American activists and politicians need to adopt a philosophy of “pragmatic radicalism” if they hope to construct a just society, said Tom Hayden, speaking to a scattered audience in Memorial Chapel Thursday night. Hayden spoke as part of the University’s Local and National Perspectives Lecture Series, discussing his distinguished career as an activist and writer and advocating a multifaceted plan for change.
A former California state senator and author of 13 books, Hayden presented his philosophy as a compromise between lofty idealism and intellectual pessimism. This compromise, he said, results in a belief system that allows legislators to effect change while maintaining utopian aspirations. He cited Reconstruction as a prime example of a federal action that failed to live up to his philosophy.
“Washington passed laws that outlawed discrimination, but did little to actually prevent it in society,” Hayden said. “Their once-revolutionary reforms became nothing more than paper.”
Suffrage movements in the early 20th century, by way of contrast, successfully combined high-minded ideals with obvious efficacy, he said. They enacted change while holding to the notion that there is always room for improvement. Hayden argued that American citizens must always be searching for problems in need of solving, and added that there is always a need for activism.
“We have to support the reforms that we’ve earned, but we must also struggle constantly to push forward, to keep improving,” he said.
He said that his theory was the natural descendant of those propounded by public intellectuals before him. Remarking on the recent death of Arthur Schlesinger, American historian and winner of the Pulitzer Prize and two National Book Awards, Hayden noted that Schlesinger remained optimistic throughout his life about the potential for political reform.
Outspoken social critics Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, in contrast, fight for the total overthrow of the American government, he said. It was they who taught him, he went on, to always be wary of what is and is not realistic when advocating change. He also said that the two successfully abide by their own stringent ethics.
“They hate the state, they hate the military, yet they’re still good citizens—proof of society’s success,” Hayden said. “Simply by doing good they prove there is cause for hope.”
Yet even while he lauded them for their accomplishments, Hayden distanced himself from Chomsky and Zinn, claiming that antipathy like theirs is inherently crippling.
“If you have that view of the system, if you completely dismiss the state, then you can’t embrace humanity’s achievements without feeling as though you’re forgiving it,” he said.
Hayden also noted that the state is dependent on the support of its constituents and therefore must act in accordance with them if they demand change. He cited Cesar Chavez’s farm labor reforms as an example of an action that required a government to appease its citizens.
“If you wanted support, you needed support from everyone, even those who had an interest in keeping farm labor laws as they were,” Hayden said.
Erik Rosenberg ’08 found Hayden’s optimism encouraging and saw its applicability to the war in Iraq.
“He said that it’s important to keep strengthening the [anti-war] movement, something I really agree with,” Rosenberg said. “If the American people are active in bringing about peace, then it will be ours, and we will deserve it.”
Joanna Arnow ’08 agreed with Rosenberg, adding that Hayden’s view of the peace movement acknowledged its democratic nature.
“We have to judge the movement as a composite of individual actions, not just the actions themselves,” Arnow said.
Leave a Reply