Questions for Douglas Caddy

[Guest John Gillespie]

"From what you know, why was the Watergte (sic) broken into?

Steve Thomas"

Mr. Caddy,

Welcome aboard. It's a pleasure to read your correspondence. I am hoping you can address Steve Thomas' question, as above.

Yours Truly,

John Gillespie

[Douglas Caddy]

Mr. Caddy,

When Hunt came to my residence about an hour after the arrests, having a short time earlier telephoned me from his office in the Executive Office Building that adjoins the White House, I was amazed that he did not fully comprehend the significance of what had occurred at the Watergate complex and its potential grave impact.

From what you know, why was the Watergte broken into?

Steve Thomas

I do not know why the burglars broke into the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate.

When Howard Hunt came to my residence about 3:30 A.M. on June 17, 1972, 60 minutes after the burglars were arrested, he remained there for about an hour. During this time the emphasis was on how to get the five arrested individuals out of jail on bail as soon as possible. I immediately telephoned one of the partners of the law firm of which I was an associate attorney and explained what had occurred, as related to me by Hunt who was present. The partner, who knew Hunt and was a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, then arranged for another attorney skilled in criminal law to accompany me in an attempt to post bail quickly for the arrested five, an effort that was doomed to failure from the start.

I talked on the telephone with Gordon Liddy from my residence while Hunt was still there. Both Hunt and Liddy, besides retaining me to represent them individually, also retained me to represent the five arrested persons.

After this initial meeting, Hunt disappeared. Apparently he had been ordered to leave town. He telephoned me from an unknown location several times but our conversations were short and stilted because by then I had been served with a subpoena to appear "forthwith" before the Watergate grand jury. On one of these occasions, Dorothy Hunt was in my office when Howard called.

I did not have a lengthy substantive conversation with Hunt until after he was released from prison, when on one occasion we had dinner at a restaurant in Washington, D.C. Even then our conversation was circumspect, so that today I am still in the dark as to why there was a break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters.

About a week after the case broke, Gordon Liddy visited my office one Saturday afternoon. In a boastful manner he declared that Watergate was the biggest criminal case of the 20th century. He was cool as a cucumber and appeared to be thrilled at the prospect of being a key player in the case.

[John Simkin]

However, foremost I considered myself a conservative. The strategic question in my mind was how to reach conservatives who did not consider themselves Republicans. Most Southerners in those days, living south of the Mason-Dixon line, were conservative but voted Democratic.

The concept behind the formation of YAF was to reach out to these individuals and educate them in the conservative philosophy, as reflected in Prof. Russell Kirk?s seminal book, "The Conservative Mind." These southern conservatives could never be reached through any activities in which the YRNF might engage.

It is not clear to me what policies these two groups were advocating. We know that the Democratic Party of the Deep South was a very right-wing group (racist, anti-trade union, anti-progressive taxation, in favour of blacklisting liberals, etc.). It was also an extremely corrupt organization that was under the control of the oil and armaments companies. What sort of policies would the Republican Party have needed to advocate to get their support? They of course did eventually stop supporting the Democratic Party, but that was because of the Civil Rights Acts passed in the mid-1960s.

However, Liebman asked me to visit him just prior to his death, which took place about six years ago (I cannot remember the precise year.) At our visit we made amends for any ill feelings that stemmed from the YAF controversy that occurred over 30 years previously. Only then did Liebman tell me that he was dying of cancer. He showed me a column he had written that he proposed to send to the various gay newspapers around the country that regularly carried his writings. The title of the column was "Lenin was Right." Liebman maintained, correctly, in the column that the Republicans and the conservatives were reverting to their old roots that espoused advocating only the cause of the elite and wealthy. (Liebman, in prior columns in the gay newspapers, had written about his days in the youth arm of the Communist Party in the 1930's.) I advised him that sending out a column with the inflammatory title of "Lenin was right" in light of his failing health would only serve to alienate many of those in the modern conservative movement who admired what he had done in launching it. He reluctantly agreed.

Very interesting story. Could you explain in more details about what Liebman meant by "Lenin was Right"? Were you right to convince Liebman not to publish his article?

[Steve Thomas]

Mr. Caddy,

I did not have a lengthy substantive conversation with Hunt until after he was released from prison, when on one occasion we had dinner at a restaurant in Washington, D.C. Even then our conversation was circumspect, so that today I am still in the dark as to why there was a break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters.

Thank you.

Steve Thomas

[Douglas Caddy]

Very interesting story. Could you explain in more details about what Liebman meant by "Lenin was Right"? Were you right to convince Liebman not to publish his article?

First, in regard to Marvin Liebman: As I had indicated in a prior post, Liebman in his columns in the three or so years prior to his death (circa 1994) that were published in gay newspapers around the country had written about his early days in the Young Communist League. Also, when we had worked together in the 1960's in launching YAF, he had told to me about his prior communist affiliation.

So when he declared at our last visit just prior to his death that he had written a column titled "Lenin Was Right" and was prepared on the spot to fax it to the gay newspapers, I was not overly surprised. I do not remember exactly what was contained in the column but do retain the impression from our talk that he had become thoroughly disillusioned with the Republicans and the Conservatives. He believed that all their talk about capitalism and free enterprise merely served as a smokescreen that obscured their real purpose, which is make the rich richer at the expense of those in society who are less fortunate.

My only motive in discouraging him in sending out the column was to save him from suffering a backlash, one that could have led to emotional trauma at a time when his death was imminent, from those who admired him for his work in creating the modern conservative movement. I am not certain whether I made a mistake in so advising him. The ultimate decision to send the column was, of course, his to make.

Several years ago I related this above story about the column to Richard Viguerie, the fund-raising guru for America's right-wing. He considered Liebman to have been one of his closest friends. Viguerie registered complete shock upon so hearing. It could be that Liebman never told him of his communist past and, of course, not being a reader of the nation's gay newspapers, Viguerie was unaware of Liebman's writings in the twilight of his life.

In regard to the split that took place in the initial YAF board of directors: It was concerned with strategy. Why did Goldwater at the 1960 Republican convention advise the Youth for Goldwater activists to make their organization a permanent one? He could just as well have said: stay active in the Young Republican National Federation.

His concept, embraced by myself and others involved in the founding of Young Americans for Freedom, was to use the new organization to reach out and convert others to the conservative movement who did not consider themselves Republicans. These included members of the academic community, rank-and-file union members, Southerners, members of the media, and other segments of society.

Up until the time when National Review under William Buckley appeared on the scene and a mass conservative movement emerged through YAF, the right-wing in America was an intellectual desert.

Again, for more information about the subject, reference should be made to Prof. John Andrew's book, The Other Side of the Sixties, available through amazon.com.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Douglas Caddy

[John Simkin]

First, in regard to Marvin Liebman: As I had indicated in a prior post, Liebman in his columns in the three or so years prior to his death (circa 1994) that were published in gay newspapers around the country had written about his early days in the Young Communist League. Also, when we had worked together in the 1960's in launching YAF, he had told to me about his prior communist affiliation.

So when he declared at our last visit just prior to his death that he had written a column titled "Lenin Was Right" and was prepared on the spot to fax it to the gay newspapers, I was not overly surprised. I do not remember exactly what was contained in the column but do retain the impression from our talk that he had become thoroughly disillusioned with the Republicans and the Conservatives. He believed that all their talk about capitalism and free enterprise merely served as a smokescreen that obscured their real purpose, which is make the rich richer at the expense of those in society who are less fortunate.

I agree with Marvin Liebman that “their talk about capitalism and free enterprise merely served as a smokescreen that obscured their real purpose, which is make the rich richer at the expense of those in society who are less fortunate.” What surprises me is that he took so long to grasp this point. After all, he probably had these views when he was a member of the American Communist Party. I can understand why he rejected the Communist Party after it defended Stalinism. However, it does seem very surprising that he went from left-wing authoritarianism to right-wing authoritarianism.

It is still not clear to me what policies the Young Americans for Freedom supported in 1960. I know there was a lot of talk about freedom. However, after reading a great deal about William Buckley, it is clear that he was no great lover of freedom. He had a long record of trying to deny the freedom of expression of people who disagreed with him. His support of McCarthyism and right-wing military dictatorships are just two obvious examples of his hypocritical views on freedom. My idea of freedom was best expressed by Rosa Luxemburg who wrote in The Russian Revolution (1918): “Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.” Luxembourg was of course murdered a year after she wrote this by people who disagreed with her.

By the way, I don’t agree that “Lenin was right”. See the following thread for a discussion on this issue:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6140

[Douglas Caddy]

I agree with Marvin Liebman that “their talk about capitalism and free enterprise merely served as a smokescreen that obscured their real purpose, which is make the rich richer at the expense of those in society who are less fortunate.” What surprises me is that he took so long to grasp this point. After all, he probably had these views when he was a member of the American Communist Party. I can understand why he rejected the Communist Party after it defended Stalinism. However, it does seem very surprising that he went from left-wing authoritarianism to right-wing authoritarianism.

It is still not clear to me what policies the Young Americans for Freedom supported in 1960. I know there was a lot of talk about freedom. However, after reading a great deal about William Buckley, it is clear that he was no great lover of freedom. He had a long record of trying to deny the freedom of expression of people who disagreed with him. His support of McCarthyism and right-wing military dictatorships are just two obvious examples of his hypocritical views on freedom. My idea of freedom was best expressed by Rosa Luxemburg who wrote in The Russian Revolution (1918): “Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.” Luxembourg was of course murdered a year after she wrote this by people who disagreed with her.

In response to your query about the policy positions of YAF in 1960:

YAF in its first year, when I was its National Director, merely coalesced around the general principles enunciated in the Sharon Statement, which was adopted at its founding meeting in Sharon, Connecticut at the Buckley family estate.

During this period I was interviewed by The New Leader Magazine, which placed my picture on its cover. I was asked by its reporter at the time what YAF's policies were and replied, "Our policy is to have no policy."

Behind this statement was the strategy of making certain that the new organization did not become "radioactive" by being labeled extremist as the result of embracing one particular policy that could be singled out for special criticism by the media.

For example, Robert Welch of the John Birch Society about this time proclaimed publicly that "Eisenhower was a communist." This pretty much put an end to the Society's effectiveness because the media thereafter consigned it to the lunatic right.

(Shortly after Welch made his statement, YAF chairman, Robert Schuchman, then a student at Yale University Law School, had breakfast with Edward Teller, the father of the H-Bomb. Schuchman made light of Welch's statement about Eisenhower being a communist and was dumbfounded when Teller said he agreed with Welch.)

The Sharon Statement, which has been posted in the Forum, provided the perfect umbrella to explain where YAF stood on policy issues in its first year without having to get too specific. Later, YAF began publishing its monthly magazine, The New Guard, whose editor was Lee Edwards, son of famed Chicago Tribune reporter, Williard Edwards. Each issue of The New Guard contained articles that dealt with policy issues of the day.

[Ed Podesta]

Thanks for your considered answers Douglas - they're really interesting.

Could you answer this one:

What was the Young Americans for Freedom position on civil rights legislation in 1960?

[Douglas Caddy]

What was the Young Americans for Freedom position on civil rights legislation in 1960?

Civil Rights was not topic on the agenda of Young Americans for Freedom in 1960. My recollection is that it was not a topic on the agenda of Conservatives or Republicans until President Johnson initiated his civil rights legislation from 1964 to 1968. Then the Conservatives and the GOP united to oppose the legislation. Senator Goldwater was outspoken against the proposed legislation.

I, myself, was not immune. In 1962 I hosted a reception for Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, the presidential candidate for the Dixiecrat Party in 1948, at the residence I shared with Tong Sun Park in the Georgetown section of Washington.

Looking back, I can only say to myself, "Where was my mind?"

A number of conservatives came to regret their opposition to civil rights. I remember how James Jackson Kilpatrick, a national conservative columnist and one-time editor of the Richmond (Virginia) News-Leader, wrote in his later years what a mistake steeped in human tragedy it was that he and the conservative movement failed to recognize the legitimacy of civil rights legislation.

Louis Auchincloss, the wall street lawyer and author of many novels based on the elite WASP society, also was to write how he suddenly awoke and realized how wrong the conservatives were in some of their policy stands.

Later I attempted to make amends. From 1980-81 I served as Director of Elections for the State of Texas in the first administration of GOP Governor William Clements. I used my position to make certain that the votes of African-Americans and Hispanics were correctly counted in the elections conducted in the 254 counties comprising Texas.

In 1982, when the extension of the Federal Voting Rights Act was being considered by Congress, I testified before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee in favor of the legislation. My prepared statement, entered into the printed record, drew upon information that I had learned as Director of Election for Texas..

Lyndon Johnson achieved his goal of becoming President of the United States with blood on his hands. But, give the devil his due, his civil rights and much of his Great Society legislation were monumental steps in

making the American dream come true for millions of persons, citizens and non-citizens.

[John Simkin]

Civil Rights was not topic on the agenda of Young Americans for Freedom in 1960. My recollection is that it was not a topic on the agenda of Conservatives or Republicans until President Johnson initiated his civil rights legislation from 1964 to 1968. Then the Conservatives and the GOP united to oppose the legislation. Senator Goldwater was outspoken against the proposed legislation.

Have you read Sidney Lens’s book “The Military-Industrial Complex”? He has an interesting passage on Goldwater and his group of conservatives in Congress.

From 1946 to 1967, according to the statistics of Senator J. William Fulbright, the federal government spent $904 billion, or 57.29 per cent of its budget “for military power,” and only $96 billion, or 6.08 per cent for “social functions,” such as education, health, labor and welfare programs, housing and community development. Convincing the American people that they ought to spend nine times as much on guns as on human welfare was an act of mesmerism by the military establishment without parallel…

It is no accident that Washington has been almost universally on the side of conservative forces in the developing areas – Syngman Rhee in Korea, Chiang Kai-shek in China, the Shah in Iran, the militarists throughout Latin America, the king in Jordan, the king in Saudia Arabia, the military regimes in Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam. These conservative elements, to secure their own “vested interests,” have been willing to accept American military and economic support in return for concessions to American “vested interests”. Nor is it an accident that by and large the same legislators – Stennis, Russell, Rivers, Mundt, Goldwater, Tower, McClellan, to name a few – who are the fiercest advocates of military spending and military ventures, are also the fiercest opponents of social programs such as medicare, higher minimum wages, antipoverty, social security, and favourable trade union legislation.

Lens could also have added that these figures were also opposed to civil rights legislation. It does raise the following question: “What did the conservative movement get right in 1960?”

[Tim Gratz]

John, conservatives believe, as the Constitution states, that the fundamental purpose of the government is to provide the defense of the nation.

Moreover conservatives believe that most social welfare programs are best accomplished on the local level.

LBJ fought two wars: the war in Vietnam and the war on poverty. He lost both.

It should also be remembered that it was through accelerated defense spending that Ronald Reagan defeated Communism. The Soviet Union attempted to keep up with the US and it could not. And that was Reagan's strategy. Far better to defeat an enemy that way than through an actual war with great loss of life.

One of the reasons Democrats lose elections is because they are perceived as being "soft" on national defense.

[Dawn Meredith]

It does raise the following question: “What did the conservative movement get right in 1960?”

Or for that matter what does this movement get right TODAY? Scary times, these.

Dawn

P.S.: Doug it is such a joy to read of your personal transformation. Perhaps someday others will re-examine their thinking. Tho, with neocons like Sean Hannity, Rush and O'Rilley to brainwash it's hard to imagine people who like these sorts actually thinking for themselves.

[John Simkin]

John, conservatives believe, as the Constitution states, that the fundamental purpose of the government is to provide the defense of the nation.

Moreover conservatives believe that most social welfare programs are best accomplished on the local level.

The problem is that many states, especially in the conservative South, do a lousy job of providing the basic services for its citizens. Texas is one of seven states that does not charge any form of personal income tax. The “paucity of tax revenue means that Texas lags behind the other states in virtually every health and human service category, the state’s politicians continue to focus almost exclusively on how they can make the state even more hospitable to business. “ (Robert Bryce, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America’s Superstate, page 14). Yet Texas, thanks to oil, is a rich state. However, thanks to absence of a graduated income tax, the rich have kept the money for themselves. I accept that Texas has a corrupt political system but why do people put up with it? People living in Europe were treated like this in the 19th century but we took to the streets and largely got the corrupt politicians under our control. Why does this not happen in Texas and those other states that treat people so badly?

[Pat Speer]

John, conservatives believe, as the Constitution states, that the fundamental purpose of the government is to provide the defense of the nation.

Moreover conservatives believe that most social welfare programs are best accomplished on the local level.

The problem is that many states, especially in the conservative South, do a lousy job of providing the basic services for its citizens. Texas is one of seven states that does not charge any form of personal income tax. The “paucity of tax revenue means that Texas lags behind the other states in virtually every health and human service category, the state’s politicians continue to focus almost exclusively on how they can make the state even more hospitable to business. “ (Robert Bryce, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America’s Superstate, page 14). Yet Texas, thanks to oil, is a rich state. However, thanks to absence of a graduated income tax, the rich have kept the money for themselves. I accept that Texas has a corrupt political system but why do people put up with it? People living in Europe were treated like this in the 19th century but we took to the streets and largely got the corrupt politicians under our control. Why does this not happen in Texas and those other states that treat people so badly?

John, don't you know that it's un-American to protest? That if you're poor it's your own fault and have no reason to complain? That if you pray and play the lotto one of these days you'll become the RICH guy not wanting to pay his taxes?

Texas' lack of state income tax is so attractive to some ultra fat cats that they PRETEND to live there by renting out suites in hotels just in case they ever decide to stop by. Back in the 80's it was revealed that one of these fat cats was the Vice-President George H.W. Bush, who hadn't lived in Texas for ten years. Well, what state do these tax-fearing fat cats end up voting in? And what governor did they end up pushing to run for President? You got it--Bush II's "base" was made up of Bible-thumping rednecks and federal government fearing tax-dodging multi-millionaires. The combination has proved amazingly bad for America. IMO.

[John Simkin]

Doug, it has come to my attention that in your youth you spent sometime in New Orleans. I don't suppose you got to know anyone who has been linked to Lee Harvey Oswald while he was in New Orleans?