly compatible with the policies of Hanoi, Havana, Peking, and Moscow.”29

  That was no surprise: many of the ringleaders in Mobe and among the radicals had been to those very places, interacting with Communist officials there. More than that, they deeply admired those cities and their systems.

  How many groups were involved in this mass demonstration in Chicago? The news media estimated anywhere from one hundred to three hundred. Gallagher and his team of investigators pegged eighty-two specific organizations that made plans to attend or were there in Chicago. In addition to all the Communist groups, ranging from CPUSA to the Trotskyists, were a large array of duped groups, some infiltrated and being used by Communists as fronts, particularly the various regional “peace committees,” such as the Chicago Peace Council, the Cincinnati Action for Peace, and the Connecticut Peace Coalition. Also in Chicago were such organizations as the High School Union, the National Unity for Peace, the National Welfare Rights Organization, the Parent School, People Against Racism, Teachers for Peace in Vietnam, and the Wisconsin Draft Resistance Union. As usual, the Religious Left was in force as well, with organizations like the American Friends Service Committee, the Catholic Peace Fellowship, Concerned Clergy and Laymen, and the Episcopal Peace Fellowship. Likewise providing a strong presence was the colorful Youth International Party (the “Yippies”), formed earlier that year at a New Year's Eve party in Greenwich Village by Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Paul Krassner, and crew. Finally, of course, SDS, the massive group that was quickly becoming (if not already) the dominant student-radical organization in America, was a major factor there.30

  Upwards of a dozen of the key organizations readying for Chicago were explicitly Communist or well-known front groups for Communists. This was no accident, for CPUSA had been sending out directives since at least 1964 giving detailed marching orders on precisely how, where, and when to protest the U.S. presence in Vietnam. Some of these directives were issued in coordination with (or following the lead of) SDS in particular, as the Communist Party often promoted various strikes and other activities organized by SDS.31 (See page 296.) Many SDS chieftains were dedicated Communists—a volatile mix of Maoists, Stalinists, and followers of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.32

  Roots: Columbia University

  Radicals’ plans to subvert the Democratic convention were set in motion as early as October 1967, right after the Democrats announced that their convention would be held in Chicago.33 On October 17 the New York chapter of the Communist-infiltrated National Conference for New Politics held a meeting at Schermerhorn Hall at Columbia University.34 Columbia, a hotbed of radicalism since before the days of John Dewey, was becoming even more unhinged, especially its SDS contingent. That a New York faction would be organizing a massive demonstration in Chicago was fitting. No two cities had deeper Communist roots, dating back to September 1919.

  Dominating the Columbia meeting was the prominent Communist John J. Abt, a member of the national committee of the National Conference for New Politics. Abt was so well-known within those circles that Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President John F. Kennedy—and a Communist—had publicly called for Abt's assistance after his arrest. Other speakers at that meeting included Seymour Copstein and Laird Cummings, both in the past either identified as Communists or linked to various Communist organizations and fronts.35

  The dupes subsequently suckered into the Chicago effort could not so easily claim ignorance of the protest's radical origins. The Columbia meeting at which Communists and their fellow travelers began planning the convention demonstration had been reported in two columns in the fall of 1967 by popular syndicated columnist Alice Widener. Not long after, the very same National Conference for New Politics placed a seven-column ad in the December 10, 1967, New York Times flat out stating that the agitators were preparing “the largest demonstration this country has ever seen. It would descend upon the National Democratic Convention in Chicago.” In that huge ad, the group made abundantly clear that it would do everything within its means not only to “help mobilize” thi
s mass demonstration but also to “stop” Lyndon Johnson from again receiving the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.36

  It was hard to miss the ad in the Times, or Widener's warnings.

  And yet these items did not awaken the dupes. Two factors aided the Communists and other radicals looking to enlist non-Communist supporters: (1) the benign name, the National Conference for New Politics, and (2) the veneer of legitimacy provided by some of the endorsers. For example, one of the two signers of the Times ad was the cochairman of the National Conference for New Politics, whom the ringleaders had shrewdly brought into the fold: the spectacular dupe Dr. Benjamin Spock.37

  The New York Times ran an article on the ad in its news section, titled “Leftists Ponder Convention Move.” Reporter John Leo began the story with this lead: “Leaders of the New Left are contemplating a massive anti-Johnson demonstration at next summer's Democratic National Convention in Chicago.” He noted that the National Conference for New Politics was made up of “liberals and radicals.”38

  Among the liberals, Leo quoted Dr. Spock saying that the group expected to draw “100,000 adults and 100,000 teenagers” to the Chicago amphitheater in August 1968. Amazingly, Spock dismissed any possibility of riots amid such a gigantic, volatile crowd. “I can't think of a reason why we would be inflammatory,” was the doctor's prognosis. “Our demonstration would involve no violence or civil disobedience.”

  Leo cast doubt on Spock's naïve assurance in the next line of his story, where he quoted Paul Booth, a former SDS official and former board member of the National Conference for New Politics. SDS was on board for the protests in Chicago as well. Asked whether the demonstration would be a passive one, Booth said, “That's one of the topics under discussion.” Apparently, it was a discussion that excluded the good doctor.

  Not surprisingly, SDS had not been mentioned in the large ad placed in the newspaper that day.

  Things were moving rapidly. The Left was lining up for the Chicago blast.

  Among those at the front of the line was the legal arm of CPUSA, the National Lawyers Guild. As it said in a prophetic January 19, 1968, letter to certain “friends,” the guild foresaw a litany of “legal problems arising out of the political protest planned for the Democratic National Convention.” These ranged from “mass arrests” and “civil disobedience” to “civil suits for police brutality.” In the letter, the guild invited a small group of associates to a January 26 meeting at its New York offices to discuss “ideas, criticisms and suggestions.”39 (See page 297.)

  Target: Democratic Party

  The plan to spoil the Democrats’ 1968 convention had several motives, including one that has somehow eluded historical accounts: as Congress reported, there was a driving impetus to “break down” America's two-party system and to “bring about the creation of a third party, an independent movement of the left.”40

  That was indeed the case. It was a goal irrespective of whether Lyndon Johnson was the Democratic nominee for president (he ended up not running). The reason the far Left targeted the Democratic convention as opposed to the Republican convention is that the Communists and other radicals understood they could engender more support—for a third party and for the their beliefs generally—from people who shared the left side of the political spectrum (the Democrats) than they could from the party of the Right (the Republicans).

  It is common for contemporary academics to portray the battles of the 1960s as matters of Left versus Right. In fact, fierce battles thundered from within the Left itself. As we have seen, anti-Communists within the Democratic Party investigated Communists diligently. But the radical uprising at the 1968 Democratic convention provides an even more vivid—and destructive—example of Left versus Left. The far Left was looking to undermine the Democratic Party as a way to fracture America's two-party system. Such a claim may seem far-fetched today, but it is true, as a majority-Democratic congressional panel determined at the time. Radical people seek radical ends. Remember, too, that the summer of 1968 was a turbulent time, when the word “revolution” was in the air—and was certainly on the minds of Marxists, as always.

  The Aftermath: Congress Investigates

  After so many months of planning, the radical organizers got what they wanted in Chicago in August 1968: a zoo. Television viewers all over America—and the world—witnessed the violent, chaotic scene outside the Democratic National Convention: hoses, cages, water cannons, arrests, beatings, club-wielding policemen. The situation was disastrous not only for Democrats but for the entire nation. The whole world was watching. Moscow was watching.

  Congress, naturally, was appalled, and demanded explanations. Just a couple of weeks later, on September 12, the Democrat-led House Committee on Internal Security adopted a formal resolution ordering hearings into the matter. The hearings were held soon thereafter, on October 1, 3, and 4. As the resolution noted, the House committee sought, among other things, to uncover “the extent, character, and objectives” of the Communist influence, from home and possibly abroad, among the convention protesters—and especially the organizers.

  Many radicals objected to the very notion of investigation, but the committee was clearly operating within its purview: internal security. As the committee's formal resolution observed, the “incidents and acts of force and violence” alone at Chicago merited an investigation. Add to the equation the possibility that foreign elements may have been behind the uprising—that the Soviets, through a Kremlin “Active Measures” campaign inside the United States, may have played some role in disrupting the national convention of the political party of the sitting president and congressional majority. For Congress not to investigate such a possibility would have been a dereliction of duty.

  In short order the Committee on Internal Security was publishing evidence. As Congressman Ichord's prescient warnings had indicated, evidence had been amassing for months leading up to the convention demonstration. The committee's official resolution reported that Congress had received evidence that “communist, pro-communist, and other cooperating subversive elements within the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam [Mobe], Students for a Democratic Society, Youth International Party, and various other organizations, were planning disruptive acts and violence in the City of Chicago, Illinois, during the week of August 25, 1968.”41

  The committee's formal resolution added that many of the same “subversive elements” who organized the Chicago uprising had also helped plan the Vietnam Week protests held a year earlier, in April 1967. The committee had published a previous report documenting similar Communist and radical influence at those 1967 events, “Communist Origin and Manipulation of Vietnam Week.” It was not difficult for Congress to connect these dots.

  Dr. Quentin Young at the Stand

  The congressional hearings during those three days in October 1968 made for political theater. Of the six men who testified before the House Committee on Internal Security, none produced as many transcribed pages, or hoots and hollers, as Dr. Quentin Young.42

  Dr. Young was a physician with offices at East Fifty-fifth Street in Chicago. He headed up something called the Medical Committee for Human Rights, providing special missionary service to SDSers. He was described as the “SDS doctor,” the “movement doctor,” as one who was always there to take care of the radicals, their friends, and their families for everything from blood poisoning to a head bandage to an abortion.43

  The forty-three-year-old Young, who had been subpoenaed to testify, began his statement by contesting the validity of the subpoena. He denounced this “Un-American Committee” for its “unconstitutionality” and its thirty-year “ignoble existence,” and proclaimed various rights to say nothing to the congressmen. He also lambasted Chicago police and city officials, as well as members of the armed forces, for their “brutality that shamed Chicago” during the Democratic convention. It was his “exceptionally courageous and humane” Medical Committee for Human Rights, said Young, which stepped in to a
lleviate “so much of the human suffering inflicted on citizens that week.” Throughout his extended extemporaneous statement, Young squared off with Congressman Ichord, who gaveled the remarks as in violation of the rules for his testimony.

  Once Young completed his statement, the committee members got to the hard questions.

  General Counsel Chester D. Smith, after establishing Young's identity and profession, grew tired of the beating around the bush and asked candidly: “Dr. Young, are you a member of the Communist Party?” Congress already felt it had that answer; it had listed Young as an “identified CPUSA member” in its staff study of New Mobe.44 While anti-anti-Communists regard such a question as the totem of the witch-hunter, recall that Congress was trying to ascertain whether there was international/Soviet involvement in the political disturbance. This was an important line of inquiry.

  But the usually loquacious doctor refused to answer the question, disputing its constitutionality and relevance. In response, Congressman Ichord explained that “the legislative purpose of this investigation is to determine the extent of Communist and subversive activities, the part they played in the planning, in the organizations, of the disturbances in Chicago. The committee does have information that you played a part.”