The Yippie Show

How some media-savvy leftists inadvertently helped the right, and vice versa

Jesse Walker | August 27, 2008

(Page 3 of 3)

I called up Stone and asked him about the yippies. "Classic street theater," he replied, with a hint of professional admiration. "The voters or the consumers are getting too much information. You have to cut through that by being provocative. It's what the yippies figured out."

What does that have to do with the Yippie Cafe? Just that Stone, who shares the cafe proprietors' distaste for New York's draconian drug laws, showed up there last month. He brought along a bunch of College Republicans with short haircuts and ill-fitting suits, and he performed a stand-up comedy act cum political rant. Some of the spectators laughed, some heckled, some clapped, some stared.

"I did OK," says Stone. "They said, 'Who are these short-haired guys with you?' I said, 'This is the national committee of the Hitler Youth.'" When Abraham Ribicoff invoked the Nazis in Chicago, all hell broke loose on the convention floor. Forty years later, Stone was greeted with laughter and beer.

Jesse Walker is reason's managing editor.

Comments

Elemenope|8.27.08 @ 12:06PM|#

Not for nothing, but seeing the police brutality in Chicago '68 on national television was the moment at which my grandfather decided that the American government was not to be trusted, or so he told me.

A big leap for someone who had grown up during the great depression and served during WWII.

|8.27.08 @ 12:06PM|#

That cop had a BABY! WOW!

Naga Sadow|8.27.08 @ 12:16PM|#

Hippies . . . (shakes head)

|8.27.08 @ 12:22PM|#

Why couldn't there be people who were doing political theater for like, liberty and stuff? Why does everyone have to be against the drug war but also a communist, or for free markets but also a racist, etc?

I swear, 99% of these people take radical positions solely for self-aggrandizement and not for any sort of principle at all. They're basically the Material Girl with less staying power.

The Wine Commonsewer|8.27.08 @ 12:23PM|#

Even with my 22" Tim Allen flat screen, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what the heck those (presumably) Chicago cops have got a hold of. It looks like something that ought to be saying precious, my precious...

Elemenope|8.27.08 @ 12:23PM|#

Hippies were OK. When they transmuted into yuppies with a keen lack of self-awareness (or shame), that's when things went to shit.

The Wine Commonsewer|8.27.08 @ 12:25PM|#

Epi, the 60's lefites had few principals. For instance, they were only against the draft because the US didn't draft into the peace corps. Now that they're old they want mandatory public service for all 18 year olds and the irony is completely lost on them.

Elemenope|8.27.08 @ 12:27PM|#

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what the heck those (presumably) Chicago cops have got a hold of.

A precious little pot-bellied pig named "pigasus".

|8.27.08 @ 12:41PM|#

Epi, the 60's lefites had few principals

Yeah, that was my point.

By the way, how is NoStar?

Elemenope|8.27.08 @ 12:49PM|#

Epi, TWC --

Is it completely beyond you guys that different groups which share goals in common on somethings and work at cross-purposes at others can still work together to cause change?

I don't mean to be insulting, but it's kinda dumb to look at a disparate coalition of groups and dismiss them because they lack ideological consistency (which, BTW, they never claimed they had.)

|8.27.08 @ 12:54PM|#

Is it completely beyond you guys that different groups which share goals in common on somethings and work at cross-purposes at others can still work together to cause change?

Yes. I am a moron.

My moronic point had nothing to do with disparate groups, it was merely a lament that the loudest rabble-rousers are always holding some repulsive views.

Travis|8.27.08 @ 12:59PM|#

"the 60's lefites had few principals. For instance, they were only against the draft because the US didn't draft into the peace corps. Now that they're old they want mandatory public service for all 18 year olds and the irony is completely lost on them."

Never trust anyone over the age of 30 they're working for the man.

Elemenope|8.27.08 @ 1:00PM|#

My moronic point had nothing to do with disparate groups, it was merely a lament that the loudest rabble-rousers are always holding some repulsive views.

Ahem:

I swear, 99% of these people take radical positions...

Hmm. Doesn't seem like you're talking about just "the loudest rabble-rousers". Forgive my confusion when you say "99%"; you clearly meant a much smaller percentage...?

|8.27.08 @ 1:01PM|#

Elemenope,

It's Giant Puppet Head Syndrome. It doesn't matter what the protest or demonstration is for, even if it's something that you 100% agree with and support: once the giant puppet heads come out, the credibility of everyone drops by 50%.

Political syncretism will always be defined downward toward the most base element.

|8.27.08 @ 1:01PM|#

'the 60's lefites had few principals'

Sounds like neither the Nixson-righties or the 60's lefties had any principals. Both seemed to believe in doing anything: lying, cheating, stealing, and engaging in violent behavior for their causes. That core view, that the ends justify the means, seems at the heart of that eras dysfunction and the dysfunctional politics we have inherited from these people.

Travis|8.27.08 @ 1:02PM|#

I wonder if Pigasus's descendents have any political aspirations. With a choice between McCain & Obama a Pigasus adminstration sounds pretty good.

jtuf|8.27.08 @ 1:06PM|#

I have mixed feelings about the 1968 convention protests. I've read accounts that portray the protestors as people who chose to stand up for minorities instead of sitting back and doing nothing. This dicatomy is artificial. The protestors could have formed a new party just and Libertarians did. Of course, if the 1968 protestors left the Democratic party, they would lose access to all the office space, phone lists, general funds, ect. that the party had at the time. So, it is equally valid to say that 1968 protestors chose disrupt the city of Chicago so they could get said cash and valuables.

|8.27.08 @ 1:08PM|#

Ele,

these people refers to people who were doing political theater not the total body of protesters. So it's "I swear, 99% of [political theater protesters] take radical positions..."

(This, in no way, should be construed as suggesting Epi is not a moron.]

Elemenope|8.27.08 @ 1:17PM|#

RCN --

"People who were doing political theater" is a pretty large and diverse group, which Epi's subsequent back-pedaling comment suggests.

Thanks, though. And people say Nazis can only be evil...

|8.27.08 @ 1:17PM|#

Fix your email, moron NutraSweet.

And LMNOP, what he said. I was referring to the vast majority radical political theater types.

As for being a moron, my problem is that I went Full Retard. You never go Full Retard.

|8.27.08 @ 1:21PM|#

Firefox seems to be imploding. It wipes my "remember me" data every time I refresh. Stupid new version.

Redneck Adorno|8.27.08 @ 1:31PM|#

When they transmuted into yuppies...

Hippies are only understandable as always-yuppie, a vanguardist reactionary severance of the academic institutional Left from the working class. There weren't no transmutatin'.

Elemenope|8.27.08 @ 1:33PM|#

As for being a moron, my problem is that I went Full Retard. You never go Full Retard.

Fucking LOL. And I never called you a moron. But it's good advice all the same.

D.A. Ridgely|8.27.08 @ 1:38PM|#

Excellent work, Mr. Walker. (My far more modest commemoration of the 1968 Democratic Convention, which I sadly admit to remembering, is here.)

Succeeding generations do not typically realize how non-monolithic the various movements of the 60s, counter-cultural and otherwise, really were. The Civil Rights movement, for example, had absolutely nothing in common with young, white middle class kids (like me) who were, with varying degrees of sincerity, even temporarily turning our backs on middle class culture.

So, too, as Mr. Walker notes, the Yippies, far more a "conceptual" group than a real organization like, say, the Black Panthers, had no more to do with your average hippie than the Young Republican or Young Democrat on campus has with the average politically indifferent student.

Strange days, indeed.

|8.27.08 @ 1:52PM|#

1968: The year the socialists took over the Democratic Party.

|8.27.08 @ 2:10PM|#

1968: The year the socialists took over the Democratic Party.

[cough] 1933 [cough]

ed|8.27.08 @ 2:12PM|#

Why couldn't there be people who were doing political theater for like, liberty and stuff?

People like that are busy, like, working and stuff.

dhex|8.27.08 @ 2:13PM|#

a great piece, mr. walker. you always seem to put out the choicest historical overviews.

that said, i agree wholeheartedly with mr. wilson and mr. shea's character of simon moon in illuminatus! - nominating pigasus was indeed the most "transcendentally lucid" political act of the decade.

|8.27.08 @ 2:15PM|#

[cough] 1933 [cough]

No, that was when the Fascists took over.

Elemenope|8.27.08 @ 2:18PM|#

The way Brandybuck speaks of the Democratic party, one might come to expect hordes of people in Black shirts painting everything in sight Red.

It's weird how that isn't the way it is.

Jesse Walker|8.27.08 @ 2:22PM|#

1968: The year the socialists took over the Democratic Party.

By nominating a New Deal Democrat and beating up socialist protesters outside the convention hall?

nominating pigasus was indeed the most "transcendentally lucid" political act of the decade.

He was running against Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace. I have to admit I would have voted for the pig.

Paul|8.27.08 @ 2:40PM|#

FIGHT! I'm jumping in:

I swear, 99% of these people take radical positions...

Hmm. Doesn't seem like you're talking about just "the loudest rabble-rousers". Forgive my confusion when you say "99%"; you clearly meant a much smaller percentage...?

Actually, if you read it carefully, Epi said 99% of people who take radical positions. A.K.A. "the loudest rabble-rousers". He did not say, as you suggest, 99% of the population at large.

Paul|8.27.08 @ 2:44PM|#

Firefox seems to be imploding. It wipes my "remember me" data every time I refresh. Stupid new version.

It's Reason's site. IE is doing the same thing.

|8.27.08 @ 2:50PM|#

Anyone else catch the bit on Fox News this morning (heavily edited one presumes) where a reporter asked Denver protesters to identify photos of Pelosi, Reid and Cheyney? And their clueless votes cancel out ours.

|8.27.08 @ 2:50PM|#

It's Reason's site. IE is doing the same thing.

Let me take this opportunity to point out that the two blogs thing is stupid and unwieldy. And stop making me type my handle over and over again.

Elemenope|8.27.08 @ 2:51PM|#

It's Reason's site. IE is doing the same thing.

They are being punished by the server squirrels for covering the convention.

Paul|8.27.08 @ 2:54PM|#

1968: The year the socialists took over the Democratic Party.

By nominating a New Deal Democrat and beating up socialist protesters outside the convention hall?

By nominating a quasi-socialist, and beating up the real socialists outside the convention hall?

|8.27.08 @ 2:55PM|#

And I've always defended the squirrels. Those ungrateful bastards. In the great squirrels vs. birds debate I always opined "When was the last time a squirrel shit on your car?"

[grumble]

The Wine Commonsewer|8.27.08 @ 2:56PM|#

Yeah, that was my point.

I know that Silly Goose. I was agreeing with you and furnishing additional information. :-)

|8.27.08 @ 2:58PM|#

They are being punished by the server squirrels for covering the convention.

I'd like to punish them with a taser for doing the split blog format. I dare the webmaster to come on here and defend this setup.

Jesse Walker|8.27.08 @ 3:00PM|#

Paul, if Humphrey was a quasi-socialist, then so were the previous five Democrats to win the party's presidential nomination. So it would make even less sense to call 1968 "The year the socialists took over the Democratic Party."

|8.27.08 @ 3:01PM|#

LMNOP, Jesse,

Distinguishing between quasi-fascists and quasi-socialists is difficult for me, so perhaps I have erred in my characterization. But the late 60's does seem to be the time when the Democrat Party shifted its focus away from centralized planning of the national industry and towards income leveling and redistribution.

p.s. Of course, this is Reason, where no one is allowed to criticize the Democrats because it might offend the libertarians.

|8.27.08 @ 3:02PM|#

By the way, how is NoStar?

Thanks for asking. I have and will continue to add comments to the dead thread where Nick posted the awful news. You can also click over to TWC and there are a couple of updates there which I summarize below.

As of this morning NoStar is out of ICU but he is in a lot of pain. The internal bleeding (brain and liver) has stopped. His face is a mess and the hospital won't let him look in the mirror. He and Jessie's mom cried together yesterday and are making funeral arrangements today.

A friend is looking into a memorial library fund in Jessie's name. His church is in the process of setting up a memorial fund as well.

For now cards or flowers may be sent to Bill Kalles:

C/O Harborview Medical Center

325 9th Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98104

[phone]

|8.27.08 @ 4:05PM|#

But the late 60's does seem to be the time when the Democrat Party shifted its focus away from centralized planning of the national industry.

Well, except for health care. And energy.

|8.27.08 @ 5:19PM|#

And lending.

|8.27.08 @ 6:18PM|#

Regarding healthcare, the Democrats are in the midst of a debate whether to implement a fascist solution or a socialist solution. So far fascist hillarycare seems the winner, but wait for obamacare to get rolled out. Either way the Democrats are solidly united behind a bigger government program.

Energy does seem solidly fascist however. I wonder if the Great Libertarian Hope Obama has plans to correct that when he takes over?

|8.27.08 @ 10:14PM|#

But the late 60's does seem to be the time when the Democrat Party shifted its focus away from centralized planning of the national industry.

Which means, then, away from socialism.

I think the conflation of socialism with the modern Western welfare state is one of the biggest slanders in modern political discourse (the others: "Democrats don't care about the security of the American people" and "libertarians only care about getting rich"). Many on the left are indeed clueless about economics and would be dangerous if they ever came to power. Fortunately, this is balanced out by the majority of Democratic politicians, who, either because they're not entirely stupid, or because they're paid well by their corporate contributors, tend to be far more market-friendly in practice. It's also pretty well established by now that socialism simply can't provide both a uniformly high standard of living and the tax revenues needed for a massive system of social insurance and public works. Anyone who claims that it can is delusional or lying.

I'm not saying that the Democrats are doing this out of any particular principle - but they don't have an ideological commitment to nationalizing all industry and never came anywhere near to implementing this type of policy, especially in comparison to the UK before Thatcher. Remember, the New Deal was instituted partly to protect the country against socialism, based on the belief that the Depression would spawn a left-wing overreaction. The Democrats have also definitely drifted rightward in the last few decades, which is how Bill Clinton ended up signing welfare reform, shrinking the federal government slightly, and pushing free trade. Clinton wasn't very libertarian, but he wasn't even remotely socialist.

And that's basically where I stand too, for both ideological and practical reasons. I'd like a fairly limited, libertarian government with as little social engineering or economic interference is possible. And I'm totally in favor of guns, dope, low taxes, local self-government, and a tiny military. But I'm happy to pay taxes for what I consider basic social services like unemployment insurance and education, because I view these as necessary to sustain a healthy free-market economy with minimal meddling from the government. This might make me a shitty libertarian too, but it doesn't make me a socialist either, unless Bush is also a socialist.

Brandybuck, after your 6:18 comment I now have no clue what you mean by "socialist" and "fascist". Please don't tell me you've been reading Jonah's book.

Y.|8.28.08 @ 9:41AM|#

"I'm not saying that the Democrats are doing this out of any particular principle - but they don't have an ideological commitment to nationalizing all industry... the New Deal was instituted partly to protect the country against socialism..."
A good example of "not socialism" is the National Recovery Act (fortunately undone by SCOTUS).

"Bill Clinton ended up signing welfare reform"
Except that he vetoed it twice, only allowing it through because his adviseres told him he might lose the 96' elections otherwise.

"shrinking the federal government slightly"
Actually, this is only because of dubious cutbacks to the military (In fairness, every other President would have done the same). Otherwise, the fed gov. grew.

"and pushing free trade."
Something which the Dems have turned their backs on completely (e.g. CAFTA).