366
MICHAEL HARRINGTON
Michael Harrington
Dear Nat,
I use the form of an open letter partly out of literary and
political convenience, but also because I was puzzled and sometimes
angered by your description of the new radicalism. So I find
the
informality and candor of a letter especially appropriate for my
comments.
First of all, you draw a sharp and somewhat emotional
line
between the old and new radicals. You speak of the "irrelevancy
of most traditional American styles"; Bayard Rustin, to whom you
dedicated a book only last year, is now described as a "former radical";
you refer to the "retired radicals," and so on. Since I agree
with
most of Bayard Rustin's politics, I would be, by your definition, a
"former radical."
But when I read your analysis, I found no basis for the anathema
against people like Rustin and me. Your description of the
su~
stantive program of the new radicalism, with a few exceptions
I'n
note later, gives me a feeling of
deja
vu.
For these are precisely the
ideas of many of the older, irrelevant, former radicals. The acrimony
of the current discussion of old and new Lefts does not make for
clarity, but let me try as calmly as I can to point out how much what
you define as the new radicalism agrees with what you call irrelevant
or former radicalism.
The War on Poverty, you say, not only is inadequately financed
but also does not recognize that technology is making current defini·
tions of work obsolescent, and most important, is breaking the
tradi·
tional link between production and income. "It is here," you say,
"that the new radicalism as a political and economic movement
differs from much of the American radicalism that has preceded it"
This
is
the position, you note, taken by the statement of the Ad Hoc
Committee on the Triple Revolution (which both Rustin and I
signed). For
this
reason, you go on, there must be basic change.
You
find it wrong, therefore, to spend
"all
one's energies" fighting for
fuB
