Kent State - 1970

On the night of May 2nd, 1970 demonstrators had burned down the ROTC building on the Kent State Campus. This led to the National Guard being called in to preserve order. What happened on Monday, May 4th, 1970 did little to restore that order. Instead, it locked both sides into a struggle that would cleave our nation into 2 halves for decades.

Extremism begets extremism. History is filled with examples. We are living through some dangerous and fractious times right now. The most important thing to remember is that any position, when taken too far, will always lead to the same thing, disaster.

The Vietnam era was a volatile time in our nation's history. Families were split along political lines. Friendships were formed and broken over the issue of the Vietnam War. We became a nation divided by our politics, rather than a nation united by our political system. And we have remained so. And the people at the top want it that way. It's the only way that they can continue to run the show the way they see fit.

In memory of Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandy Scheuer and William Schroeder; 4 young people; caught up in a sea of rhetoric, going too far and coming face to face with another group, equally caught up in their own rhetoric. When each side is so right; when each side claims the high ground; where do the little people go? When both sides cling so tightly to their beliefs, that they are willing to burn; or kill; those who are in opposition, then it is time to step back and re-examine the cause and its worth.

Today, on the 43rd anniversary of this tragic event, I hope that we will all take the opportunity to look inside of ourselves and our respective political positions. And in tribute to these 4 young Americans, let's all take a step back from the edge of division and look to re-unite ourselves as a nation. I really think that is what these 4 victims would have wanted us to learn.

Washington Said It - Don't Blame Me!

My recent Kent State Post got me an e-mail from my daughter, Sarah, which likened what I said to paragraphs 20-25 of George Washington's Farewell Address in New York at the end of the Revolutionary War. This was, to say the least, high praise indeed, coming from her. But, truthfully I had no idea what Washington said in paragraphs 20-25 of his farewell Speech. So I set out to rectify that, in case it should ever come up I want my daughter to think I knew all about it, but seeing as she reads this thing, I guess I'm not fooling anyone. But here it is, don't blame me, Washington said it- although I do tend to agree with him. Google the entire speech, it's worth reading as we plunge into a campaign year that is sure to be filled with venomous rhetoric and false allegations from both sides of the aisle. You'll find me sitting quietly by...

Paragraphs 20-25 of Washington's Farewell Address in New York

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Kent State 1970 - When Everyone Went Too Far

There is a valuable lesson to be learned from this infamous photograph. It was taken, of course, at Kent State University on May 4th, 1970, a day when extremists on both sides, went too far. Democracy is a fragile vehicle. Tensions flare, rise up and sometimes die away. Sometimes there are changes left in the wake. Sometimes there are only scars.

On the night of May 2nd, 1970 demonstrators had burned down the ROTC building on the Kent State Campus. This led to the National Guard being called in to preserve order. What happened on Monday, May 4th, 1970 did little to restore that order. Instead, it locked both sides into a struggle that would cleave our nation into 2 halves for decades. That division continues to this very day.

Extremism begets extremism. History is filled with examples. We are living through some dangerous and fractious times right now. If you are for the current administration you are labeled a Communist, if you support the Tea Parties you are a Nazi. Interestingly, both sides, when taken too far, lead to the same thing, Fascism.

The Vietnam era was a volatile time in our nation's history. Families were split along political lines. Friendships were formed and broken over the issue of the Vietnam War. We became a nation divided by our politics, rather than a nation united by our political system. And we have remained so. And the people at the top want it that way. It's the only way that they can continue to run the show the way they see fit.

These are the victims of extremism. 4 young people, caught up in a sea of rhetoric, going too far and coming face to face with another group, equally caught up in their own rhetoric. When each side is so right, when each side claims the high ground, where do the little people go? When both sides cling so tightly to their beliefs, that they are willing to burn, or kill, the opposition, then it is time to step back and re-examine the cause.

In memory of Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandy Scheuer and William Schroeder I hope that we will all take the opportunity to look inside of ourselves and our respective political positions. And in tribute to these 4 young Americans, let's step back a bit from the edge of division and look to re-unite ourselves as a nation. I really think that is what these 4 victims of extremism would have wanted us to learn.