Young Americans for Freedom Options

[John Simkin]

So this is guilt by association, John?

Young Americans for Freedom was, as I recall, a moderate conservative organization with intellectual underpinnings.  I believe that William F. Buckley was instrumental in its founding.  I will research its background.

This is not to say there were not right-wing "nuts" in YAF.  I have already stated that there were some fairly far-out right-wingers in the 1960s, just as there were far-out left-wingers.  But you may not recall this but in 1962 or 1963 Buckley had essentially "removed" the Birchers and others of their ilk from the intellectual conservative movement. 

If Schmidt was involved, that certainly does not indict YAF as an organization; nor does it indict any of its other members.  Nor does it indict the conservative movement.

I thought it might be a good idea to find out what we know about the Young Americans for Freedom and so I have started a thread on the subject.

Tim, maybe you can tell us what policies the Americans for Freedom favoured that attracted right-wing extremists like Larrie Schmidt to the organization. Schmidt was also a member of the John Birch Society. Were you a member of that group as well? I don’t want you to say you were in favour of “freedom of democracy”. I want to hear about specific policies you favoured.

To help you in this I am going to tell you what policies I favoured in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Like you, I was a member of a youth organization that was part of a national party. In my case it was the Young Socialists who were part of the Labour Party. In fact, during the period I am talking about, the Labour Party was in power.

As with most political youth organizations we were more radical than the adult organization (was that the same of the Americans for Freedom). Also, we were interested in international politics as well as domestic politics. Here is a list of some of the policies we favoured:

1. An increase in graduated income-tax.

2. Legislation that would guarantee equality for women and racial minorities.

3. The removal of legislation that discriminated against homosexuals.

4. The introduction of comprehensive education.

5. The release of Nelson Mandela from prison in South Africa (at the time he was still being described by politicians all over the world as a “communist terrorist”).

6. An end to apartheid in South Africa.

7. An end to white majority rule in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).

8. An end to racial discrimination in the United States.

9. The withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam.

10. The withdrawal of Soviet troops in Czechoslovakia and other Eastern European states.

11. An end to the arms race.

12. A dramatic increase in overseas aid in order to stop millions of people dying of starvation.

We used several methods to obtain our objectives. This included lobbying Labour Party MPs, writing letters and publishing articles (I was editor of a very small circulation magazine called Target), giving out leaflets to young people outside colleges, youth centres, railway stations, football grounds, etc., going on marches and demonstrations, voting out of office local right-wing members of the Labour Party, etc. We never used dirty tricks (unless you call heckling right-wing politicians at public meetings dirty tricks).

Although the Labour Party supported some of these policies and in cases 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 actually did something about it. However, we were described as extremists and most of use were forced to leave the party.

Well, that’s my confession. I am proud of what I did as a young man. I still think I was right about all those policies. They have stood the test of time. Most of these objectives were realized. So was objectives 1 and 4 but this policy has been reversed by Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. 11 and 12 still remain as major problems but most people now recognize that it is only a matter of time before we grapple with these moral issues.

This is one of the major advantages for people on the left. It is only a matter of time before your objectives are achieved. Conservatives are in the opposite position, they are constantly fighting to hold onto the status quo, it is a battle that they always end up losing.

Now it is your turn Tim. What policies did you favour while in the Young Americans for Freedom? Were you successful?

[Tim Gratz]

I have a quick easy answer, John. The Young Americans for Freedom was started at William Buckley's estate in Sharon, Connecticut. The founders adopted a statement of their political philosophy. It was called "The Sharon Statement". It is set forth in full below:

"Adopted in Conference, at Sharon, Connecticut, on September 11, 1960."

IN THIS TIME of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.

WE, as young conservatives believe:

THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;

THAT liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;

THAT the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

THAT when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;

THAT the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;

THAT the genius of the Constitution - the division of powers - is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;

THAT the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;

THAT when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation, that when it takes from one to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;

THAT we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies…

THAT the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;

THAT the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with this menace; and

THAT American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?



I do not think YAF welcomed Birchers and I despised the tenets of the JBS (although some of its members were fine people).

One of the principles of "the Sharon Statement" was: That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with this menace [of Communism]. This objective was accomplished with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. By the end of his term, Communism was "on the ropes". So a very major objective of YAF was in fact accomplished within one generation!

This post has been edited by Tim Gratz: Jul 18 2005, 11:27 AM

[John Simkin]

I have a quick easy answer, John.  The Young Americans for Freedom was started at Buckley's estate in Sharon, Connecticut.  The founders adopted a statement of their political philosphy.  It was called "The Sharon Statement".  It is set forth in full below:

"Adopted in Conference, at Sharon, Connecticut, on September 11, 1960."

IN THIS TIME of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.

WE, as young conservatives believe:

THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;

THAT liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;

THAT the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

THAT when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;

THAT the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;

THAT the genius of the Constitution - the division of powers - is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;

THAT the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;

THAT when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation, that when it takes from one to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;

THAT we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies…

THAT the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;

THAT the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with this menace; and

THAT American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?

As I said I don't want vague statements about freedom and liberty. I want actual specific policies. For example, what were your policies on racial discrimination, women's rights, the Vietnam War, South Africa, the arms race, overseas aid, income tax rates, etc.

[Tim Gratz]

John, I am running out of time to post today.

When the left-wing Students for a Democratic Society was formed in Port Huron, Michigan, in 1962, it too adopted a statement, called "The Port Huron Statement".
It is too long to incorporate but here is a link to it:

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html

[Stephen Turner]

But unfortunately you will never get anything other than the vaguest of statements. After all, when you boil all that mush about liberty and freedom down what do you get, " Its my right to grab the biggest slice of the pie, and keep it, regardless of the needs of others."

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Stephen, when our Founding Fathers decided it was time to set loose from you Brits, their declaration could be considered a bit vague in specifics as well, but look where it got us.

And with all due respect, it was the principles upon which America was founded that allowed us to become an industrial giant, and our economic strength is one very important reason you are not forced to salute a swastika!

[John Simkin]

But unfortunately you will never get anything other than the vaguest of statements. After all, when you boil all that mush about liberty and freedom down what do you get, " Its my right to grab the biggest slice of the pie, and keep it, regardless of the needs of others."

Exactly. That is why he is reluctant to state the policies he actually favoured when he was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom. Can't you remember? Or are you just ashamed?

[John Simkin]

And with all due respect, it was the principles upon which America was founded that allowed us to become an industrial giant, and our economic strength is one very important reason you are not forced to salute a swastika!

Actually the contribution by the Soviet Union was just as important. Another country that had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the war against fascism. Where were you in 1939? Would you have ever joined the war if Japan had not bombed you at Pearl Harbor? Do you know that it was Germany who declared war on you and not the other way round?

[Tim Gratz]

John, do you listen to me? I said I was running out of time to post. History proved most of the policies I favored were correct (they worked). Some were not. History also proved that. I am not "ashamed" that I was wrong on some policies. I consider it a sign of character when one has the courage to say he or she was wrong about a certain policy, or candidate.

As the Sharon Statement stated (well, a statement does state, does it not?) the most important challenge to liberty in the sixties was Communism. The policies conservatives espoused led to the defeat of communism.

My biggest error: opposing the civil rights movement. Don't get me wrong, I was all in favor of civil rights and I hated the South (which was controlled by Democrats, after all) for how it treated black people. I just did not think public agitation was the way to accomplish civil rights. Now I was too young to participate in the civil rights movement, but in retrospect I wish I had been able to do so. I have great respect for the heroes of the civil rights movement and for its martyrs.

Did you see that the Bush supporter chairman of the Republican National Committee apologized to the NAACP in Milwaukee last week? I commend my party for the courage to admit when it has erred.

[Stephen Turner]

Tim, I have already acknowleged our debt to America re WW2, So its bad form to bring it up again, also it has no baring on my comments.

I lived in America for the best part of two years, and am well aware of the dark side of the American dream, the huge cancerous wells of abject poverty many of your fellow country men and women exist in, how pray are these poor souls enjoying Freedom and Liberty? "Its only good when all shall have it" America remains as it has always been, the best country in the world, if your rich. And guess what, thanks to neo- liberalist economics were fast catching you up. Oh joy....

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Actually the contribution by the Soviet Union was just as important.

You are correct, John, its surrender was as important as the Reagan policies that caused the surrender.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Where were you in 1939? Would you have ever joined the war if Japan had not bombed you at Pearl Harbor?

In answer to your first question, in 1939 I was not yet even a gleam in my father's eye.

But from a historical perspective I consider Joe Kennedy's appeasement of fascism as wrong-headed as his son's appeasement of communism. Now Joe Kennedy was not a fascist and John Kennedy was not a Communist. But their foreign policies were each wrong.

This post has been edited by Tim Gratz: Jul 18 2005, 12:11 PM

[John Simkin]

John, do you listen to me?  I said I was running out of time to post.  History proved most of the policies I favored were correct (they worked).  Some were not.  History also proved that.  I am not "ashamed" that I was wrong on some policies.  I consider it a sign of character when one has the courage to say he or she was wrong about a certain policy, or candidate.

As the Sharon Statement stated (well, a statement does state, does it not?) the most important challenge to liberty in the sixties was Communism.  The policies conservatives espoused led to the defeat of communism.

My biggest error: opposing the civil rights movement.  Don't get me wrong, I was all in favor of civil rights and I hated the South (which was controlled by Democrats, after all) for how it treated black people.  I just did not think public agitation was the way to accomplish civil rights.

Well, at least we have drawn you out on one policy. Can you explain why “I just did not think public agitation was the way to accomplish civil rights.” How else were they likely to get equal rights? Might it have something to do with the fact that fellow right-wingers were smearing leaders of the civil rights movement with the label of being “communists”.

This would of course fit in with you claim that “the most important challenge to liberty in the sixties was Communism”. This is of course ridiculous. The communist movement was virtually non- existent in the 1960s. When William Sullivan pointed this out to J. Edgar Hoover, he was sacked. Hoover and right-wingers like you had to believe the myth of the threat of communism to justify your actions against those who were urging a move towards a more equal society.

I suspect you were not involved in the campaigns to get equality for women and gays either. Do you feel proud that you spent all this youthful energy defending the rights of the rich and powerful? Nothing changes really. You are still doing it.

[Tim Gratz]

John, I really am running out of time and your post deserves a thoughtful reply.

I thought the way to accomplish civil rights wwas through legal actions such as voting rights reform and my concern was that the "agitation" of northerners "invading the south" (as the south saw it) would simply make southerners more intransigent and more willing to fight harder. And you can make a point that to some extent it did. The large contribution of the civil rights movement was drawing the attention of the entire nation to the racial problems in the south. I think the civil rights statutes of 1965 and 1966 really helped accomplish a lot. And I think the shock to our nation of the assassination of President Kennedy not only paved the way for the civil rights movement it also helped change some southern attitudes toward civil rights.

Re your points re Communism, you are mixing coconuts and bananas (note they differ even more than apples differ from oranges (both being round). I was speaking of the threat of external communism, not the threat of internal communism. However, there was an active soviet espionage system in the United States which was damaging our country in its fight against external threat of communism. The Varona documents prove that. I assume you are familiar with them.

And, John, for your information, I have long been fighting for the fundamental rights of the least powerful members of our society.

This post has been edited by Tim Gratz: Jul 18 2005, 12:31 PM

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Well, at least we have drawn you out on one policy.

Hold on, there, John! I mentioned two policies, one being a policy of victory over, not just containment of, communism.

IMO Goldwater and Reagan were absolutely right about what would happen if such a policy was instituted. History proves it.

This post has been edited by Tim Gratz: Jul 18 2005, 12:34 PM