Introduction
Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts about the Sixties is a critical reflection upon the U.S. counterculture of the 1960s written by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. The authors were in the middle of events: they worked as editors in the Ramparts, a political magazine popular among the radical audience. However, Collier and Horowitz renounced their allegiance to the counterculture with time. Their main thesis: the Sixties had a malicious effect on American national life (Collier & Horowitz, 2006, p. 6). Destructive Generation is divided into three sections that explain authors’ criticism towards what they championed in their youth. Section 1 consists of vignettes about the representatives of the Destructive Generation. Section 2 is dedicated to exposing the true nature of the American Left. Lastly, Section 3 provides self-portraits of the authors’ progression from being in the center of the counterculture to becoming pro-American. In this paper, I will investigate and analyze whether the authors’ reasons to attack the Sixties and their legacy are justified.
Sympathy For The Devil
The protest movements and political radicalism of the 1960s had no lack of charismatic personalities. In this regard, it is not surprising that people involved in counterculture “were intent on mythologizing the Sixties and themselves” (Collier & Horowitz, p. 2). The first section of the book attempts to debunk the myths surrounding the Destructive Generation’s icons and reveal their dark side. In a series of vignettes, Collier and Horowitz show that the counterculture leaders were replaced with artificial, idealized images.
For instance, the first vignette is dedicated to Fay Stender, a lawyer who defended several Black Panther Party members. One of the most famous cases was George Jackson, a man who had spent ten years in jail by the age of twenty-eight (Collier & Horowitz, p. 35). During this time, Jackson organized a prison gang named Wolf Pack, a black equivalent of the Aryan Brotherhood (Collier & Horowitz, p. 40). Despite these facts, Stender portrayed Jackson as an innocent victim of the system. When Stender eventually distanced herself from Black Panthers, she was shot at her home for betraying George Jackson (Collier & Horowitz, p. 55). She became paralyzed and committed suicide a few years later.
In the following vignettes, the authors exposed other important figures of the radical movement, such as Bernardine Dorhn of the militant Marxist Weather Underground and Huey Newton of the Black Panthers. Dorhn, her partner Bill Ayers, and their friends lived as an embodiment of radical chic, while some of their followers were dangerously poor (Collier & Horowitz, p. 106). Dorhn and Ayers never matured or took responsibility for the past — for them, the year was still 1968 (Collier & Horowitz, p. 116). Newton was portrayed as an archetypical black revolutionary (Collier & Horowitz, p. 161). Eventually, Huey revealed his true nature — on one occasion, Newton forced a woman into the backseat of his car and proceeded to rape and rob her (Collier & Horowitz, p. 172). The 1960s hero turned into nothing but a disgusting criminal.
Overall, the depth of nihilism, moral corruption, and almost juvenile irresponsibility of the Destructive Generation’s icons caused the authors to have second thoughts about the Sixties. In addition, Collier and Horowitz might have felt guilty for invoking sympathy for the devil in many Americans. The realization that one’s action distorted reality and presented criminals and psychopaths as heroes of American history can surely be terrifying.
For What It’s Worth
Left ideas were prevalent in the 1960s counter culture and political radicalism. As left-wing radicals, Collier and Horowitz were acquainted with the accusations in “fifth columnism” — support of anti-American ideas promoted by the foreign powers. In the Sixties, the authors wanted to become the New Leftists — the shapers of truly American radicalism. However, Collier and Horowitz changed their views in the Destructive Generation and called any Left a “fifth column that threatens this country” (p. 182). In the second section, the authors tried to expose the moral hypocrisy of the Left. Their stance can be summarized as a bitter battle cry — for what it’s worth, the Left are hypocrites!
The first part of criticism against the Left is the misleading ways of their political tactics. Collier and Horowitz argue that New Leftists were at least open in their destructive intentions. On the other hand, the modern Leftists pose as mainstream liberals (Collier & Horowitz, p. 197). As an example, Collier and Horowitz provided the case of Ron Dellums. A liberal congressman, Dellums was a passionate opponent of the U.S. military but at the same time admired Marxist-Leninist military dictatorships in Latin America (Collier & Horowitz, p. 198). In addition, attempts to investigate the activities of such politicians were met with fierce accusations of McCarthyism. In the words of Collier and Horowitz, the term “McCarthyism” became a blunt instrument to beat the critics of Leftism into silence (p. 219). Essentially, the Left demanded respect for their position but at the same time disrespected anyone else.
The authors elaborated their point on the examples of Berkeley and the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco. In Berkeley, the Berkeley Citizens’ Action (BCA) party, which claims to be progressive, pushed for razing local schools to build low-cost housing. When the neighborhood people criticized that initiative, the BCA responded by labeling them as “racists” and accusing them of “sandbox thinking” (Collier & Horowitz, p. 245). The proposal to close bathhouses because sexual contact with unfamiliar partners might be causing the spread of AIDS among gay men was criticized as homophobic. For instance, Konstantin Belrandt, a spokesman of the Californian gay community, called AIDS transmission via bodily fluids “a theory, used to attack gay lifestyle” (Collier & Horowitz, p. 260). Given these facts, the authors’ bitterness towards the Left idea, which they used to champion in the Sixties, is understandable.
The End
Catharsis can be described as the moment of extreme emotional state that results in personal purification and renewal. In the case of Collier and Horowitz, they reached catharsis under the tragic circumstances — the Black Panther radicals they were praising in the Ramparts killed their friend. This murder was the end, the turning point after which the authors reconsidered their long-lasting allegiance to the left radicalism.
Peter Collier recalls how David Horowitz convinced Betty Van Patter, the Ramparts bookkeeper, to help the Black Panthers with managing accounts. Apparently, Betty found something disturbing and confronted the Panthers; soon, she had been found floating in a bay with a caved-in head (Collier and Horowitz, p. 313). When Collier went to Berkeley police station, the lieutenant said: “You destroy the police and then you expect them to solve the murders of your friends” (Collier and Horowitz, p. 313). It was the moment when Collier realized how deluded he was about the Black Panthers and their true nature.
David Horowitz was also shocked by Betty Van Patter’s murder but remained committed to the cause until the Vietnam War ended. Then he realized that the revolutionaries he and his comrades had supported in Indochina were brutal oppressors. In Horowitz’s words, “a new empire expanded as a result of our efforts and over the peoples of Laos and Cambodia and South Vietnam fell the darkness of totalitarian night” (p. 335). These words are probably related to Maoist China, which expanded its influence once America withdrew from Vietnam. Regardless, the authors saw the consequences of their actions — a friend’s death, a victory of totalitarianism. Consequently, they felt the need to undo the mistakes of their radical past.
Conclusion
The key to understanding authors’ points is their former allegiance to the Left radicals — the most prominent political group within the Destructive Generation. It is not an exaggeration to say that the authors’ world collapsed. Firstly, Black Panthers, people who they were systematically praising, killed their friend. Secondly, the beloved Left regimes appeared to be significantly more oppressive than the heavily criticized USA. In the end, Collier and Horowitz channeled all their anger and frustration towards the Left idea that failed them. Destructive Generation can be perceived as a warning message from the repenting sinners to their descendants.
One can see certain internal and external connections between the past and the present. American society is seemingly more polarized than it used to be a few years before. The themes of equality and social justice are relevant again. Regarding the external situation, America is once again facing a strong Communist contender — China. Vladimir Putin’s regime had recently escalated conflict in Europe; however, Russia is apparently much weaker than the USSR. Under these circumstances, the American course of action must be careful yet decisive.
Overall, the events described in the Destructive Generation teach an important lesson — one should beware of radicals. Radical forces may be exploiting the values of justice, liberty, and equality. For example, both Martin Luther King and Black Panther Party belonged to the anti-racist movement. However, while Martin Luther King bravely and peacefully urged for civil reconciliation and liberty for all, Black Panthers used racism as a convenient excuse for crimes. Learning how to see the difference is crucial for any citizen — otherwise, good intentions might pave a road to hell.
Reference
Collier, P. & Horowitz, D. (2006). Destructive generation: Second thoughts about the sixties. Encounter Books.