- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I agree with Amity and others who've said they think this is an important discussion. It's most interesting to find how many agree that Ayers is no hero to liberals, and having failed to take responsibility personally for his actions brings his character into question, given what has happened in the intervening years.
I think it's important he not be coddled by those who made some sacrifice in those days and didn't just sit the whole thing out in their fraternities--like Bush and the rest of the "cons". (I mean that both ways.)
Its doesn't seem worth trying to address those who still don't understand the conversation, (of which there were many in the thread, including some nasty trolls) or what was at risk. (Maybe someone with more distance could do a good job.) I know I was blacklisted from three graduate schools, and feel confident they'd still deny they had a blacklist.
The split between those who served in the war and those who protested against the war was not true at the beginning, but only after the hotheads got involved, and especially when their intentions turned violent.
That split was the driving force in the body politic for years to come, and even if it wasn't manifested in the presidency during Clinton's time particularly, it drove the country to the far right of center.
I think it's important, especially now, to at least correct the analysis if liberalism is going to be re-defined. It should be in view of the truth--and not the fable the MSM has perpetuated and most of the nation bought. Obama deserves a better chance than that.
A new constituency has been built on the ashes of the past, but it will fail too if more rigorous thinking isn't brought to bear--and when guys like Ayers come out of hiding they need to be told what their peers think--even if they don't give a shit, which is the attitude I get from him in this interview.
