Drury Potter

8/10/2019 Drury Potter

1/19

VoicesofDemocracy4(2009):2340 Drury23

JeffreyP.Drury:[email protected]

LastUpdated:January2009

Copyright2009(JeffreyP.Drury).

VoicesofDemocracy,ISSN#19329539.Availableathttp://www.voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/.

PAULPOTTER,"THEINCREDIBLEWAR"(17APRIL1965)

JeffreyP.Drury

CentralMichiganUniversity

Abstract:Paul

Potter,

President

of

the

Students

for

aDemocratic

Society,

deliveredanimpassionedspeechdenouncingtheVietnamWar,callingfor

fundamentalchange inU.S. societyduring theMarchonWashingtonon

April 17, 1965. Potter's criticism of the American "system" invited the

audience toviewVietnamasbutonesymptomofa largerproblem. Yet

thevaguenessofhisvisionallowedmoremilitantactiviststointerprethis

speechasacallformoreviolentrevolution.

KeyWords:StudentMovement,AntiwarMovement,NewLeft,PaulPotter,

Students for aDemocratic Society (SDS),Radicalism, Liberalism,Vietnam

War

"Wordshavelittlemeaning."SobeginsPartIofPaulPotter's1971memoir,ANamefor

Ourselves.1 To studentsof rhetoric,Potter's statementmight seem ironic.As a founder and

onetimepresidentoftheStudentsforaDemocraticSociety(SDS),Potteremployedthepower

ofwordsthroughouttheearlyandmid1960sinhisefforttobuildamassivesocialmovement

against the American "system." Yet we can also understand and empathize with Potter's

frustrationifweconsiderthewordshedeliveredonApril17,1965ataSDSrallyinWashington

D.C.Thisspeech,"The IncredibleWar,"didnotachieveallofthegoalsPotterset forhimself,

andinthatsensehiswordsseemedtohave"littlemeaning."

Potter'swordswentlargelyunheardandunheededatthenationallevel,carryingscant

significancebeyond

his

own

circle

of

believers.

The

war

in

Vietnam

continued

for

years

after

Potterdeliveredhisspeech,andheneverrealizedhisvisionofamassive,integratedmovement

tochangethesystemthroughlocaladvocacyandgrassrootsactivism.Fromthisperspective,we

might consider Potter's speech a "failure."2While itmay have done little to end thewar,

however, Potter's speech did mark a turning point in SDS priorities. As the Vietnam War

became amore dominant theme in SDS rhetoric during 1965 and beyond, Potter's speech

helpedbuildamassivestudentmovement that fundamentallyaltered thepoliticalcultureof

the1960s.Studentsofsocialmovementshave long recognized the importanceof rhetoric in

constituting and sustaining amovement's agenda.Along these lines, Potter's speechhelped

broadentheSDS'sagendabydemonstratinghowtheVietnamWarwasbutonesymptomofa

larger

malady.

Potter'swordsalsomightbesaidtohavehad"littlemeaning"becauseheofferedfew

concretesolutions.Asthelastspeechafteralongdayofprotest,Potter'sspeechwas,formany

inattendance,thehighlightoftheday.ManyparticipantsnotonlyembracedPotter'scriticism

of thewar inVietnam,butalsohis larger,more radicalcritiqueof theAmerican system.Yet

Potter's vague description of the alternative to "the system" and his lack of attention to


2/19


questions about strategies and tactics opened the door formisinterpretations of his vision.

AlthoughPotterdidnotbelieveinmilitancy,hisspeecheventuallyrationalized,forsome,more

violentandrevolutionarytacticsagainsttheU.S.government.Eventually,disagreementsover

thescopeandtacticsofthemovementsplinteredtheSDS,andtheorganizationdisbandedless

thanfiveyearsafterPotter'sspeech.

Nevertheless,Potter's

critique

of

American

government

still

resonates

today.

Although

morethanfortyyearshavepassedsincePotterdeliveredhisaddress,contemporarystudents

and commentators still appreciate the relevanceof its themes. The same issues that Potter

discussedinrelationtotheVietnamWarremainsalientinthecontextofthewaronterrorand

AmericaninterventioninIraq.Inlightofthiscontemporaryresonance,wecanunderstandthe

paradoxicalnatureof Potter's speech;whileone can appreciate the speech for the ideals it

articulated, some find itdisheartening thathis critiqueof the systemproduced so little real

change.IntheviewofthosewhofindPotter'scritiquepersuasive,theUnitedStatescontinues

to stumble into foreign entanglements similar to Vietnam, and its leaders remain largely

insulatedfrompublicopinion.

Despite(orperhapsbecauseof)thespeech'slackof"success,"wecanlearnmuchfrom

investigating the rhetoricalpurposes and characterofPotter's "The IncredibleWar." I argue

that Potter's speech demonstrates the difficulty in rhetorically constituting a cohesive

movement,especiallyonewiththeambitiousgoalofchangingnotjustAmericanforeignpolicy

butthelarger"system."Inparticular,byfailingtodelimitanddefinetheappropriatetacticsfor

overcoming the system, Potter invitedmoremilitant activists to appropriate his critique as

justification formoreaggressiveandevenviolentactions. Indeed,Pottermade itpossible for

otherstointerprethisspeechinwayscompletelycontrarytohisoriginalpurposesandvision.In

makingthisargument,IwillfirstcontextualizePotter'sspeechbydiscussingthehistoryofthe

SDSandtheMarchonWashington.IthenprovideabiographicalsketchofPotterfocusedonhis

ideological commitments andonhispolitical activities leadingup to the speech.Next, Iwill

explorehow,

in

his

speech,

Potter

sought

to

constitute

anew

social

movement

dedicated

to

endingthewarandradicallytransformingthelargersystem.Theoriesofsocialmovementswill

provide a framework for understanding the nature and implications of Potter's call for a

movementagainst"thesystem."Finally, IreflectonthelegacyofPotter'sspeechfortheSDS,

theantiwarmovement,andforU.S.foreignpolicy.

PreludetoaMovement:SDSandVietnam

Althoughthebeginningsofthe1965MarchonWashingtoncanbelocatedinanumber

ofplaces,itisperhapsbesttobeginwiththeoriginsofthechieforganizationbehindthemarch:

theStudents

for

aDemocratic

Society.

As

asocial

movement

organization,

the

SDS

grew

out

of

a parent group founded in 1905 called the League for Industrial Democracy (LID). The LID

embraceda largelysocialistorientation towarddemocraticgovernance; theorganizationwas

initially called the Intercollegiate Socialist Society before changing its name in 1921.Many

prominent political thinkers were members of the LID, including Upton Sinclair, Walter

Lippmann,MichaelHarrington,andJohnDewey(whowaspresidentforashorttime).Growing

outofthe largerorganization,thestudentsectionoftheLIDaptlytitledtheStudentLeague

for Industrial Democracy, or SLIDexisted in early 1960 on only three campuses: Yale,


3/19


Columbia,andtheUniversityofMichigan.AsSDShistorianKirkpatrickSalenotes,thechapters

atColumbiaandYalecalledthemselvesthe"JohnDeweyDiscussionClub,"andallthreeexisted

withminimalrecognition.3

Giventheambiguousandunappealingconnotationsof"industrialdemocracy"andthe

agingrelevanceoftheparentgroup,theSLIDamendeditsnamein1959totheStudentsfora

DemocraticSociety

in

hopes

of

appealing

to

abroader

base

of

students.

However,

it

was

not

untilthefirstofficialSDSconventiontookplaceinJune1962,atPortHuron,Michigan,thatthe

organizationestablished its ideological identityby craftingThePortHuronStatement.As the

manifesto of the newly reorganized group, The Port Huron Statement would speak for a

generation of youth disillusionedwith American society.4 Global in perspective but local in

practice, the document recognized the importance of academia to societal progress and

situatedstudentsandtheuniversityasvitalenginesofsocialchange.Theformulaforsuccess,

thedocument'sauthorsargued, requiredmelding theoretical ideaswithappliedanalysisand

actiontoovercometheapathyofstudentsandthelargerpublic.Representativeofthischarge,

the introduction stated: "A first taskof any socialmovement is to convincepeople that the

searchfororientingtheoriesandthecreationofhumanvaluesiscomplexbutworthwhile.We

areawarethattoavoidplatitudeswemustanalyzetheconcreteconditionsofthesocialorder.

Buttodirectsuchananalysiswemustusetheguidepostsofbasicprinciples."5

SDSwasnot simply anantiwaror antigovernmentorganizationbut rathera student

groupdedicated toawiderangeofactivitiesgrounded insocialdemocratic ideals.During its

earlyyears,SDSmemberswere involved in localcommunityefforts,respondingtoworks like

Michael Harrington's expos on U.S. povertyThe Other America. As students, they also

embracedthespiritof intellectualslikeC.WrightMills,whowas interestedinepistemological

questions asmuch as pragmatic politics. The Peace Research and Education Project (PREP),

which"wastobeakindofleftishclearinghouseforgatheringandpublishingresearchonpeace,

disarmament, and foreign policy,"6 demonstrated the dedication of SDS to education and

pedagogy.Traces

of

the

SDS's

socialist

heritage

were

evident

in

activities

like

the

Economic

Research and Action Projects (ERAP),which sought tomake the SDS "relevant" by placing

organizers inpoorurbancommunities throughout thenationtohelp thosecommunities find

theirpoliticalvoice.

Throughthesevariousactivities,theSDSrepresentedabrandofsocialactivismthatits

members labeled "participatorydemocracy."Characterizedbyefforts to informandmobilize

youngpeopleto implementchangeatall levelsofAmericangovernmentandsociety,theSDS

hadbecomethemostinfluentialorganizationwithinthebroaderumbrellaofthe"NewLeft"by

the mid1960s. Although there were numerous other New Left organizations, such as the

Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Northern Student Movement

(NSM),

the

SDS

had

the

broadest

scope

of

activities

and

the

largest

membership

base.

7

Sale

does not exaggeratewhen he claims that the SDS "shaped the politics of a generation and

rekindledthefiresofAmericanradicalismforthefirsttimeinthirtyyears."8

TheSDS'sroleasgenerationalrepresentativescameaboutratherunexpectedly.Priorto

1964,theSDShaddeliberatelyandconsistentlyavoidedorganizingaroundasingleissueatthe

nationallevel,preferringinsteadtofocusonparticipatorydemocracyinlocalcommunities.Yet

the SDS's opposition to the war in Vietnam would prove to be the recruitment tool that

transformed theSDS intoan influentialpolitical force.Vietnamstartedbecomingadominant


4/19


focusfortheSDS inthewakeoftheGulfofTonkinResolution,which inAugust1964granted

President Lyndon Johnson the authority to commitmilitarypersonnel toVietnamwithout a

declarationofwar.When Johnsonused the resolution todramaticallyescalate theAmerican

presenceinVietnam,SDSbeganplanningtheMarchonWashington.Althoughtheeventisnow

remembered as the largest demonstration against the Vietnam War up to that time, SDS

memberswere

ambivalent

about

this

shift

in

the

SDS's

strategic

priorities.

Indeed,

at

the

SDS

NationalCouncilmeeting inDecemberof 1964,members initiallydefeated a proposal for a

public march. Eventually, however, the Council reconsidered, debated, and passed the

proposal.TheorganizationscheduledthedemonstrationforApril17,1965,tocoincidewiththe

Easterholiday.TheJanuaryeditionoftheSDSBulletincharacterizedthemarchas"perhapsthe

most farreaching decision" to come out of the Decembermeeting. The studentMarch on

Washington,theSDSBulletinexplained,would"callfortheendofAmericaninterventioninthe

Vietnamese civil war," and the newsletter predicted that it might "bring several thousand

studentstoWashington."9

TheMarchprovedmuchbiggerthanexpectedafterPresidentJohnsonwidenedthewar

inearly1965.First,on February7,1965, theU.S.military commenced itsbombing inNorth

VietnaminresponsetoaVietcongattackontheU.S.militarybaseinPleiku.Then,inearlyApril

1965,Johnsonbegandeploying20,000moreAmericanstoSouthVietnam.10

Additionalforces

were needed later that year, and they toowere sent. The dramatic rise in the number of

militarypersonnel inVietnamfromapproximately40,000 to200,000by theendof1965

madePresident Johnson,asSalewrylynotes,"themostsuccessful recruiterSDSwasever to

have."11

Suddenly, the SDS's prediction that theMarch onWashingtonmight attract a few

thousandstudentsseemedgrosslyunderstated.12

OnApril13,Potterhimself recognized that

the rally had become something much bigger, observing that "plans for the March on

Washingtonindicatemoreandmorethatitwillbeamassiveandimportantdemonstration."13

Accordingtomostaccounts,April17,1965,wasanimportantandsuccessfuldayforthe

SDS.Estimates

of

the

crowd

at

the

March

on

Washington

ranged

from

15,000

by

conservative

estimatestotheofficialpolicecountof25,000.14

Theparticipantsgatheredbetween9:00a.m.

and11:30a.m.beforemarchingsoutheastoftheWashingtonMonumenttotheSylvanTheater.

Therethey listenedtospeechesagainstthewar inVietnam fromapproximately1:00p.m. to

3:30p.m. Speakers includedpoliticians like SenatorErnestGreuning (DAK), activists like I.F.

Stone, and academics like Staughton Lynd of Yale University. Both before and after the

speeches,thedemonstrators,ledbysuchfolkartistsasJoanBaezandJudyCollins,sangrousing

renditions of protest songs, including "We Shall Overcome" and "The Times They Are A

Changing."Followingan impassionedspeechbyPaulPottertherelativelyunknown26year

oldpresidentoftheStudentsforaDemocraticSocietythedemonstratorsmarchedamileand

a

quarter

from

the

Washington

Monument

to

the

Capitol

Building.

While

the

Washington

D.C.

rallywasthemainevent,thereweresimultaneousdemonstrationsacrossthenation,including

ralliesinLosAngelesandoutsidetheLBJranchinTexas.15

Approximately threequarters of the participants in theMarch onWashingtonwere

students,althoughmanyfacultymembers,union leaders,andclergyattendedaswell.Asthe

NewYorkTimesdescribedit:"Beardsandbluejeansmixedwithivytweedsandanoccasional

collarinthecrowd."16

Itisalsosignificantthatupwardsof10percentofthecrowdconsistedof

AfricanAmericans.Calling itthe largestAfricanAmericanturnoutforanantiwarrallytodate,


5/19


theNationalGuardianchampionedthemarchas"asteptowardintegratingthemovementsfor

peaceandcivilrights."TheGuardianalsonotedthat"theoutstandingspeechbySDSchairman

PaulPotter"testified"bothtothetalentoftheSDS leadersandthesenseandclarityoftheir

basicpolicies."17

ThepoliciesthatPottersupportedasSDSpresident,though,weremostvividly

influencedbyhisbackgroundandhisbeliefs.

PaulPotter'sPolitics

PaulPotterwasbornonMarch25,1939,thesonofIllinoisfarmers.18

Hisbeliefsabout

thepotentialsandresponsibilitiesofthisgreatnationwerefirmlygroundedinhisMidwestern

background. Potter has been variously described as "brilliant,"19

"bright and eager,"20

"politicallysophisticated"with"anoriginaland individualisticmind,"21

andexuding"hardwon

thoughtfulness."22

Unlikesomeofhiscontemporaries,suchasMartinLutherKing,Jr.orAbbie

Hoffman, Potterneverbecame ahouseholdname,perhapsbecausehe focusedmostofhis

activism at the local level. Potter entered the national spotlight only reluctantly when, as

president

of

the

SDS,

he

was

called

upon

to

deliver

a

speech

at

the

March

on

Washington

in

1965.Following the speech,he fadedback into relativeobscurity, relinquishinghisnotoriety

becauseitviolatedhisbeliefsaboutthepurposesoftheSDS.AlthoughHoffmanandotherSDS

leaders likeTomHaydenbecamebetter known,Potter's contributions to the formation and

evolutionoftheSDSweresignificant.

Intheearly1960s,Potterbecameinvolvedinpoliticalactivismduringhisundergraduate

yearsatOberlinCollege inOhio.Prior tohisgraduation in1961,heand futureSDSmember

RennieDavis foundeda campuspoliticalorganizationcalled theProgressiveStudent League.

PotterwasalsoamemberoftheNationalStudentAssociation(NSA),astudentadvocacygroup

established in 1947 that supported civil rights and anticommunism.23

Before becoming

embroiled in a scandal over its CIA funding in 1967, the National Student Association had

suppliedmany

leaders

to

related

organizations

like

the

SDS

and

the

SNCC.

Indeed,

it

was

Potter's involvementwith theNSAthat ledhis friendandSDSpioneerAlHabertobringhim

intotheSDSfoldin1961.24

Bythistime,Potterhadalreadybegunearningnamerecognitioninleftistcirclesforhis

politicalactivism.FormerSDSmemberToddGitlinrecallsthatPotterwasoneofahandfulof

AmericanstudentswhotraveledtoCubawithNSAfunding in1960and1961todemonstrate

solidaritywith students there.25

Mostnotably,however,Potter attracted attentionwhenhe

and future SDS member Tom Hayden were physically assaultedwhile attending a Student

Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) protest inMcComb,Mississippi on October 11,

1961. Potter,whohad graduated fromOberlin inMay andwas living in Philadelphia at the

time,was

covering

the

protest

for

the

National

Student

News.

At

this

event,

an

irate

man

who

assumed thatPotterandHaydenwere supporting theprotestorspulled them from their car

andknockedthemtotheground.Aphotographercapturedtheattackandthestoryappeared

over the followingweek inprominent newspapers, including the LosAngeles Times.26

Gitlin

reportsthatPotterwasprivatelyfrustratedthatthenationalmediarefusedtocovertheevent

untiltwowhitepeoplewereassaulted.27

PotterandHayden returned from their trip toMississippiwith renewed commitment

andenergy.Theyalsobroughtwiththemmany ideas from theSNCC,whichat this timewas


6/19


operatingmuchmoreefficientlyandeffectivelythantheSDS.Despitehisbuddinginvolvement

with the SDS, Potter was then still a peripheral member of the organization, and his

commitmenttotheNSAovershadowedhisinvolvementintheSDS.However,justtwomonths

later, inDecember 1961, the two commitments began to overlapwhen Potter became the

official liaisonbetweentheNSAandtheSDS.28

Upon finishinghiselectedtermattheNSA in

1962,Potter

became

more

deeply

involved

with

the

SDS

and

student

activism.

Between1962and1964,PotterattendedgraduateschoolattheUniversityofMichigan,

where he studied sociology and anthropology and actively engaged in various intellectual

pursuits. During this time, he wrote a number of speeches and articles about the role of

intellectualsasagentsofsocialchange,observingin1963thathehadbecomesomewhat"type

cast" as theperson concernedwithhow intellectualsmightbecomemore involved in social

reform.29

Mostnotably,hedelivered an influential talk ata conferenceon "TheRoleof the

Student in Social Change" at the Harvard Divinity School in November 1962. Widespread

interestledSDStoeventuallypublishhis1962conferencepresentationinpamphletformThe

UniversityandtheColdWarandsolditfor10centsthroughtheNationalOffice.30

Despite the positive reception of The Port Huron Statement at the time of his

presentation, Potter challenged thatdocument's celebrationof theAmericanuniversity as a

strongholdofintellectualfreedomandaplatformforpoliticalcritique,arguingthatuniversities

hadbeencorruptedbytheidealsofcorporateliberalism.Inparticular,Potterexposedthedeep

connectionbetweenAmericanresearchuniversitiesandtheDepartmentofDefense,claiming

that higher education is "ultimately committed to the nourishment of a national and

internationalsysteminwhichtheColdWarininextricablyrooted."Hecontinued:"Implicitinall

that I have said has been the view that themodel for changing that system cannot be an

adjustmentmodel.Ourproblemisnotthatthesystemisnotworkingwellenough;itisrather

that the current system is working entirely too wellthat it is working us all into a final

catastrophe."31

Potterargued

that

atruly

"revolutionary

model"

of

social

change

required

that

SDS

broaden beyond the scope of universitysanctioned educational activities to develop more

"relevant"formsofseminars,research,andlectures,evenifsuchactivitiesviolatedcommonly

acceptedpractices.Inmakinghisargument,Potterutilizedthedistinctioninthesoutherncivil

rightsmovement between "revolutionary" and "adjustment"models. The Southern Student

Movementutilizeda"revolutionary"model,Potterexplained,by"employingnonviolentdirect

actionwhichworks outside and frequently against established channels."He further noted,

however,thatthescopeofthismodelforstudents"isthetopicforanotherarticleconcerning

thecounteruniversity,"anarticlethathewouldneverwrite.32

PotterwasapoliticalthinkerwhosawtheneedforfundamentalchangeinAmerica.His

eloquence

in

articulating

such

a

vision

eventually

helped

pave

the

way

for

his

election

to

the

SDS National Council during the 19631964 academic year. Then, at the SDS national

convention inPineHill,NewYorkonJune14,1964,SDSmemberselectedPotterpresidentof

the organization.33

During that summer, Potter fully integrated himself into Cleveland's

Economic Research and Action Project (ERAP) and continued to organize outside of the

university context while serving as the organization's leader. Although he would live in

Cleveland'sNearWestsideuntilthefallof1965,Potter'sofficialdutiesasoutlinedintheSDS


7/19


Constitutionrequiredhimtoserveasthenationalspokespersonfortheorganizationandto

organizetheNationalCouncilmeetinginDecember.34

Aspresidentof theSDS,Potter concernedhimselfwith the longterm viabilityof the

organization.InanumberofarticlesintheSDSBulletin,heoutlinedhisfearthattheexpansion

of the SDSwould reduce its effectiveness and his belief that local chaptersneeded to take

largerresponsibility

for

supplying

leadership

at

the

national

level.

A

representative

example

appearedinhisfirstofficialarticleaspresidentinJuly1964,inwhichPotterwarnedofa"real

leadershipcrisis"resultingfromthe"attemptbyafewtopulltogethertheorganizationaland

intellectual conception of anAmericanNew Left."He expressedhis fear that SDSmembers

"have letour increasing realismaboutAmerican society stifle imagination in reachingout to

eachotherandourfellowstocreatetheresourcesthatcantrulychangethenatureof life in

thissociety." InPotter'sview,theSDSwasbetterofffocusingatthe local,pragmatic levelon

the"developmentofastudentorganization,radicalorotherwise."35

Yet Potter's role as president of SDS made it inevitable that he would become

concernedwithSDS's stanceon thewar inVietnam.Perhaps reflectinghis reluctance toget

involved insingleissueadvocacyat thenational level,Potterwasnotoriginallyscheduled to

speakat theMarchonWashington inAprilof1965.As lateasFebruary9,he indicated ina

letter to Roy Gesley, a SDS organizer in Berkeley, that hemight be able to visit California

betweenApril12 and18,despite the fact that theMarchonWashingtonhad alreadybeen

scheduled.36

Ultimately, of course, Potter did deliver the speech in Washington, but he

characteristically treated the issueofVietnam in relation to largerdemocraticprinciplesand

problemswithinAmericansociety,describingVietnamasbutonesymptomofa largercrisis.

WithhisbroadfocusonthecorruptionoftheAmericansystem,Potterseemedtorepresenta

more radical side of the SDS that did notmerely oppose thewar but sought fundamental

changeinAmericansociety.

PaulPotter's

Speech

ManyformerSDSmembersfondlyrecallPotter'sspeechasastirringcallforanendto

the war in Vietnam.37

Such memories may be surprising given that the speech was not

predominantlyanantiwaraddress.Vietnamwascertainlythepressingissuethatbroughtmany

ofthedemonstratorstoWashingtononApril17,andPotterdidaddressthetopicofwarand

peace. However, he identified the underlying cause of the warthe corrupt American

"system"as the broader problem and invited his audience to participate in an integrated

socialmovement focusedonmaking "Americaamoredecent society" (9).38

Thisperspective

emergedearly inPotter'sspeechwhenhecharacterizedVietnamas"the razor,the terrifying

sharpcutting

edge

that

has

finally

severed

the

last

vestiges

of

our

illusion

that

morality

and

democracy are the guiding principles of American foreign policy" (2). Later, he evenmore

tellingly described Vietnam as but "a symptom of a deeper malaise" (23). In order to

understandPotter'scallforaradicallynewsociety,then,onemustconsiderPotter'sindictment

ofthewarinVietnamasbutapreludetohislargercriticismof"thesystem."

Potter addressed the theme of the day by challenging the Johnson administration's

justifications for the war in Vietnam. In particular, he condemned the administration's

perverted use of the concept "freedom." Rather than defending the "freedom" of the


8/19


Vietnamese, as theWhite House claimed, Potter decried thewar in Vietnam as an act of

"culturalgenocide"thatwasdestroyingtheVietnamesesocietythroughdirectviolenceaswell

as through a more subtle imperialism that had "broken and destroyed local customs and

traditions,trampleduponthosethingsofvaluewhichgivedignityandpurposetolife"(5).From

Potter's perspective, the fundamental immorality of American foreign policy hadmade the

UnitedStates

"the

greatest

threat

to

world

peace"

(2).

Potter further developed this argument by claiming thewar alsodamagedAmerican

"freedom."Hedeclared:"ThePresidentmocksfreedomifheinsiststhatthewarinVietnamisa

defenseofAmericanfreedom.Perhapstheonlyfreedomthatthiswarprotectsisthefreedom

of the warhawks in the Pentagon and the State Department to experiment in counter

insurgency and guerilla warfare" (10). This freedom to conduct the war, Potter explained,

depended"onthedehumanizationnotonlyofVietnamesepeoplebutofAmericansaswell;it

dependsontheconstructionofasystemofpremisesandthinkingthatinsulatesthePresident

andhisadvisorsthoroughlyandcompletelyfromthehumanconsequencesoftheirdecisions"

(14).Truefreedom,Potterargued,requiredasenseofhumanitythatenabledotherstochoose

theirownwayof life,acceptingeven thepossibility thatothernationsmight chooseanon

democraticsystem(13).

Potter's emphasis on the American role in Vietnam suggested that the underlying

problemexistedwithinAmerica'sownborders,facilitatinghisshiftinfocusfromsimplyending

thewar(asmostoftheotherspeechesattheMarchemphasized)toabroader indictmentof

thesystem.Potter'sfirstfewsentencesposturedinthisdirectionwhenhebeganhisspeechnot

bytalkingaboutthehorrorsofwar,butbyimaginingAmericaasa"strongbuthumblenation"

(1),animagethatheclaimedhadbeentaughttothechildrenofhisgeneration.Theatrocities

ofthewarhadfinallybroughtthisimageintoquestionbyforcingmanyattheevent"torethink

attitudesthatweredeepandbasicsentimentsaboutourcountry"(2).Alongtheselines,Potter

rhetoricallyconstitutedhisaudiencenotasantiwaradvocates,butasmembersofabroader

movementmotivated

by

adesire

to

change

American

society.

Potter

insisted

that

"the

large

majorityof thepeopleherearenot involved inapeacemovementas theirprimarybasisof

concern"(9).

ThebroadermovementthatPotterenvisionedneededtodirectitsenergiestowardthe

whole system,notjust thewarmachine.AlthoughPotter's talkabout "the system"wasnot

new to SDS rhetoric,39

his speechwasoneof the first topubliclyelaborateuponwhat that

notion entailed. As Pottermoved toward the climax of his speech, he posed a number of

rhetoricalquestionsthatdelineatedthesystem'snegativeeffects:

What kindof a system is it that allows goodmen tomake those kindsofdecisions?

What

kind

of

a

system

is

it

that

justifies

the

United

States

or

any

country

in

seizing

the

destinies of the Vietnamese people and using them callously for our own purpose?

What kindof a system is it thatdisenfranchises people in the South, leavesmillions

uponmillionsofpeople throughout thiscountry impoverishedandexcluded from the

mainstream and promise of American society, that creates faceless and terrible

bureaucraciesandmakesthoseplaceswherepeoplespend their livesandtheirwork,

thatconsistentlyputsmaterialvaluesabovehumanvalues,andstillpersists incalling


9/19


itself free?Whatplace is there forordinarymen in that systemandhoware they to

controlit,andbendittotheirwillratherthanthemtoit's?sic (15)

Potter did not define or describe "the system" as much as he enumerated its negative

consequences.

Ashis

series

of

questions

suggested,

Potter

did

not

directly

blame

decision

makers

in

Washington for the consequences of the war in Vietnam. Although he specifically named

PresidentJohnson,SecretaryofDefenseRobertMcNamara,SecretaryofStateDeanRusk,and

National SecurityAdvisorMcGeorge Bundy inhis speech,he surprisinglydeclared that they

werenot"evilmen"andwouldlikely"shrinkinhorror"ifaskedto"thrownapalmontheback

ofatenyearoldchild"(14).AndalthoughPottercriticizedJohnson'snotionof"freedom,"he

depicted even the president himself as a victim of larger forces. The "system" that Potter

describedhadstrippedthesepolicymakersoftheiragency,astheir insulationrenderedthem

incapableofmakingmorehumanedecisions.

Consider how the subtle contours of Potter's depiction of the system suggested no

specificoreasysolutions. IfJohnsonandhisadvisorsweretheproblem,thentheappropriate

reactionwouldbetoimpeachthemortovotethemoutofoffice.Ifthewaritselfweretheonly

problem, then the rational response would be to quickly end it. Yet while the war was

propagating a perverted set of values that Potter labeled "Mr. Johnson's freedom," (8) and

whilethewarwasrationalizedasnecessaryforthepeaceandsecurityoftheGreatSociety(6),

the real problem for Potter was a "system" that insulated America's leaders from

understanding theconsequencesof theiractions (14).This lineof thoughtnotonlyabsolved

theJohnsonadministrationofblameforsomeofthemosthorrifyingeffectsofthewar,butit

also implied that those decision makers would not likely be influenced by the March on

Washington:"Howdoyoustopawarthen?...DoyoumarchtoWashington?Isthatenough?

Whowillhearushere?Howcanyoumakedecisionmakershearus, insulatedastheyare, if

theycannot

hear

the

screams

of

agirl

burnt

by

napalm?"

(17).

Thus,Potterseemedtosuggestthefutilityofhisownrhetoricalefforts.Intheprocess,

he laid thegroundwork formoredrasticand radical solutions, includingaviolent revolution

against the existing system.Movement scholars have defined radical leadership in terms of

wholesale opposition to "the system." For instance, Richard Gregg characterizes "radical

protestors" as those who deliberately oppose "those persons, actions, and things grouped

together and identified in the construct, 'establishment.'" He specifically notes Potter's

enemy"the system"as a site for radical struggle among student activists in particular.

Similarly,RobertCathcartdistinguishesmoderatefromgenuinelyradicalmovementsbynoting

that the former "do not confront the system."40

Clearly, Potter confronted "the system"

rhetorically,

at

least,

and

in

this

sense

he

might

be

labeled

a

"radical."

Yet,inothersenses,Potteroccupiedmoreofamiddleground,radicalinsomewaysbut

moderateinothers.AsHerbSimonshasargued,"themoderategetsangrybutdoesnotshout,

issuespamphletsbutnevermanifestos, inveighsagainstsocialmoresbutalways in thevalue

languageof the socialorder."Radicalsormilitants, conversely, "acton the assumptionof a

fundamental clash of interests" between the movement and the establishment and "use

rhetoricasanexpression,aninstrument,andanactofforce."41

Asthestudentmovementitself

graduallygrewmoremilitant in itsopposition to thewar in the late1960s,embracingwhat


10/19


Robert Scott andDonald Smithhave described as a strategyof "confrontation" (including a

"radicalandrevolutionary"embraceofviolenceasatactic),42

Potter'spragmatism,alongwith

hisintellectualorientation,restrainedhimfromgoingalong.AsGitlinhasargued,Potterwas"a

radicalpragmatistinthegrainofWilliamJamesandJohnDewey,"43

andalthoughheadvanced

a radical critique of the "system" in his speech, he stopped short of advocating violent

revolutionor

even

confrontational

strategies

and

tactics.

Potter's tone reflected this comparativelymoderate stance. Rather than enraged or

angry, Potter was cool and calmalmost matteroffactwhich may have struck some as

inconsistentwithhis call for a fundamental transformationofAmerican life.He speduphis

deliverytowardtheendofthespeech,yetheneverapproachedthepointofyellingorfuming.

A certain impatience crept into his voiceimpatiencewith the system, impatiencewith the

excuses,andanimpatiencewiththeunwillingnessofotherstoseethingsfromhisperspective

andrecognizetheconsequencesoftheiractions.Yetheneverapproachedthe levelofanger

andvituperationofsomeof themore radicalactivistswhowould laterassume leadershipof

theSDSandtheantiwarmovement.

Potter'smiddlegroundwasevidentinthesubstanceofthespeechaswell.Inthemost

famouspartofthespeech,heurgedtheaudiencetochallengethewholesystemthathadgiven

risetothewar:

Wemustnamethatsystem.Wemustnameit,describeit,analyzeit,understandit,and

thenchangeit.For itisonlywhenthatsystemisbroughtundercontrolthattherecan

beanyhopeforstoppingtheforcesthatcreateawarinVietnamtodayoramurderin

theSouthtomorroworalltheincalculable,innumerablemoresubtleatrocitiesthatare

workedonpeopleallover,allofthetime.(16)

Yethisfocusonnamingthesystemseemedtosubordinatehiscallforchangetoanintellectual

critique.In

effect,

Potter

conceded

the

need

for

more

analysis

and

understanding

of

"the

system," stopping short of advocating any particular strategy for changing it. Others in his

audience,however,heard a call to revolution.AsGitlinexplains, "To the SDSelite and to a

considerableproportionofthecrowd,SDSPresidentPaulPotter'sspeechclosingtherally . . .

was the firstpublic and eloquent articulationof a radicalpositionon thewar, insisting that

becausethewarhadbeengeneratedbytheentireAmericansocialorder,thereforethewhole

systemhadtobeuprooted."44

Potterhadclearlydevelopedtheneedfora"massivesocialmovement,"buthisspeech

recognized that the solutionwouldnotbeeasy. If therewasgoing tobe radicalchange, the

movement needed people who were "willing to change their lives," who were "willing to

challenge

the

system,

to

take

the

problem

of

change

seriously."

The

marchers

could

end

the

waronly"iftheywereserious,iftheywerewillingtobreakoutoftheirisolationandtoaccept

the consequences of their decision to end the war and commit themselves to building a

movementwherever they are andwhatever that calls for . . ." (20).Potterdemanded that,

beforejoiningthesocialmovement,hislistenersreflectdeeplyontheirownvaluesandpolitical

commitmentsbyconsidering"what itmeansforeachofustosaywewanttoendthewar in

Vietnamwhether, ifwe accept the fullmeaning of that statement and the gravity of the

situation,wecansimplyleavethemarchandgobacktotheroutinesofasocietythatactsasif


11/19


12/19


difficultyofdemocracy ... isthatofdiscoveringthemeansbywhichascattered,mobileand

manifoldpublicmaysorecognize itselfastodefineandexpress its interests.Thisdiscovery is

necessarily precedent to any fundamental change in themachinery."47

Potter's inability to

rhetoricallyimagineanewAmericanpublic,onewillingandabletofundamentallychange"the

system,"mayhelp toexplainwhyhis speechat theMarchonWashingtondidnot lead toa

clearand

unified

vision

for

the

SDS.

TheLegacyof"TheIncredibleWar"

PaulPotter's speechand the1965MarchonWashingtonprovedabreakingpoint for

theSDS,astheorganization'sleadershipincreasinglymovedawayfromreasoneddiscourseand

localized political actions to more radical and eventually confrontational strategies at the

nationallevel.Inconsideringthelongtermsignificanceofthespeech,weshouldconsidertwo

important legaciesof thismoment inAmericanhistory: the shortterm influenceof Potter's

speechon the SDS and thebroader antiwarmovement, and an ideological challenge to the

establishment

that

still

resonates

today.

TheimmediateresponsetoPotter'sspeechappearstohavebeenlargelypositive.Inthe

May 1965 SDS Bulletin, Paul Booth, the SDS coordinator of the march, praised Potter for

"articulating the radical analysis of themarch" and "identifying the extent of the task by

arguingthattheissueofdemocracycouldnotbeavoided."CreditingPotterwithinspiringthe

marchers to"takeuptheseriousworkoforganizinganew lefttoopposewar,"Boothnoted

thatthespeech"broughtthewholeassemblageto itsfeet."48

SalealsopointsoutthatPotter

earned"theloudestandmostsustainedapplauseoftheday."49

Additionalevidenceforthe influenceofthespeech(andtheSDS'srole incoordinating

theMarch) came in the growth of the SDS over the next year.Organizationalmembership

jumpedfrom3,000inJune1965to10,000bytheendofOctober,andlocalchaptersdoubled

duringPotter's

watch,

from

41

in

December

1964

to

89

in

October

1965.50

While

membership

inthenationalorganizationdoesnotalone indicatearallyingeffectfromthespeech,Potter's

keynote address as president of the SDS undoubtedly contributed to the organization's

expansionbybringingmoreantiwaradvocatesintothefold.

Potter'ssuccessorasSDSpresident,CarlOglesby, furthercontributed to the legacyof

thespeechwhenheechoedPotter'sthemesinaspeechdeliveredtoanantiwarcongregation

inNovember 1965.Oglesbybeganby reminding the audienceofPotter's appeal sixmonths

earlier.OglesbythentookupPotter'schallenge"tonamethesystemtosuggestananalysis

which, to be quite frank,may disturb some of youand to suggestwhat changing itmay

require of us."Whereas Potter seemed impatient,Oglesby admitted he had become angry

aboutthe

situation.

Whereas

Potter

called

for

rhetorical

opposition

in

the

form

of

self

dedication andprotest,Oglesby challenged "thenotion that statementswillbring change, if

onlytherightstatementscanbewritten,orthatinterviewswiththemightywillbringchangeif

onlythemightycanbereached,orthatmarcheswillbringchange ifonlywecanmakethem

massive enough, or that policy proposals will bring change if only we can make them

responsible enough."51

Oglesby's candid recognition that changing the system required a

deeper commitment than passive or intellectual resistance to the war provides just one


13/19


exampleofhow later activists used Potter's speech as a starting point topromulgatemore

radicalaction.

Yet,ironically,theensuingexplosionofSDSmembershipandtheinfluxofmoreantiwar

activists may have contributed to its ultimate demise by making the organization more

geographically diffused and ideologically diverse. Following the April 17 march, as Gitlin

explains,"n

ew

members

were

streaming

into

SDS

on

the

premise

that

it

was

an

anti

war

organization." Yet Potter wanted "SDS to return to its original epistemological spiritits

insistenceonworking from theworldathand."52

ThesenewSDSmembersmayhaveshared

Potter's desire to change the system, but many lacked the intellectual temperament that

consistentlygroundedPotter'sadvocacy.Inotherwords,theyconfusedPotter'sradicalcritique

of"thesystem"withacallformoremilitanttactics.Thenewermemberstendedtofavordirect

actiontoendthewarratherthanparticipatorydemocracyatthelocal leveltochangesociety

asawhole.GenerationalriftsbecamemorepronouncedasoldguardSDSleadersmovedtothe

periphery,paving theway for a new brandof student leadership that devalued intellectual

critiquesandoptedforconfrontationovercriticalanalysis.

Frustrated by continuing civil rights abuses, increasing poverty, and the seemingly

endlesswarinVietnam,thenewSDSmembershiphadadifficulttimeagreeinguponaunified

courseof action.Over thenext few years, theorganizationwould thus splinter into various

groups.Some,liketheWorkerStudentAlliance(WSA),werestillcommittedtoPotter'svisionof

democratic reformat the local level.Others, like theRevolutionaryYouthMovement (RYM),

favoredconfrontationandtookPotter'svision toamilitantextreme.Gitlinhasdescribedthe

ironyofthegroupdisintegratingfromwithinjustasitwasbecomingapowerfulnationalvoice:

"SDS,atthepeakofitssizeandmilitancy,withsomehundredthousandmembers,hundredsof

chapters,millionsofsupporters,andundertheintensescrutiny(tosaytheleast)oftheWhite

HouseandtheFBI,brokeintoscreamingfactions."53

In the summer of 1969, the RYM faction of the SDS would form an explicitly

revolutionarygroup

called

the

"Weathermen."

This

group

assumed

control

over

the

SDS

NationalOfficebysheerforce,eventhoughtheyborelittleresemblancetotheragtaggroupof

students who had teamed up in 1961 to form SDS. Casting themselves as genuine

revolutionaries,theydismissedtheoldguardas"MovementPeople"andadvocatedtheuseof

violentdirectactionagainsttheUnitedStatesgovernment inorderto"bringthewarhome."

They first demonstratedwhat theymeant by this statement through the "Days of Rage" in

October1969,duringwhich theWeathermen incited riots inChicago toprotest the trialsof

protestorsarrestedduringthe1968DemocraticNationalConvention.PursuedbytheFBIand

other lawenforcementagencies,many leadersoftheWeathermenbecame fugitivesandthe

groupwentunderground,renamingthemselvestheWeatherUnderground. InMay1970,the

Weather

Underground's

first

official

communiqu,

distributed

via

an

audio

recording

and

text

tonumerouspresssources,declaredastateofwarwiththeU.S.government.Itfurtheravowed

that "Within the next fourteen dayswewill attack a symbol or institution of Amerikan sic

injustice." Nineteen days later, the organization bombed the New York City police

headquarters, injuring a number of police officers. Members of the group continued their

revolutionary effortswell into the 1970s by attacking numerous institutions inmajor cities

acrosstheUnitedStates.54


14/19


A socialmovement's turn tomilitancy, asmany scholars of socialmovements have

suggested, is often based in the movement's absolute and total opposition to the

"establishment."Assuch,the legacyofPotter'sspeech isnotsimplythatitservedasabridge

between themoderate past and the militant future of the SDS, but that it articulated an

indictmentof"thesystem"thatotherscould laterusetojustifymoreconfrontationaltactics.

Justamonth

after

Potter's

speech,

New

York

Post

journalist

and

one

time

SDS

member

Jack

NewfieldpublishedanarticleintheNation.Withinthearticle,NewfieldelaboratedonPotter's

visionofaNewStudentLeft thattranscendedoppositionto thewar toembraceavarietyof

causes,includingcivilrightsandtheplightofthepoor.WhileNewfieldconsideredthatvisiona

bit too "utopian,"hedrewhistoricalparallels that foreshadowed the SDS's eventual turn to

moreconfrontationalandevenviolenttactics:

The strategistsof theemerging radicalismdreamof an antiEstablishment allianceof

Southern Negroes, students, poor whites, ghetto Negroes, indigenous protest

movements and SNCCall constituting an independentpowerbaseofmillions.Most

likelytheywillfailinthisutopianvision;certainlytheywillblunderastheygropeforit.

Perhaps the final impact of their rebellionwill be small. But the impulse that drives

themintothelowerdepthsofAmericaisthesameonethatmotivatedtheAbolitionists

andthewobblies.55

MostofthemarchersonApril17,1965, includingPotter,probablydidnotforeseethe

militancy and violence of the student movement in the latter half of the 1960s. But the

presence of avowed communists and selfproclaimed revolutionaries at the 1965March on

Washington foreshadowed the "emerging radicalism"of the SDSeven then.Potter's speech,

with its broad indictment of the system and direct call to "wrench this country into a

confrontation with the issue of Vietnam," provided an implicit rationale for embracing

militancy.Potter's

words,

taken

at

face

value,

did

not

endorse

violent

means

of

advancing

the

movement.But the scopeofhis indictmentof "the system"mayhaveencouragedothers to

interpretitinamoreextremefashion.Inthisway,the1965MarchonWashingtonandPotter's

speechportendedagrowingmilitancyintheNewStudentLeft,especiallyintheantiwararmof

themovement.

Potterhimselfworriedfromthestartthatothersmightmisinterprethisspeechanduse

it tojustify strategies and tacticshedidnotendorse.56

Heexpressed this anxiety in a letter

datedMay 3, 1965, inwhich heworried that he had "talked toomuch on the subject of

Vietnam,"whichwas"'beginningtogeta littlestale."57

Beyondscalingbackhisownpersonal

involvement in the organization, Potter encouraged others tomore fully considerwhat the

SDS's

newfound

prominence

meant

for

its

mission.

Just

a

month

after

the

march,

Potter

publishedanarticle in the SDSBulletinurging thegroup to "consider strategicallywhat SDS

shouldbedoingaboutVietnam, locallyaswellasnationally. . . .the timehascome forbasic

thinkingabouthowweareorganizingaroundthe issue."58

PotterseemedfrustratedthatSDS

memberswereincreasinglysupplantinghiscallforparticipatorydemocracyandcriticalanalysis

of the system with blind rage against the government. Although Potter was not directly

responsibleforthischange inSDS,herecognizedthemovement'sfailuretogetbeyondanger

andhatredtoestablishloveandcommunityastheguidingprinciplesofAmericansociety.59


15/19


Potter's broad focus on the struggle between hatred and lovemay help explain the

contemporarysalienceofPotter'sappeal.BecausethespeechtranscendedtheVietnamWarto

reflectonAmericansocietyasawhole,Potter'scritiqueof"thesystem"stillmaywellresonate

withyoungpeople.As today'syoungpeople faceenduringproblemsof socialandeconomic

inequality and injustice, Potter's analysis of the problems confronting American society still

ringstrue.

Moreover,

Potter's

criticism

of

President

Johnson's

rationale

for

the

war

in

Vietnamhis insistence that we were defending "freedom" in Vietnamcalls to mind

PresidentGeorgeW.Bush'sjustificationforAmerica'sinterventionsinIraqandelsewhere.Not

onlywasAmerica's invasion of Iraq in 2003 labeled "Operation Iraqi Freedom," butGeorge

Bushhasconsistentlydefendedhispolicy in Iraq in terms reminiscentofLBJ's rhetoric.60

For

example,onDecember18,2005,Bushrespondedtoamountingchorusofdissentagainstthe

warinIraqbyemphasizinghiscommitmenttodefending"freedom"inIraq:

Ihaveheardyourdisagreement,and Iknowhowdeeply it is felt.Yetnow, thereare

onlytwooptionsbeforeourcountry,victoryordefeat.Andtheneedforvictoryislarger

than any President or political party, because the security of our people is in the

balance.Idon'texpectyoutosupporteverythingIdo,buttonightIhavearequest:Do

notgiveintodespair,anddonotgiveuponthisfightforfreedom.61

BeyondthethematicsalienceofPotter'sspeech,hisactualwordshavebeenpreserved

andcelebratedinthePortHuronProject,aprogramof"culturalart"featuringreenactmentsof

sixfamousspeechesbyleadersofthe1960sNewLeft.OrganizedbyBrownUniversityProfessor

Mark Tribe, the PortHuron Project hired 23yearold actorMax Bunzel to reenact Potter's

speechonJuly26,2007,attheNationalMallinWashington,D.C.Thegoal,accordingtoTribe,

wastostage"agenuineformofprotest"usingarttoshow"howmuchhaschanged,yethow

much remains the same." Tribe further argued that "the system"Paul Potterdescribed and

denouncedhas

"gotten

so

much

more

sophisticated;"62

Bunzel's

re

enactment

reflected

that

attitude,channelinganangerlackinginPotter'soriginalspeech.Potter'sspeechmaynothave

changed theworld at the time itwasdelivered.But, for some,his visionof amoredecent

societystillresonatesinaworldwherehate,fear,andisolationprevail.

Author'sNote: Jeffrey P. Drury is an assistant professor at CentralMichigan University. He

would like to thank J.Michael Hogan, Shawn ParryGiles, Sara AnnMehltretter, and Susan

Zaeske for feedback on various versions of this project. Thank you also to LeniWildflower,

NormPotter,HelenGarvy,andthestaffattheWisconsinStateHistoricalSocietyarchivesfor

theirassistanceon theproject.Anearlierversionof thisessaywaspresented toagraduate

student

seminar

at

the

University

of

Wisconsin

Madison

in

November

2006.

Notes

1 PaulPotter,ANameforOurselves(Boston,MA:Little,BrownandCompany,1971),

15.


16/19


2 This lackofefficacyexplainswhyPotter'sspeechhasbeen lostalongtheway.The

text isprimarilyencountered in1960shistoricalreadersandstudentsarerarelyexposedto it

outsideof courseswhoseprimary subject is the rhetoricof socialmovements.AsofAugust

2008,Potter'sspeechisnotincludedinoneofthelargestInternetspeechdatabases,American

Rhetoric (americanrhetoric.com),whichhas texts ofmore than 5,000 speeches. This lackof

attentionto

the

speech

is

compounded

by

the

inaccuracy

of

nearly

all

published

texts

of

the

speech,mostofwhichdonotmatchtheaudioversionhousedintheWisconsinStateHistorical

Societyarchives.

3 KirkpatrickSale,SDS(NewYork,NY:RandomHouse,1973),15,1617.

4 SalenotesthatSDSdistributedover20,000copiesbytheendof1964andmorethan

40,000bytheendof1966.Theseprintingratesunderestimatethenumberofpeoplefamiliar

with the document given the propensity of students to pass along a single copy of the

documenttofriends.Sale,SDS,5051,69.

5 StudentsforaDemocraticSociety,ThePortHuronStatement(Chicago,IL:CharlesH.

KerrPublishingCompany,1990),11.

6 Sale,SDS,82.ByJune1965,SDShaddistributedmorethan75pamphletscoveringa

rangeoftopicsfromforeignpolicytosex.HarryTrimborn,"NewRadicalismGropingforthe

Past,"LosAngelesTimes,20June1965,I2.

7 TheSNCCoperatedoncollegecampusesinsouthernstateswhiletheNSMprimarily

involved students from the northeastern United States. Both groups aimed their efforts

towardscivilrightsandracerelationsratherthanthe"system"asawhole,leavingaspacefor

the SDS to lead the student antiwar charge. Philip Altbach, Student Politics in America: A

HistoricalAnalysis(NewBrunswick,NJ:TransactionPublishers,1997),198199.

8 Sale,SDS,5.

9 "SDS to SponsorVietnamMarch," SDSBulletin, vol.3,no. 4 (January1965):1, 14

(http://archive.lib.msu.edu/AFS/dmc/radicalism/public/all/sdsbulletin/ALZ3.pdf).

10John

Finney,

"U.S.

Plans

Step

Up

in

Troops

and

Aid

for

Vietnam

War,"

New

York

Times,3April1965,12

11 Sale,SDS,172173.

12 JackSmith,"GiantRallyinU.S.Capital,"NationalGuardian,17April1965,1.

13 PaulPotter, lettertoDavidMandel,13April1965,series2A,number29,Students

foraDemocraticSocietyPapers,19581970,WisconsinStateHistoricalSociety.

14 SeeGitlin,TheSixties,242.ThisMarchonWashington toend thewar inVietnam

should not be confusedwith the 1963March onWashington for Jobs and Freedom,which

attractedmoreprotestorsandfeaturedMartinLutherKing,Jr.'s"IHaveaDream"speech.

15 Paul Booth, "March onWashington," SDS Bulletin, vol 3, no. 7 (May 1965): 10.

(http://archive.lib.msu.edu/AFS/dmc/radicalism/public/all/sdsbulletin/ALZ098

109.pdf).

16 Special to theNew York Times, "15,000WhiteHouse PicketsDenounceVietnam

War,"NewYorkTimes,28April1965,3;andJackSmith,"TheDemandis'Peace':25,000March

inWashington,"NationalGuardian,24April1965,4.

17 "ReporttoReaders:Whatthemarchmeans,"NationalGuardian,24April1965,2.

18 Dr.LeniWildflower,emailmessagetoauthor,9November2007;andSale,SDS,89.

19 Jack Newfield, "The Student Left," The Nation, 10 May 1965, 492,

(http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=19650510&s=newfield).


17/19


20 IrvingHowe, "TheDecade thatFailed,"NewYorkTimesMagazine,19September

1982,43.

21 Sale,SDS,187.

22 Gitlin,TheSixties,102.

23 JohnBassettMcCleary,TheHippieDictionary:ACulturalEncyclopediaofthe1960s

and1970s

(Berkeley,

CA:

Ten

Speed

Press,

2004),

612.

24 PotterwasVicePresidentforNationalAffairsfortheNSA in19611962.Sale,SDS,

40;andGitlin,TheSixties,111.


26 "TwoYouthsBeatenNearRacialMarch,"LosAngelesTimes,12October1961,2,23.


28 Sale,SDS,4041.

29 PaulPotter,"TheIntellectualasanAgentofSocialChange,"OurGenerationAgainst

NuclearWar2,no.4(1963):30.

30 Gitlin,TheSixties,101102;andSale,SDS,84.

31 Paul Potter, The University and the Cold War (New York, NY: Students for a

DemocraticSociety,1964),1011.

32 PaulPotter,TheUniversityandtheColdWar,11.SeealsoPotter,"TheIntellectual,"

3036.

33 SalenotesthatanotherreasonSDSerselectedPotterwasbecause,unliketheother

candidates,hewasnotyetstronglyalignedtothecontroversialERAP.Sale,SDS,102,107111.

34 SDSConstitution,quotedinSale,SDS,669.

35 Potter also highlighted that "the expectations of students about political

involvementaremarkedlychangedfromafewyearsago,"recognizingtheevolutionarynature

oftheSDSandthestudentmovementasawholethatwouldlaterbecomeachallengeforthe

SDS's old guard. Paul Potter, "President's Views," SDS Bulletin 2 (July 1964), 23; andWini

Breines,Community

and

Organization

in

the

New

Left,

1962

1968:

The

Great

Refusal,

77

78.

36 PaulPotter, lettertoRoyGesley,9February1965,series2A,number29,Students

foraDemocraticSocietyPapers,19581970,WisconsinStateHistoricalSociety.

37 Booth,"MarchonWashington,"9,10;andSale,SDS,189.

38 Paul Potter, "The Incredible War," 17 April 1965, Tape 517A, Students for a

DemocraticSocietyPapers,19581970,WisconsinStateHistoricalSociety.Hereandelsewhere,

passagesin"TheIncredibleWar"arecitedwithreferencetoparagraphnumbersinthetextof

thespeechthataccompaniesthisessay.

39 Referencesto"thesystem"hadbeenpartofthelanguageofSDSatleastasearlyas

1962whenthePortHuronStatementdescribedthepeacemovementasoccurringbothwithin

and

outside

"the

System."

Students

for

a

Democratic

Society,

The

Port

Huron

Statement,

69.

40 Richard Gregg, "The EgoFunction of the Rhetoric of Protest," Philosophy and

Rhetoric 4 (1971): 74, 78; and Robert Cathcart, "Movements: Confrontation as Rhetorical

Form,"SouthernSpeechCommunicationJournal43(1978):242,240.

41 HerbertSimons,"Requirements,Problems,andStrategies:ATheoryofPersuasion

forSocialMovements,"QuarterlyJournalofSpeech56(1970):78.

42 RobertScottandDonaldSmith,"TheRhetoricofConfrontation,"QuarterlyJournal

ofSpeech55(1969):1.


18/19



44 ToddGitlin,TheWholeWorldisWatching:MassMediaintheMakingandUnmaking

oftheNewLeft(Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2003),56.

45 SeanMcCannandMichaelSzalay,"Introduction:PaulPotterandtheCulturalTurn,"

YaleJournalofCriticism18(2005):210;andPotter,ANameforOurselves,101.

46Potter,

A

Name

for

Ourselves,

185.

47 JohnDewey,ThePublicanditsProblems(Athens,OH:SwallowPress,1954),146.

48 Booth,"MarchonWashington,"9,10

49 Sale,SDS,189.

50 Sale,SDS,663664,239240.

51 CarlOglesby,"TrappedinaSystem,"in"TakinittotheStreets,"178,182.Oglesby's

speechismuchmorerenownedthanPotter'sandscholarsandcommentatorsoftenuseitasa

representativeexampleoftheSDS'sstancetowardVietnaminthe1960s.



54 Dan Berger, Outlaws ofAmerica: TheWeather Underground and the Politics of

Solidarity(Oakland,CA:AKPress,2006),150151;andGitlin,TheSixties,385,387,393403.

55 Newfield,"TheStudentLeft,"495.

56 ToddGitlin,TheSixties,189190.

57 PaulPotter,lettertoPeterWerbe,3May1965,series2A,number29,Studentsfora

DemocraticSocietyPapers,19581970,WisconsinStateHistoricalSociety.

58 Emphasisinoriginal.PaulPotter,"NationalCouncil,"SDSBulletin3(1965):5.

59 Potter lived in theNortheasternUnitedStatesbetween1965and1969wherehe

continuedteachingandwritingaboutpoliticalactivism.Duringthe1968DemocraticNational

Convention,Potterorchestrated"movementcenters"inChicagoandeventestifiedinthehigh

profileChicagoSevencase inwhich sevenprotestorsat theDemocraticNationalConvention

(includingHayden

and

Davis)

were

tried

for

conspiracy

to

incite

ariot.

By

this

point,

however,

Potter, likemostoftheSDSoldguard,had largelyphasedhimselfoutoftheorganization.At

theendoftheturbulentdecade,Pottersoughtafundamentalchangeinhislifeanddecidedto

leave academia once again. During the next 15 years, he would live in various placesa

communeinFelton,Californiathathecomanagedin1970withhiswife,LeniWildflower;the

UniversityofHawaiiwhereheearnedadegreeinPublicHealthbetween1973and1975;New

Mexicointheearly1980swherehespenthisfinalyearslivingsometimesaloneandoftentimes

inthecompanyofhisfamilyandSDSfriends.J.AnthonyLukas,"AnotherFolkSingerSilencedBy

JudgeatConspiracyTrial,"NewYorkTimes,23January1970,15;andDr.LeniWildflower,email

messagetoauthor,9November2007.

60

George

W.

Bush,

"Address

to

the

Nation

on

Iraq,"

Public

Papers

of

the

Presidents

of

theUnitedStates:GeorgeW.Bush,2001,vol.3,bk.1(WashingtonD.C.:GPO,2006),277279;

andGeorgeW.Bush,"AddresstotheNationonIraqFromtheU.S.S.AbrahamLincoln,"Public

PapersofthePresidentsoftheUnitedStates:GeorgeW.Bush,2001,vol.3,bk.1(Washington

D.C.:GPO,2006),410413.

61 GeorgeW.Bush, "Address to theNationon Iraqand theWaronTerror,"Weekly

CompilationofPresidentialDocuments:AdministrationofGeorgeW.Bush,2005,vol.41,no.51

(26December2005),1884.


19/19


62 RandyKennedy,"GivingNewLifetoProtestsofYore,"NewYorkTimes,lateed.,28

July2007,B7.

Drury Potter

Documents

Transcript of Drury Potter