I’m presently reading a book – titled “Subversives, The FBI’s WAR on STUDENT RADICALS and Reagan’s Rise to Power” by Seth Rosenfeld – about how the FBI was violating the rights of “radicals” in the years leading up to  and into the 60’s at the behest of J Edgar Hoover – the head of the FBI for many years and apparently a paranoid, closet homosexual.  Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not “bashing” gays, it’s just that Hoover was – along with bashing anyone else who might not fit the bill (in his eyes) of the upstanding “conservative” “loyal” “patriotic” American – all the while why he was in a “same-sex” relationship for years himself.  OK, where have we heard that line before?  The derogatory term used by Hoover and his agents always seemed to have words like “left” or “liberal” connected to it and leading to the word “communist.”  Reminds me of the saying, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”  This is going to be a hard post to write because the thoughts going through my head are almost overwhelming.  From my own experience and the many books I’ve read, even though McCarthy and his Communist “scare” seem like history that would never be repeated, it seems as if we’re in another of those “deja vu all over again” moments in time (similar to the unthinkable fiasco’s in Iraq and Afghanistan vis a vis Viet Nam).  One thing I’m learning as I continue my attempt at self-educating myself on the “goings on” in my own government – is that the CRAP that’s being hoisted on America by the right wing of the republican party today is nothing new.  It’s just becoming more sophisticated.

The other day I received, in the “snail mail” a brochure from the “National Review” titled “RESIST!”  I’m guessing, from the contents, whoever sent it to me had not read this blog.  Now, it’s true I’ve pointed out that I always considered myself somewhat of a conservative, until the recent 30 years of the “Reagan Revolution” has convinced me (and most people I know) that I’m a “flaming liberal.”  That’s why I found the brochure from the “National Review” to be most interesting.  I’m just going to include some of the quotes: “Obama’s dirty tricks.  Look forward to more administrative and regulatory tricks to circumvent Congress.” (my initial reaction: “Well, duh – I hope so, I mean with a Senate filibustering everything and a House voting for Nothing – somehow, something must get done in Washington)  “The liberal culture.  You won’t surrender to it and neither will we.” (can you see why I was a bit confused why they sent this to me?)  There’s more:  “The fate of America hangs in the balance.  Dim-witted liberals are leading the country half-cocked in dangerous new directions.” (Seriously)  And finally (this one, to me really says it all about the “right”):  “The coming leftist court.  More than one Justice could retire before Obama leaves office.  Look for a replacement who will spark a new era of aggressive leftist judicial activism.”  (are you kidding me? how could any court “out do” the Roberts’ court’s “Citizens United” example of judicial activism)  As I’m reading the present book and getting stuff like this from the “National Review” in the mail, the level of brainwashing that’s going on in America is almost beyond my imagination.  The problem is that it’s not imagination, it’s real.  And, they’ve (the people behind this propaganda scheme) got unlimited financial resources and a lot of technical savvy.  They’ve been at this for a long time and defeat at the ballot box doesn’t seem to affect them – they just “keep on keepin on.”

As I said, this topic makes my mind swirl with probably too many thoughts.  But, I think it goes right to the heart of what’s wrong in America.  Most of us normal everyday Americans have no idea how much power can end up resting in the souls of people like Hoover.  And, I’m certain there’s many more “out there” who would share his point of view.  The irony, to me, is that most of these people will claim that things like “moral decency,” “righteousness,” “honor,” “patriotism,” “integrity,” “less government” and other wonderful sounding words and phrases are what drives them and their thinking.  The problem I have with that is most of these people are just like the rest of us – full of “skeletons” in our “closets.”  Take for example, Hoover apparently living a gay lifestyle while “bashing” gays.  Reminds me of the Republican Senator from Idaho a few years ago who was leading the anti-gay “mission” of the republican party while having same-sex rendezvous in public restrooms at airports.  Or Newt Gingrich attempting to impeach Bill Clinton for cheating on his wife while being a double offender himself.  (I’m still wondering why Gingrich seems to still be a “talking head” of the republican party after cheating on his cancer stricken wife.  We’ll see if the democrats end up in the same situation with John Edwards – I seriously doubt it)  Then there’s Reagan, a “man of law and order,” mindlessly breaking one law after another, often times with the assistance of Hoover and Hoover’s “minions.” (or encouraging others to do so ie Iran/Contra)  Hoover (with the assistance of “informers” like Reagan) managed to destroy the careers of many “liberals” during his purging of “commies” during the years after WW II and, apparently, the political establishment feared him similarly to how the republicans of today fear Rush Limbaugh.  The message is somewhat the same – “liberal” is a dirty word.

Before I continue, I’ve just got to throw in something else quite ironic here.  In the history of the United States of America, virtually all advances that have benefited “we the people” have originated from “liberal” sources.  And, another irony – at least to me, as I’ve so often railed against the so-called “Christian Right,” is that many of these “liberal” initiatives were the result of public activism from Christians.  Yah, you got it right, the Christian movement in America has not always been stuck in this right wing rut that is turning so many (especially young) Americans off to the church.  The push to end slavery, the subsequent (long) push for civil rights for African Americans (which is continuing to this day), the labor movement (which so many in today’s America take for granted as republicans attempt to expunge every last union from the face of the earth), and the idea of a social safety net (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other social programs aimed at helping “the least among us”) just to name a few, were the result of “liberals” (often times “liberal Christians”) pushing our reluctant government to do the “right thing.”  Some of these campaigns lasted for decades before there was success and those who oppose the idea of a “we” nation have been pushing back all the way.  It’s taken courageous leaders to overcome the “push-back” and it will take courageous leaders to prevent the present day “pushers” (like the Koch brothers, Limbaugh – and his benefactors, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, the so-called tea party, outlets like Fox “news,” and people like Donald Trump and many others) from succeeding.

Much of Rosenfeld’s book centers on the FIGHT generated by the “subversives” (hippies, liberals, anti-war activists, civil rights activists, black activists – including Martin Luther King Jr., and others) who were willing to stand up to the authorities who were promoting the seemingly endless (in America) corporate sponsored control of America’s government.  I remember this time well as I was in college during the mid sixties and remember participating in anti-war rallies (once I realized the “domino theory” was a bunch of bunk).  I remember the passion on both sides of the war issue, the civil rights issue, and the other significant “battles” of the times (Medicare was part of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”)  At Western Washington State College (now Western Washington University) it seemed as if EVERYONE was smoking marijuana – including many of the professors.  As I read Rosenfeld’s book I had to stop occasionally to think about my time in school during those years and wonder which ones of my acquaintances made it to the various FBI lists which were intended to inform our government which “subversives” should be arrested in the event of a national “emergency.”  (many “identified” through blatantly ILLEGAL surveillance) Rosenfeld spent almost 30 years fighting the FBI over Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documents relating to the unrest at the University of California at Berkeley and the part Reagan played in those years – as well as information about FBI files on others.  His writing is based on over 300 THOUSAND pages of FBI (actual) documents (which the FBI REALLY didn’t want to go “public”).  I really hope many choose to read this book (it’s really a good read – well put together) just because it gives even more information (if you need it) on the damage Ronald Reagan did to this great nation prior to his becoming president. (Not to mention the damage perpetrated by J Edgar Hoover – many of the people today who are claiming they want to “protect” the 2nd amendment gun rights are the same people who have idolized both Reagan and Hoover and apparently have no concern for the 4th amendment)

The part that was really unnerving to me in all of this was all the evidence relating to Reagan’s part as an FBI informant when he was a member (eventually president) of the Screen Actors Guild.  This was during the time of the “Red Scare” years of Joseph McCarthy – who was working on the “outside.”  However, working on the “inside” was Hoover with the help of people like Reagan.  Apparently, this was a time in America when many saw a “Communist” under every rock.  The “fear mongering” was right up there with what we’ve come to expect from our politicians in the “21st century.”  Certainly Reagan and Hoover thought alike in that if someone was a “liberal” that meant they were “subversive.”  I believe the great divide that is causing America, today, to descend toward second tier status in the world began right there.  Many of the people who are leading the “right wing” charge in the United States today came on the scene during the so-called “Reagan Revolution.”  Reagan spoke ad nauseum about “law and order” – he had a quote on his office wall that said something like “follow the rules or get out” – yet, he apparently didn’t think that saying applied to himself.  Reagan affiliated himself, in a condescending manner, to Hoover – who was routinely violating the constitution he was sworn to uphold with illegal unwarranted surveillance (with Reagan’s encouragement), and Reagan carried on Hoover’s tradition (the rules don’t apply to me) through his years as president.  The epitome, for Reagan, was the Iran/Contra “affair” of which he managed to avoid any consequences (lots of “I can’t remembers”), but his “informing” on fellow (and unsuspecting) actors, to me, tells the “tale” of Ronald Reagan.  And, this is no longer conjecture, because it’s all documented in the files Rosenfeld got right from the FBI file cabinets.  Reagan helped ruin people’s lives because he disagreed with them!

Even though I’ve never been in a position to gain “mucho power” I understand how it would appeal to someone who’s ambitious and finds him/herself in the position Reagan was in during the late forties.  He was a successful actor and he became involved in the Screen Actors Guild.  (Now, if you don’t find that ironic you don’t think as I do – I place the major BLAME on today’s republican vendetta against UNIONS right on the doorstep of Ronald Reagan – former union president)  Reagan OUTED a significant number of famous actors and actresses as either “Commies” or “Liberals” during the fifties and sixties which directly led to his rise in politics.  This also led to the ruination, in some instances, of the victims’ careers due to his “information and accusations.”  Honestly, to this day it’s hard for me to think anything good about someone who would do that to his fellow “brothers and sisters” in his union.  According to the files Rosenfeld managed to acquire, Reagan’s informant status with Hoover led to FBI manipulation of events as Reagan was emerging in politics and running for governor of California in the mid sixties on to his push toward the presidency.  Reagan was unhappy with the anti-war turmoil, the Free Speech Movement, and other “movements” (including civil rights) that were originating on college campuses, with Berkeley being at the forefront of the protest movement.  The FBI placed informants into these groups, some who actually urged the groups to violate laws (in one instance an FBI informant supplied weapons to the Black Panthers in an attempt to increase violence and turn public opinion against the protestors).  The disregard for the privacy rights of individuals was pretty much routine by the FBI with the encouragement of Reagan.  In fact, according to the book “Subversives” Reagan’s approach to the campus protests led to more violence and he condoned it by protecting the police officers who shot and or abused protesters. (this was about the same time as the campus shootings at Kent State University and elsewhere)  Ultimately, one of Reagan’s first acts after his election to the presidency was to pardon a couple officers who had been convicted of shooting protesters.  (one innocent bystander was killed and another lost the sight in both eyes when hit by buckshot fired indiscriminately by police officers)  In this instance, as in so many others, Reagan took the position that he could interpret the law in whatever manner he chose despite overwhelming evidence against the officers who were pardoned (And, not even following well established protocol regarding presidential pardons).

The “fallout” from all of this, in my view, is the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in today.  The so-called Patriot Act, which followed the “9/11” attack compromised our 4th amendment rights in a way that was alarming to people like me.  Subsequent to that, the congress was not able to hold the telecommunications companies, who were illegally providing “private” information to the Bush/Cheney administration, to account for their violation of the FISA law.  The FISA law was the direct result of the “Church Committee” discovering the abuses of Hoover and the FBI during the 1960’s and mid 1970’s.  This was a senate committee chaired by Frank Church of Idaho.  I remember, at the time (during the Watergate years), feeling as if the government was “working.”  However, emerging members of the republican party at that time, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, felt the executive branch was weakened by this legislation.  They were prominent in the Bush/Cheney administration which openly violated FISA and managed to get the Patriot Act passed and the FISA Act modified to allow the government more latitude in “intruding” on the privacy of the American public.  Unfortunately, in my view, Barrack Obama pretty much “sealed the deal” when he “looked forward instead of back” and blocked ALL investigations into the illegal activity of the Bush/Cheney administration.  So, now we’re stuck with a situation where the government (which is really “we the people”) is gathering who knows how much information from the unsuspecting public and it’s not part of the “main stream” of discussion.  Americans are focused on guns (as well they should be).  However my point is this:  The secret actions of Ronald Reagan: the informing, the spying, the illegal activity should drive his legacy.  His role in the degrading trend in America’s government today should not be glossed over with the typical “right wing” revisionist history.  The level of corruption in Washington DC is depressing, and the government response of “looking the other way” can be traced back to the years of Reagan.  Not only our government leaders but also the leaders on Wall Street and in the corporate headquarters are much too confident that they are above the law.  Sadly, people like Eric Holder (our Attorney General) and Barrack Obama seem to be perpetuating this problem, but I feel the “root” of the problem goes right back to the administration of Ronald Reagan.  Read “Subversives” by Seth Rosenfeld and see if you don’t agree.