> for the "we are all reactionary morons" brigade, a poll was taken during
> the bicentennial year and it revealed a progressive, left wing, near
> socialist support for social democratic policies among americans...the
> poll was paid for by people who were of a progressive bent...
Lemme guess. The People's Bicentennial Commission led by Jeremy Rifkin assisted by I guess John Rossen, a Lincoln Brigade vet who for yrs. in In These Times early days pushed a Popular Front patriotic leftism?
One of the very last HUAC (technically HCUA really) reports was on the PBC and Rifkin. Rifkin had been in SDS and NAM.
The People's Bicentennial Commission and the Construction of the Public Memory
Seema Sohi
The construction of public memory is an ideological struggle, where conflicting social groups assert conflicting memories of various historical events. Throughout the 1970's, such a debate existed between numerous groups, in regards to the American Bicentennial. The federally funded organization known as the American Revolutionary Bicentennial Administration (ARBA), and the People's Bicentennial Commission (PBC), had vastly different opinions about how to celebrate the Bicentennial. These groups accused one another of propaganda, while each group used the Bicentennial to assert a political agenda. The argument between ARBA and PBC is illustrative of the controversies behind the creation of a collective memory...
The People's Bicentennial Commission defined themselves as a nationwide citizen organization dedicated to the restoration of the democratic principles that shaped the birth of the U.S. The group was organized in Washington D.C. in 1971 with the combined efforts of Jeremy Rifkin and John Rossen. Both of these men had controversial backgrounds. Rifkin grew up in a working class neighborhood in the south side of Chicago. He received a Master's Degree in International affairs from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, at Tufts University, in 1968. In 1970, Rifkin was the National Coordinator of the Citizens Commission of Inquiry on U.S. War Crimes in Vietnam. He had a substantial background as a New Left activist, who played a prominent role in the anti-Vietnam war movement. In addition, he was a founding member of the New America Movement (NAM), a far left organization that combined calls for revolution with professions of a commitment to democracy. Many of the people who made up NAM had come
from the Students for A Democratic Society (SDS). These individuals sought to move beyond an organization comprised of leftist student activists. They wanted to extend their scope to include workers who sought to "organize around issues, which affect the majority of Americans including themselves, rather than conceiving of themselves as 'outside agitators.'"[19] The agenda of the New America Movement included education in Marxist economics, support for strikes, opposition to economic discrimination against women, struggles against tax increases, cut backs in social services, increased day-care centers, and anti-corporate organizing. In addition, there was a major emphasis placed on the empowerment of the worker.
John Rossen was a former Communist party organizer. He too was an anti-war activist during Vietnam, as well as the executive director for the Chicago Council for American-Soviet Friendship organization. Another prominent role he had throughout the sixties was as the chair of the Pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee.[20] The PBC had connections with SDS, the Communist Party, the Progressive Labor Party, the Revolutionary Youth Movement, the Young Workers Liberation League, the International Socialists, Youth Against War and Fascism, and many other leftist organizations. In light of their affiliation with leftist groups, one can see why official interests were adamant in their refusal to allow the PBC to construct the public memory of the Bicentennial.
The PBC financed themselves through $10 memberships from individuals who joined or supported their cause. They had received a $7,219 grant from the National Endowment for Humanities in June 1972. In the report they submitted to the Endowment, they stressed that the focal point of their organization was on the youth, and left out their connections with leftist organizations. ARBA, along with other government officials, were irate once they received news of this grant. The Endowment of course did not realize the leftist and revolutionary ideologies of the PBC when they allocated funds to the organization.
The political agenda that the PBC sought to promote during the Bicentennial made them highly controversial. They defined themselves as a non-profit organization, which provided a positive alternative to the Bicentennial created by the White House. They distributed materials, such as organizing guides and alternative U.S. history pamphlets for schools and libraries, activist groups, and television and radio programs. They published numerous books; one such example was titled Common Sense II, in which they compared contemporary multi-national corporations to King George III and the monarchy.[21] They argued that the U.S. needed a new patriotic movement to restore the revolutionary spirit that the founding fathers had employed two hundred years ago, in their fight against the aristocracy, privileged families, and wealthy institutions. The PBC argued that a "true people's patriotic celebration" should celebrate the revolutionary principles of 1776.[22]
The PBC relied on popular historical symbols to support their critical claims. They urged Americans to reclaim these national symbols and challenge the official Bicentennial observance "with the words and deeds of the American revolutionary patriots."[23] They employed such symbols as Patrick Henry's famous "Give me liberty or give me death" speech, the Declaration of Independence and the Boston Tea Party, as illustrations of the days when "something of historical importance happened in your community." They used these symbols to remind Americans that, throughout the Bicentennial, they should remember the revolutionary sentiment of their forefathers. The PBC often referred to such individuals as Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Rush, Henry David Thoreau, William Lloyd Garrison, John Brown, Sojourner Truth, W.E.B. DuBois, and the founding fathers.[24] The PBC encompassed these diverse individuals into their rhetoric, in an attempt to offer various social groups, recognizable historical figures.
PBC literature employed numerous quotations from the Declaration of Independence. The famous excerpt "...whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it," was one of their most employed lines. Below the headline of their monthly newsletters, they always included a famous quote from Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. "The American war is over, but this is far from being the case with the American Revolution. On the contrary, nothing but the first act of the great drama is closed."[25] It is lines such as this, which official interests argued, instilled a revolutionary and anti-patriotic sentiment in the American people.
Another one of the their tactics was to parallel the Americans economic, political and social problems in 1976, to those of 1776. Rifkin often claimed that because of massive unemployment, high taxes, food bills and medical costs, the mood of the Americans on the eve of the Bicentennial was "strikingly similar" to the mood felt throughout the colonies in 1775. Like the monarchy in the 18th century, the corporate giants of the 20th century had succeeded in their concentration of a massive amount of economic and political power in the hands of the few. In addition, the monarchy, like the corporations were not designed to maximize rights, but to maximize profits.[26] The PBC argued that these were the very corporations that sponsored ARBA in their celebrations of the Bicentennial.
Another aim of the PBC was to reacquaint Americans with social, political, and economic issues of the revolutionary era, which continued to exist in 1976. They claimed that their movement would challenge unfair concentrations of financial and political power and empower the worker. The PBC argued that many of America's economic, social, and political institutions undermined the revolutionary ideals and principles to which the U.S. claimed dedication.[27] They believed that heightened awareness by the American people of their situation could lead to a mass-based re-identification "with the revolutionary principles and beliefs of the American heritage."[28] Thus, if Americans could remember the ideals of their founding fathers and mothers, they could revolutionize the entire structure of contemporary society.
The PBC anticipated the criticism they would receive because of their affiliations with other leftist organizations. They argued that if the New Left hoped to engage a new consciousness and give it constructive direction through political struggle, it must first figure out what it represented. The PBC was aware that as a result of the sixties, the left movement's character had become increasingly strange and even frightening to many Americans. They realized that they needed to broaden their ideologies in a way that the average worker could relate to. They called theirs a revolution for economic democracy, which advocated employee control of American companies and a redistribution of wealth.[29]One of the PBC's most famous works, Common Sense II argued that it was time to apply some common sense to the problems facing the American economy. They tirelessly worked to inform Americans that the giant U.S. corporations have seized control over the land and resources of the country. In addition, the corporations have systematically destroyed thousands of small businesses and forced millions of Americans to become "wage serfs" for the wealthy. They have pushed too many Americans into unemployment lines by systematically closing down their American plants and moving their companies abroad. The PBC goes on to accuse the corporations of fostering tensions and conflicts between races, sexes and ethnic groups in their discriminatory employment practices.
"We, therefore, the citizens of the U.S., hereby call for the abolition of these giant institutions of tyranny and the establishment of new economic enterprises with new laws and safeguards to provide for the equal and democratic participation of all American citizens in the economic decisions that effect the well-being of our families, our communities and our nation.[30]" Thus, their central point was that the people and not the few must exercise economic decision making power.
Another one of their famous publications was thePatriot's Handbook, which offered a reexamination and reaffirmation of the democratic vision that founded this nation, so that Americans could observe a meaningful Bicentennial. In addition, the PBC organized community chapters in numerous towns; established a Bicentennial newsletter which examined the American experience within the context of radical programs; distributed a radical calendar and journal of historic moments in peoples struggles; and sponsored art exhibits, poetry readings and music festivals. All of these activities focused on the Bicentennial theme. They sent out countless informational packets in which they claimed that 4 July 1976 was the time to begin the second American Revolution. On this day, Americans must declare their economic independence from such corporations as Exxon, ITT, and GM and through this, they would rededicate themselves to the democratic principles of 1776. Thus, they sought to encompass vernacular interests as much as ARBA did, through a focus on economic democracy.
In light of the ideas the PBC promoted, one can see why tensions arose with the corporate and federally funded ARBA. The PBC repeatedly argued that Congress, ARBA, and the big business community had planned, "the most massive propaganda campaign in this country's history." The PBC claimed that ARBA's Bicentennial campaign ignored revolutionary ideals and programs and instead concentrated on those beliefs that reinforced the capitalist system and its political institutions.[31] "Propaganda," in the context, is a series of images and statements used to persuade people to adopt a certain view and support a certain policy.[32] The PBC felt that the Bicentennial needed to be reclaimed precisely because those that perpetuated the system they fought against, were the ones who now had the power to define and defend the American revolutionary tradition.
-- Michael Pugliese