The ‘60s-’90s Debate

Nina J. Easton does us a disservice by attempting to relate so closely the ‘60s violence of the Left and the ‘90s violence of the Right (“America, the Enemy,” June 18).

In terms of tragedy, the Oklahoma bombing stands alone, its carnage having exceeded by plenty any other terrorist act in U.S. history. It was designed to kill and maim as many people as possible. The Far Left simply hasn’t operated in that coldblooded a manner. For example, the explosives planted in 1970 in a Wisconsin ROTC building by the ultra-left Weathermen were timed to go off at 4 a.m., when few would be present.

The right-wing militias address no social ills; they tend only to their paranoid fantasies. By contrast, in an earlier day, the Black Panthers swaggered menacingly with weapons bared but also established breakfast programs to feed inner-city children.

The violent Left has taken hostages, blown up buildings, incited riots and, like their right-wing counterparts, imagined a world where government agents were hidden behind every door. But societal benefits like Social Security, equal voting rights and child-labor laws were initially espoused only by the Left, which worked tirelessly to bring these simple manifestations of fairness into mainstream political dialogue.

Conversely, right-wing militias exist only to prepare for, and eventually wage, war. They arm themselves against phantoms, against enemies so ill-defined that they could be pointing a gun at you or me--or anyone at all.

Searching through the rambling, angry diatribe that the militias spew over the airwaves and web sites, one cannot find even a hint of goodwill for humankind, or any sort of notion for a better world, however cocky or deranged. No, the right-wing militias discuss only war: how to plan, train for and eventually execute assaults on people who are different than they are, people whose skin color is different, whose political beliefs differ from those of the militia.

The Left in this country has given us a legacy--a mixed one, to be sure, but a rich history that includes organizing laborers and bread lines as well as violent cell groups. For every rock thrown, there have been hundreds of jobs saved and social benefits secured as a result of left-wing agitation in America. Right-wing militias are simply a powder keg waiting to blow.

Unfortunately, Easton has offered the raucous Right a fig leaf, behind which they can continue their frightening march to battle.

Winston Steward

Los Angeles

*

Easton fails to comprehend that political and moral consciousness undergoes changes during times of massive paradigm shifts. Her article compares and equates very different sets of people and differing sets of paradigms. It reads like one of those “high-concept” duds that the film industry makes because the marketing departments likes the pitch.

“America the Enemy” relies on the repetition of the premise “If ‘A’ existed in the 1960s Left, then ‘B’ exists in the 1990s Right.” It’s as if the force of a grammatical structure conveys meaning, even when the data doesn’t wash. Despite occasional accuracies that either A or B did in fact exist, the common or even causal relationship implied in the “if . . . then” structure usually does not exist.

Someone who experienced either period, or who did the necessary homework on either era, or who could handle Tom Hayden and Richard Flacks as resources rather than as sources of cognitive dissonance would certainly have qualms about getting this piece into print.

Seeing patterns that don’t exist, and linking unconnected things, are signals of the paranoid style in American politics described by historian Richard Hofstadter. Perhaps bad mental processes really are viral. However, a paranoid style in American journalism will not do.

Arthur M. Eisenson

Los Angeles

*

“America The Enemy” was a typical oversimplification of a complex issue. It will probably come as an unpleasant surprise to Easton and many others that the NRA has more than a few members, black and white, who are more truly liberal than those who favor the disarming of ordinary citizens. The NRA is one of the few subjects on which it is possible for Left and Right to agree.

Art Volkman

Inglewood

*

The story comparing the bombers of the ‘60s and ‘90s was terrible.

The cover matched photographs of the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion with Oklahoma City, but in the Greenwich Village case, the only people blown up were the bomb-makers themselves. Inside the magazine, a photograph of Tom Hayden in 1969 was matched with one of Timothy McVeigh--completely outrageous.

Hayden never blew up anybody. What is going on at The Times?

Jon Wiener

Los Angeles

*

Comparing ‘90s militias with ‘60s Marxist radicals was a masterpiece of liberal disinformation.

To accurately frame today’s political reality, one must start with the premise that the ‘60s radicals--in the form of state Sen. Tom Hayden, our hapless boy President Bill Clinton and their ilk--have taken over the government and are aggressively moving to destroy the Constitution, as Clinton’s budgetary, crime and anti-terrorism legislation proves beyond a doubt. Add in 30 years of irresponsible deficit spending by liberals in both major parties and it becomes obvious that the government will very soon be intentionally bankrupt. A general economic collapse and a depression will inevitably follow--all according to plan.

The militias are only reacting to these not-so-veiled attacks on the Constitution and preparing for civil warfare, the only logical upshot to this kind of treachery.

Loyal Americans who form legal militias in support of a limited democratic republic are our future, if this country and the Constitution are to survive into the the millennium.

You aren’t going to be able to hide that fact much longer.

Michael A. Pacer

Glendora