Lessons from William Ayers

This article is not written to condone William Ayres 1960s Weather Underground involvement. It is written to emphasize that Ayers is no longer a terrorist, no matter how his words and actions may have been described forty plus years ago. It is also written to clarify that Ayers never said "I wish we had bombed more!" Finally, this article is written to underline the fact that William Ayers and Barack Obama are not and never have been close associates.

Fact Check will give a good summation of misrepresentations concerning William Ayers and Barack Obama presently employed by the McCain campaign (see Fact check: Obama and Ayers). A further discussion of Obama’s relationship with Ayers, with supporting articles, can be .ound at the following link: Obama Ayers Connection?. These sources show any claims of close association, especially "palling around" to be false. They also disprove the assertion that Obama began his political career at a fund raiser hosted by Ayers. Obama and Ayers do know each other and have served together on the board of directors for a Chicago based charity. Ayers also contributed $200 to Obama's 2001 state senate reelection campaign. Regardless of his Weathermen background during the Vietnam era, William Ayers has since earned the titles of "Senior University Scholar" and "Distinguished Professor" at the University of Illinois. He is also the author of fourteen books.

On September 15, 2001, William Ayers addressed a letter to the New York Times in response to a September 11, 2001 article concerning his upcoming book Fugitive Days, contributed by Times writer Dinitia Smith with the subtitle: "No regrets for a love of explosives." Clearly the Times writer misunderstood Ayers book and his comments during their interview to mean he still condoned Weathermen bombing attempts during the sixties. The coincidental date of the of the article's publication has led to the current McCain campaign charge that Ayers regretted that "we didn't bomb more" on the day of the 9/11 tragedy.

Ayers' Sept 15, 2001 objection to Dinitia Smith's 9/11 misinterpretation of his writing and interview comments makes it clear Ayers then and now opposes terrorism in any form. He explicitly describes his book, Fugitive Days, as "from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism." His writing does point out how violence can lead to violence, however, and the following description has led to the misconstrued idea that Ayers regrets limited results from Weathermen bombing attempts. "I told her (Smith) that in light of the indiscriminate murder of millions of Vietnamese, we showed remarkable restraint, and that while we tried to sound a piercing alarm in those years, in fact we didn't do enough to stop the war." This comment does not mention, much less extol Weathermen bombing activity, carried out by the way with prior warning and with concern for protecting human life. Though regrettable in themselves, the only deaths from Weathermen bombing activity were those of supporters injured while handling explosive material.

Without condoning Weathermen activity, we may still recognize the group's members as feeling driven to extreme acts by the ever mounting horrors of the Vietnam War. Quoting another passage misconstrued by Dinitia Smith in her Times article: "
How could we understand it? How could we take it in? Most important, what should we do about it?"

Smith misconstrued the following passage to indicate a love of explosives: "There is a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance. The rhythm of B-52s dropping bombs over Viet Nam, a deceptive calm at 40,000 feet as the doors ease open and millennial eggs are delivered on the green canopy below, the relentless thud of indiscriminate destruction and death without pause on the ground. Nothing subtle or syncopated. Not a happy rhythm."

This is the awful quiet following a wartime air attack on a clear and otherwise beautiful day as portrayed in William Soutar's WWII era poem, The Children:

Upon the street they lie
Beside the broken stone:
The blood of children stares from the broken stone.

Death came out of the sky
In the bright afternoon:
Darkness slanted over the bright afternoon.

Again the sky is clear
But upon earth a stain:
The earth is darkened with a darkening stain:

A wound which everywhere
Corrupts the hearts of men:
The blood of children corrupts the hearts of men.

Silence is in the air:
The stars move in their places:
Silent and serene the stars move in their places.

But from earth the children stare
With blind and fearful faces:
And our charity is in the children's faces.

Thus Ayers expresses the terror felt by so many contemporary Americans confronting the moral horror of Vietnam: "Three million Vietnamese lives were extinguished. …. Three million—each with a mother and a father, a distinct name, a mind and a body and a spirit, someone who knew him well or cared for her or counted on her for something or was annoyed or burdened or irritated by him; each knew something of joy or sadness or beauty or pain. Each was ripped out of this world, a little red dampness staining the earth, drying up, fading, and gone. Bodies torn apart, blown away, smudged out, lost forever."

Such horror demanded response, and, as now with events in Iraq and Afghanistan – not to mention African holocausts with which we feel uninvolved, most US citizens went about their daily lives showing little concern. Many of us protested as best we could in that time. Students were indiscriminately gunned down on the Kent State campus; was this not terrorism in its own right? Eventually the nation united in such anguish that its citizens collectively failed to honor the courage of those citizens who fought for their country in a misguided cause. This also is regrettable.

In the September 15, 2001 Times letter, Ayers describes his book in the following way: "My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy. It begins literally in the shadow of Hiroshima and comes of age in the killing fields of Southeast Asia. My book criticizes the American obsession with a clean and distanced violence, and the culture of thoughtlessness and carelessness that results from it."

His concluding words in this passage are no less telling now than they were in September 2001: "We are now witnessing crimes against humanity in our own land on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we might soon see innocent people in other parts of the world as well as in the U.S. dying and suffering in response." These are not the words of one who espouses terror. They are rather those of one who seeks peace and who strives to do everything possible to achieve it.

As citizens of a nation where freedom of thought and expression is cherished, we may need to learn to experience and offer understanding and forgiveness to others regardless of whether or not it is asked. We are often quick to demand repentance from those we consider wrong. We also demand rejection and repudiation of all who express differing views. We seem to no longer find value in a community of competing ideas that wrestle together to achieve a greater understanding than any one individual might reach. Instead, we increasingly isolate ourselves from any challenge to our chosen views, gaining information and even defining truth from the pronouncements of selected individuals and institutions. Our discourse becomes steadily reduced to competing assertions that deny all veracity to opposing views without weight of merit. We shout our preconceived views at each other without listening to hear what anyone else has to offer. Our society is in danger of becoming as polarized as FOX News and MSNBC presently reflect it to be, each presenting a differing world view to be swallowed whole each day by their respective audiences.

Now more than ever we need tolerance for those among us who offer a different approach than what we consider normal. Tolerance for differing views and experiences can help each of us to expand personal horizons, thus promoting individual growth and enrichment. Without the influence of differing ideas we all will only become increasingly narrow in our views over time, growing correspondingly limited in our ability to respond to the wonder of life around us. Above all, peace requires tolerance, conflict denies tolerance. While there are certainly things no democratic society should condone, we must also be judicious in where we place these restrictions lest we harm our own freedom and ultimate humanity in the process.

Concluding his September 15, 2001 New York Times letter, William Ayers has the following wisdom to share: "All that we witnessed September 11—the awful carnage and pain, the heroism of ordinary people—may drive us mad with grief and anger, or it may open us to hope in new ways. Perhaps precisely because we have suffered we can embrace the suffering of others and gather the necessary wisdom to resist the impulse to lash out randomly. The lessons of the anti-war movements of the 1960s and 70s may be more urgent now than ever."

Spreading the Wealth

John McCain recently ridiculed Barack Obama for telling “Joe the Plumber” – in reality “Sam the Contractor,” behind on paying his taxes – he wanted to “spread the wealth.” McCain said he wanted “Joe” to keep his wealth – actually much less than reported – to himself. McCain insisted that Obama’s tax plan would hurt Joe’s goal of buying his employer’s plumbing business when all indications are that Sam would actually benefit from Obama’s plan. Such is the continued misrepresentation that has become a hallmark of the McCain campaign. Obama’s desire to “spread the wealth” deserves more consideration.

Spreading the wealth is actually what we should be doing individually and as a society, rather than hoarding wealth as John McCain and the Republicans suggest. Those who suggest McCain is uncomfortable with his own message may have merit to their position, judging by his campaign demeanor. The accuracy of this observation will become obvious following the election. Our best response now, however, is to treat the Arizona senator with compassion for the entrapped position he may have provided for himself and to address the overriding morality of the issue he now presents as an attack on the Obama campaign.

Hoarding wealth simply flies in the face of all accepted human wisdom, no matter what the culture may be. Some strands of Jewish teaching value wealth as a sign of divine favor, but good stewardship and generosity are required of the worthy recipient. Some aspects of modern Buddhist teaching seem to reflect wealth possession and creation as a value, but classic Buddhist teaching focuses more on avoiding material wealth as a spiritual distraction. Still, as with Jewish teaching, stewardship and generosity are valued qualities. Personal blessings are to be shared with others in the community.

Christians specifically are urged not to hoard up treasure on earth but rather to gather spiritual treasure. While Christian teaching and its Jewish antecedents may provide the most cogent admonition against John McCain’s campaign position, it is certain that his call for individuals to hoard wealth contradicts the deepest strands of world moral teaching. No spiritual teaching views wealth hoarding as a value.

The dragon in western culture hoards wealth but has no idea what to do with it. He imprisons the virgin but has no idea what to do but frighten her. His obsession with the goal of possession inhibits knowledge. He can only learn by releasing his self-absorbed concentration on the tantalizing beauty he hoards to become a part of the larger community, no longer threatening civilization by fiery annihilation. He then becomes the oriental dragon, a source of communal wisdom and an expression of communal wealth. The oriental dragon brings blessing, in essence spreading the wealth.

The responsibility of tithing is the principle behind communal contribution through taxation. The object is to show concern for and stewardship of the community by giving back a portion of personal income to support community needs. This commitment acknowledges that religious and also civil communities sustain personal activity and well being. Contributions to supporting communities are therefore as much acts of self interest as they are of generosity.

Personal philanthropy is quite a different thing. Here generosity is shown to chosen people, organizations or communities by generous benefactors. Philanthropy is implicit in Republican ideas that high financial achievers should keep their wealth to dole out to worthy causes as they choose. This is the principle of “trickle down” economics. While this attitude values personal generosity, it provides little or no sustenance for the larger community.

Philanthropy is selective and limited in its scope by the awareness and generosity of contributors. Philanthropic individuals and organizations tend to address immediate rather than chronic conditions and overall maintenance concerns. Through the shared tithe-like contribution of general taxation, governments are able to distribute resources over the broad range of concerns affecting civil and social wellbeing.

Shared representation in governing bodies, such as congress, state legislatures, county and municipal councils, provides the broad consensus needed to identify shared concerns. While no one citizen may agree with all areas of social concern, each individual has power to express opinion through persuasion and ultimately through the ballot. This is, in essence, the social contract underlying our democracy. The “bottom up” economics modeled in Obama’s proposed tax plan reflects the idea that we will all contribute most effectively from positions of well-being.

Starving animals or people may eat any proffered morsel but they will still die of starvation unless the overall lack of resources is addressed. While we may each offer food to an individual through personal generosity, world hunger can only be effectively addressed by our concerted action as individuals within a world community. This simple example demonstrates the difference between philanthropic contribution, no matter how laudable, and united social action.

The past eight years have provided sufficient evidence of the ineffectiveness of “trickle down” economics in addressing civil and social issues. Our physical and social structures are crumbling from fiscal neglect as a result. The “bottom up” approach of sharing wealth through responsible taxation is the only means to effectively address these issues.

Hoarding is never a good idea. For this reason McCain’s idea of reducing taxes and freezing spending will only serve to cripple our economy more effectively than ever. Paul Krugman’s recent New York Times article encouraging infrastructure investment as a means of job creation and economic renewal in response to the current crisis is an example of creating and spreading wealth from the bottom up, the only way wealth creation can effectively work for the good of all.

Positive response to taxation does in fact become an act of patriotism as Joe Biden recently suggested. While qualifications may be applied to provide overall fairness in tax assessment, depending upon individual circumstances, tax loopholes allowing those with means to avoid contribution are harmful to the social structure. Anyone choosing to use such loopholes to avoid the shared civic duty of contributing through tax assessment is as unpatriotic as religious observers refusing to pay for the upkeep of religious institutions are unfaithful.

We all benefit from the society in which we live. Here in America we pride ourselves on living in what we consider the greatest nation on earth. But America will only be great as long as we unite to make it what it is. It is simply a matter of giving back to the society that sustains us so that we all experience wealth together without deprivation.