Geoff Garin, Clinton Chief Strategist, Once Called For Violent Revolution

With 60s-era radicalism now a hot topic in the Democratic primary, it's worth noting the (amusing, ironic) history of Sen. Hillary Clinton's co-chief strategist Geoff Garin.

Philip Weiss, who attended Harvard with Garin more than 30 years ago, recalls that he was "a special guy -- softspoken, funny, brilliant. He was also a radical. In 1973, on an anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Garin called for violent revolution in the United States" in the student paper, the Crimson:

...America and much of the world is living dangerously close to oppression. ... Whether Americans will soon become steadfast in their resistance to oppression depends on their coming to understand what resistance is all about. The way we celebrate the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party will gauge the depth of that understanding.... Freedom is on the wane in this country and repression is on the rise all over the world. We can no longer sit back and swap stories about the good old revolution. We have to start worrying about the present. On this anniversary we must recognize that the patriots of Boston acted wisely in overthrowing their oppressors and the time is come to express our confidence in what our forefathers did by doing it ourselves. [my emphasis]

Following Agnew's resignation in 1973, Garin again spoke of revolution:

The government in Washington can not survive under these circumstances, and under these circumstances the government should not survive.... America will be governed in any case, but the question is by whom. If not by the people, then by a strong executive. These are revolutionary times, and we must decide now whom we want to win the revolution.

Of course, Garin was 20 years old when he wrote the pieces above. But as Weiss notes, "It is helpful to read his writings because they demonstrate: how much people grow, how common revolutionary statements have been in the left (even in the Jewish meritocracy, of which Garin and I are members). But mostly because they show that the continuum of left-center ideas, which are now coming back into American life, includes Wright, Garin, and Obama."

Comments

[standforpeace]

So what? The reach that Charlie and George made to try to associate Obama with violence committed by the Weathermen 40 years ago was despicable, and this is right up there. I don't know anything about this guy (other than that he works for Hillary who is not my preferred candidate), but it seems to me that the only young folk not angry enough to call for revolution in 1973 were Dick Cheney and George Bush.

[graffen48]

Don't forget Rumsfeld and Rove lol.

[CivilDisobedient]

Both the Ayers thing and this are nothing but weak attempts to sink either candidate. These people paid their debt to society, and then some.

[Kundera]

Ayers did not.

[CivilDisobedient]

This is so obvious, it's funny. The political ping-pong here is amusing. One side accuses the other of something, then huffpo finds crap that is supposed to make the other candidate guilty of the same thing. Man, it is soooo obvious.

This is a bullshit story, and so is the one about Obama and ayers. Ayers paid his dues to society, for his crimes. This guy in the story above never even committed a crime. Alot of people back then were calling for violent revolution. As is our right, per the constitution of the United States. If the government no longer works for the people, then it is the people's right, no, duty, to overthrow that government. I mean, come on, this is Jeffersonian. America was doing some very nasty things in the 60s and early 70s. We still are, all these years later.

[Jabali]

Ping pong is fun.... but on another note, Ayers was never convicted or even (I think), charged with a crime.

Just to set that record straight.

[CivilDisobedient]

He was arrested. I've seen the mug shots. For what exactly, I don't know. The youngins never new how close we were to civil war in this country. Nixon was convinced there would be a violent revolution. He was nearly correct. Kent State put that to rest.

[bobtr900]

America needs people like Garin, radicals/ liberals/progressives, to watch out for and counterbalance people like Bush and the Republican Party and the Repub Hacks in the MSM. Admittedly there are a few who endorse revolution to some degree but what kind of revolution are they really talking about. The right wingers all think that everyone who does not think exactly as they do is bent on burning the entire country down. And that just ain't so.
Meanwhile right wingers seem to be all about turning America into a Nazi-Fascist State. Since Reagan, they have been twisting this country into some kind of borderline fascist state.
When our country worships profits and political power over human values then it's time to commence and I have been commencing since Bush let bin Laden go free at Tora Bora in Dec of 2001. And, I figured out then that there was no such thing as GWOT(the Global War On Terror) it really was all a smoke screen for oil profits by stealing iraqi oil.
Furthermore the Pro-Life and Family Values agenda did not really exist, it was another smoke screen to cover the stealing(coveting of thy neighbors goods, as the commandment says) of Iraqi oil.

HELL YEAH, we need people like Garin.

Personally, I lean toward Obama but I'll vote for whomever the Dems put up for the presidency. Any vote against the Repubs is a vote in the right direction.

[Swift2]

Okay! Now here's the usual Obama rejoinder when faced with something that doesn't play well in the mainstream. "But they did it too!"
Well, Ayers and Dohrn were not some guy writing in the Harvard Crimson, were they? The Weathermen were part of a self-styled revolutionary group that believed they should blow up government buildings to start the revolution. Now, the first people they blew up were themselves. Then there was an ultra-violent and a less violent split, and a lot of people lost enthusiasm as time went on. It never did start a revolution, now, did it? The only political movement the Weather Underground added to was the election of Richard Nixon, and the rise of the Reagan Republican. So, the criminal liability for the Ayers was miniscule, but their political culpability was quite large. Kind of like Ralph Nader's role in 2000.
But why Obama's name gets mixed up with this couple is flimsy and stupid. Wait a minute: it was framed by the right, as a way to paint the Obama movement as crazy leftist radicals that the country rejected, forcibly, in the '70s. In fact, every Democrat with a chance gets painted with the "radical left" brush, like that moderate Howard Dean.
So, of course, it's only logical that the Obama movement will respond with... mud-slinging? Who taught you politics, Rush Limbaugh or Lenin?

[CivilDisobedient]

This is what I stated above. It is so obvious as to be laughable. But Ayers and Dohrn paid their debt to society, and are free people. Alot of people were calling for violent revolution in those days. John Lennon, a foreigner, really helped to keep violence in check. He told people, look, when you get violent, they know how to handle you. They UNDERSTAND violence. That's all they understand.
The weather underground took things too far and became the very thing they professed to hate.

[abouttime]

Obama does not need to "mud-sling" because he wants to unite our country. Mud-slinging divides and shows the true nature of those who throw rocks while living in a glass house.
The present is where we are. We must unite in dialogue, debate and issues that focus on jobs, employement, civil rights, and foriegn policy .
Foriegn policy should be debated, not dictated by threats of obliteration, bombs and blackmail. Obama will ask us whether diplomacy is the vehicle for resolving differences. Clinton/McCain will not, but will volunteer our youth to war, regardless of our desires for peace and stability.
Obama, yes we can!

[useyourbrain]

Agreed -- Obama has called for a revolution in thought and action about how things are done.

I am the one I've been waiting for!!!

[TribunusPlebis]

The Garin quotes absolutely do not support the lurid headline -- he said nothing about supporting "violent" revolution, only noting that the times were revolutionary and that in the American Revolution, the people had overthrown their oppressors. In fact, popular resistance to the British Crown was nonviolent until the British instigated military operations to put down the colonies' attempt to break away, at which time a military conflict ensued. In 1776, "revolution" did not mean a bloody French or Bolshevik affair, and Garin did not cite the latter revolutions in making his college-days remark. Morever, given the more frequent success in the last half-century of popular nonviolent revolutions (Philippines, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Chile, etc.), Garin's sentiment favoring revolution might not be such a bad idea today, as a way to dethrone oppressive governments.

[johnlilburne]

Actually, the notion that the American Revolution was not violent is one of the great myths of American history. The rebels were engaged in violent resistance from at least 1765 with the Stamp Act protests and this continued all throughout the next few decades. It was not simply a response to the British and it included a large amount of violence between rebels and loyalists who were born colonials. Not to mention the violence of slave masters against the bondspeople who sought to use the Revolutionary upheavals as a way to escape. Perhaps there wasn't the same effort of social revolution from above as in France--which is not to say it wasn't there from below--but that is because so many of the leading Revolutionaries were busy suppressing internal protests.

[Trueheart]

What you say about violence between patriots and loyalists is true. Tarring and feathering common in Massachusetts. Mobs burning down houses and businesses. Ugly stuff. Many Tories migrated to New Brunswick, Canada or Western Massachusetts because things got so violent.

[KMKY]

I agree that the American Revolution or American War for Independence (depending on which side of the pond you're on) was violent. I have a harder time seeing Garin's comments (at least here) as being quite that violent. When Thomas Jefferson encouraged revolution every generation, one wonders if he meant that kind of violence that characterized late 18th- (the National Razor comes to mind) to mid-19th-century revolutions or just a reconceptualization of governmentality.

[OldDawg]

Let us all remember that Thomas Jefferson called for revolution against any government that did not represent the people. Look at the poles vs. Gov. action add VP Cheney's statement that ...we don't care what the people say...Now evaluate a radical statement made in the 70's. Don't care because it did no more harm than say going to war again, again and again.

[queensboro]

he hoped no one would find out about it

[BobOnThis]

Anyone who thinks the criminals running the 2 party dog & pony show will 'walk away from power' without violence must be a delusional dim-wit with a hysterical... not historical perspective!

Violence will be absolutely neccesary to remove the purveyors of gods & gov'ts from power... for they have always used violence, and the threat thereof, against it's citizens to further their self-serving agendas.

The 1st revolution was neccesarily violent & bloody... and so will the next one... even more so I'm sure (because of advanced weaponology)... for the powers have been entrenched so long their roots have fouled, poisoned, and usurped virtually ever aspect of our self-governing republic.

Just SAY NO to the purveyors of Gods & govt's... they are not the solution... they reamain the problem... being wholly antagonistic to out freedoms, rights, and liberties!

Join your local militia today and start preparing for your 'self-defense' & THE REVOLUTION TO COME!

The Revolution, Pt. II - "The rise of self-evidence & the fall of self-delusion!"

[ProgressiveJ]

This is silly. Huffpost is clearly trying to mitigate the fall-out from the controversial stance Obama has taken in refusing to denounce the Weathermen , by suggesting that Garin is somehow shares Ayers' vision of violent revolution.

Well, just reading the above quotes will show you that Garin and the Weatherman were not calling for the same thing. Sure, Garin calls for "revolution," but this does not necessarily connote violence, especially since he refers to the Boston Tea Party which, if we remember our history correclty, was certainly not violent. There have been plenty of peaceful revolutions throughout history - the Glorious Revolution - or revolutions that were not even political in nature - the Industrial Revolution. Garin did not set off bombs like the Weathermen in an attempt to kill people.

This whole post is just a silly, shameless front for the Obama campaign, marking yet another feeble attempts to mitigate the fall-out from news about Senator Obama's misguided personal associations.

[vcsmith]

"...Obama has taken in refusing to denounce the Weathermen ..."

How did you arrive at this conclusion.

It must be SILLY SEASON.

[ProgressiveJ]

A lot of interesting responses here...let me respond:

*Obama may have denounced Ayers' acts, but the fact is he still keeps company with a man who says "he wishes he could have done more" with the Weathermen - even if he wasn't convicted, his desire many years on to have done "more" (i.e. more violence) are rather menacing and clearly go way beyond anything Garin ever desired to do.

*The Boston Tea party may have been threatening, but I wouldnt classify it as violent...it's not like setting off bombs...

*The GOP won't be making hay out of this...because they realize there is nothing really to it. They will be making much more hay out of Wright and Ayers...trust me.

*a lot of former "radicals" have moved on...but not Ayers. He still wishes they had done more.

*Obama has had opportunities to denounce Ayers...and he hasn't. His "acts" are reprehensible, but he hasn't "denounced" him...instead he profited from his association with him during his first bid for State Senate.

It matters who a President associates him/herself with people. but my expectations for Obama are fairly low. It took him 20 years to realize some aspects of Wright's ministry were problematic...so maybe in twenty years or so he'll look back at Ayers and give him a second thought.

[ghop]

Obama did denounce Ayers' acts. I believe he called them reprehensible. If you are delusional enough to think the GOP wouldn't be making hay out of this if Clinton were the front runner, you haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years.

[graffen48]

Ayers never was convicted of any crime, and you've missed the point of the article here. The point is that during the times of the late 60's and early 70's, many young people had radical vewpoints and expressed them both publicly and privately. Most of these people have moved on and now lead productive lives in society, and that includes Ayers and Garin. If we are going to play the game of associations, its only fair to show all associations that all candidates have had. One final point, you consider storming onto a boat that isn't your property and destroying the cargo a non-violent event??? (Boston Tea Party) How strange?

[vincealy]

Just for the record Ayers has not been convicted of any crime teaches at a major school and has worked forthe mayor of Chicago. A point the Bush -Rove -Clinton politics never lets stand in the way. Clinton however should explain why he pardoned two Weathermen who had been convicted of crimes as well as Mark Rich who Clinton also pardoned. Time far a change.

[queensboro]

its all a game dude, stay focused. they're all full of it, obama has less skeleton

[rmetz74]

Newsflash MSM... Most Democrats who were old enough to be aware of the 60's had some association with outspoken liberal activists. Remember the whole 'Hillary attended a flagburning' thing while Bill was President? Didn't matter then, doesn't matter now - for either candidate, or any Democrat.

[ghop]

I think this sort of thing is silly, but I doubt the GOP would leave this alone if Hillary is the nominee.

[booksnmore4you]

We are all going to be blind soon if we keep practicing this eye-for-an-eye.

[kenjisan]

first rendell with farakhan and now this? I am an Obama supporter, but this garbage needs to stop. We have real problems to deal with. How is any of this relative to the presidency?
Wright has nothing to do with the presidency, Ayers has nothing to do with the presidency.

The media is leading us down the path, and we go merrily along, instead of saying NO MORE.

STICK TO THE ISSUES!

[undecidee]

Women's Voices Women Vote, a 'progressive' DC group's robo-calls causing "confusing and potentially disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters" in North Carolina.

Some have also questioned the ties between Women's Voices operatives and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton. Gardner, for example, contributed $2,500 to Clinton's HILLPAC on May 4, 2006, and in March 2005 she donated a total of $4,200 to Clinton, according to The Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org.

Women's Voices Executive Director Joe Goode worked for Bill Clinton's election campaign in 1992 as a pollster; the group's website says he was intimately involved in "development and implementation of all polling and focus groups done for the presidential primary and general election campaigns" for Clinton.

Women's Voices board member John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton, donated $2,300 to Hillary Clinton on April 19, 2007, according to OpenSecrets.org.

"The reports from other states are very disturbing, especially the pattern of mass confusion among targeted voters on the eve of a state's primary," Democracy North Carolina's Bob Hall tells Facing South. "These are highly skilled political operatives -- something doesn't add up. Maybe it's all well-intended and explainable. At this moment, our first priority is to stop the robo-calls and prevent the chaos and potential disenfranchisement caused by this group sending 276,000 packets of registration forms into North Carolina a few days before a heated primary election. We need their immediate cooperation."

[graffen48]

I agree with you, but if they are going to do it to Obama and his associations, its only fair they get a taste of their own medicine. I think its amusing actually, and it just shows the silliness of all of it.

[SCG2]

More breaking news you won't hear on FOX........not part of the current game plan.

An interesting turn, from protesting the system, to being part of it. Anyway what revolution ever came from the Ivy league?

[ProfessorDuh]

You will hear it later, though - just as soon as they have destroyed Obama with their irrelevant trash.

[CivilDisobedient]

Oh, and Hillary made Obama go to wright's church for twenty years?? She made Obama write about the black church and rev. wright, in his book? What a crock. Obama did this to himself. He wanted to look all pious and shit, but it backfired and blew up in his face.

Ain't religion grand???

[ruscle]

And now they just resort to Republican tactics -- like this breaking story about Clinton Supporters placing robo-calls in several states to confuse African American voters and keep them away from the polls.

Maggie Williams (On Clinton's Campaign) is a board member of the group doing this.

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/04/facing-south-exclusive-dc-nonprofit.asp

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/30/11055/6499/141/506343

[ProfessorDuh]

This isn't news. Only specious connections which can be used to smear Obama are news.