> > fwiw: michael perelman mentioned that early 20th
progressives were
> > often republicans...call them 'structural' as
opposed to 'social'
> > reformers, they had faith in ultimate rightness
and efficacy of
> > capitalist system (many of them had benefitted from
it)...they did,
> > however, have fears of working class political
power so
> they supported
> > some state intervention and
electoral changes to advance their
> > conception of desirable public
policy... michael hoover
ISTM [it seems to me] that a lot of the folks involved in the white "movement" of the 1960s started out that way, too. They idealized the Kennedys (after they'd been assassinated). Some went further left, others didn't. To some extent, it was a matter of the their class position and background.
The non-labor movement folks of that era that CC mentions as "working class" were more the rank-and-file folks in the "new social movements" (except in obvious cases such as that of organizations of lawyers), whereas the ones that Michael Hoover stresses (below) were more the elite. To some extent, their status of being in the ranks or the elite reflects their class position and background. The ranks tended to follow the leaders...until they got tired and alienated and dropped out --- or rose to the top, often embracing the elite culture.
>... civil rights and anti-war politics were formative experiences for some who today are upper-middle stratum professional and intellectuals (well, academics)... these folks were able to influence media, congress, even judiciary in late 60s and early 70s...they played important roles in environmental, consumer, occupational health and safety legislation... principal mode of operation is as interest groups...yes, they try to distinguish themselves as 'public interest' groups...they have often adopted litigation (see nader in this regard) as chief tactic... <
Jim Devine
