Your handwriting. The way you walk. Which china pattern you choose. It's all giving you away. Everything you do shows your hand. Everything is a self-portrait. Everything is a diary.
-Chuck Pahlaniuk Diary:A Novel

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

The Real Bill Ayers

In the spirit of letting every man defend himself by speaking on his own behalf, I found the following article pretty interesting. From The New York Times

The Real Bill Ayers
by William Ayers

In the recently concluded presidential race, I was unwillingly thrust upon the stage and asked to play a role in a profoundly dishonest drama. I refused, and here’s why.

Unable to challenge the content of Barack Obama’s campaign, his opponents invented a narrative about a young politician who emerged from nowhere, a man of charm, intelligence and skill, but with an exotic background and a strange name. The refrain was a question: “What do we really know about this man?”

Secondary characters in the narrative included an African-American preacher with a fiery style, a Palestinian scholar and an “unrepentant domestic terrorist.” Linking the candidate with these supposedly shadowy characters, and ferreting out every imagined secret tie and dark affiliation, became big news.

I was cast in the “unrepentant terrorist” role; I felt at times like the enemy projected onto a large screen in the “Two Minutes Hate” scene from George Orwell’s “1984,” when the faithful gathered in a frenzy of fear and loathing.

With the mainstream news media and the blogosphere caught in the pre-election excitement, I saw no viable path to a rational discussion. Rather than step clumsily into the sound-bite culture, I turned away whenever the microphones were thrust into my face. I sat it out.

Now that the election is over, I want to say as plainly as I can that the character invented to serve this drama wasn’t me, not even close. Here are the facts:

I never killed or injured anyone. I did join the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, and later resisted the draft and was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations. I became a full-time antiwar organizer for Students for a Democratic Society. In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village. The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices — the ones at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol were the most notorious — as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation.

The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense. Our effectiveness can be — and still is being — debated. We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war.

Peaceful protests had failed to stop the war. So we issued a screaming response. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.

I cannot imagine engaging in actions of that kind today. And for the past 40 years, I’ve been teaching and writing about the unique value and potential of every human life, and the need to realize that potential through education.

I have regrets, of course — including mistakes of excess and failures of imagination, posturing and posing, inflated and heated rhetoric, blind sectarianism and a lot else. No one can reach my age with their eyes even partly open and not have hundreds of regrets. The responsibility for the risks we posed to others in some of our most extreme actions in those underground years never leaves my thoughts for long.

The antiwar movement in all its commitment, all its sacrifice and determination, could not stop the violence unleashed against Vietnam. And therein lies cause for real regret.

We — the broad “we” — wrote letters, marched, talked to young men at induction centers, surrounded the Pentagon and lay down in front of troop trains. Yet we were inadequate to end the killing of three million Vietnamese and almost 60,000 Americans during a 10-year war.

The dishonesty of the narrative about Mr. Obama during the campaign went a step further with its assumption that if you can place two people in the same room at the same time, or if you can show that they held a conversation, shared a cup of coffee, took the bus downtown together or had any of a thousand other associations, then you have demonstrated that they share ideas, policies, outlook, influences and, especially, responsibility for each other’s behavior. There is a long and sad history of guilt by association in our political culture, and at crucial times we’ve been unable to rise above it.

President-elect Obama and I sat on a board together; we lived in the same diverse and yet close-knit community; we sometimes passed in the bookstore. We didn’t pal around, and I had nothing to do with his positions. I knew him as well as thousands of others did, and like millions of others, I wish I knew him better.

Demonization, guilt by association, and the politics of fear did not triumph, not this time. Let’s hope they never will again. And let’s hope we might now assert that in our wildly diverse society, talking and listening to the widest range of people is not a sin, but a virtue.

4 comments:

Don said...

I doubt this makes it through the screening process.

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' William Ayers, New York Times" September 11, 2001

Lyman said...

Well it is going to make it through the 'screening process' because this is exactly the kind of comment I'm hoping to avoid.

You start with this snide comment 'I doubt this makes it through ...'. Why? Why mention something like that? You either think that you are breaking one my rule of trying to keep my blog free of rudeness and disrespect (in which case you shouldn't be posting it anyway), or you think that I am going to delete any comment that I merely don't like and you want to let me know about it before I delete. Which one is it Don?

Secondly you go on to throw a quote out there with no discussion around it, no questions, no conclusions you've drawn, anything. This quotation has no frame of reference, source, or context so everyone is going to have to read in to your meaning giving you free reign to say "that's not what I meant, I say what I mean." So be more specific and let us know what is on your mind before throwing random tidbits out there.

As far as the quote, I don't know where it came from and I don't care. Ayers is not the president, Obama is. The most important part of his article is the part I put in bold where he talks about how damaging the 'guilt by association' tactic is to our politics.

Don said...

“You start with this snide comment 'I doubt this makes it through ...'. Why? Why mention something like that?”

'Also, comments about "hot-button issues" will be moderated from now on (if ya don't know, this means if you leave a comment it won't appear on the post until I approve it), this is a drag because of my travels I can go days without being online and the conversation won't resume without me, but its worth it for my peace of mind. I'm going to rule with an iron fist! If you don't like it, drum up traffic to your own blog!'

From your blog dated Tuesday 11/25/2008. I assumed this was one of those hot-button issues and you wouldn’t be interested in my opinion. You know what they say when you assume? Sorry, I shouldn't have.

“Secondly you go on to throw a quote out there with no discussion around it, no questions, no conclusions you've drawn, anything. This quotation has no frame of reference, source, or context so everyone is going to have to read in to your meaning giving you free reign to say "that's not what I meant, I say what I mean." So be more specific and let us know what is on your mind before throwing random tidbits out there.”

As for a source, I quoted the source. As for conclusions, draw your own. I simply attempted to show a different, and I believe more accurate side of William Ayers.

“As far as the quote, I don't know where it came from and I don't care. Ayers is not the president, Obama is. The most important part of his article is the part I put in bold where he talks about how damaging the 'guilt by association' tactic is to our politics.”

I didn’t make any connection between Ayers or Obama here. I responded to a blog about William Ayers.

Lyman said...

Yes, you know what happens when you assume.

You gave a source? Really? I must have missed it. Unless you think a name and date is a source. It isn't. If I could see the original interview in its entirety then maybe I could better understand the context of what he was saying. Was he being sarcastic? Do you really know? Its easy to pick and choose choice phrases from articles and interviews to fit our intent, its much more difficult to get to the actual point of the original conversation and draw conclusions from that.

If you're not making any connections between Obama and Ayers then what is the point? The article I posted was about the assumed connection Republicans made between the two. If you want to post up out-of-context quotes from folks who committed terrorist acts in their past, fine. But that doesn't have much to do with the point of my post.