The Antidraft Movement

When I was a Trotskyite, the theory and practice of “the united front” used to be a favorite topic for comradely discussion. We made much of a distinction between “principled” and “unprincipled” fronts. It was a principled front when one political tendency joined with another tendency (or other tendencies) to its Right. against tendencies still further to the Right, or with a tendency to its Left against those _ still further to the Left. The front was unprincipled when two tendencies joined against a tendency located between them from the point of view of the Left-Right spectrum that defines dynamic relations in the field of politics. Put summarily: within any given political context, a Left-Center front against the Right, or a Right-Center front against the Left is principled; a Left-Right front against the Center is unprincipled. It was the Trotskyite teaching that at least one party to an unprincipled united front would be politically injured by it. The desired objective would not be effectively served; the rank and file would be disoriented; both leaders and doctrine would be compromised. This analysis then seemed to me valid, and still does. Applying it, we may say that there is now taking form in this country an unprincipled united front against the draft. Part of the Right (mostly those referred to in a NATIONAL REVIEW editorial last issue as “libertarian conservatives’—a term that has always seemed to me self-contradictory) is joining up with parts of the Left, including some very far Left indeed, against the Center in an anti-draft movement. As one externalization of this front, Prof. Milton Friedman, Goldwater economics adviser in 1964, and Sanford Gottlieb, pacifist political director of SANE, jointly announced on May 21 formation of the Council for a Volunteer Military. Sponsors include Karl Hess, Goldwater speechwriter; James Farmer, former director of CORE; James Powell, editor of the right-wing libertarian New Individualist Review; and Norman Thomas, everybody’s socialist. Young Americans for Freedom are going along with the movement, and YAF’s New Guard features anti-draft statements by Barry Goldwater, Russell Kirk and Wm. F. Buckley Jr. On the movement’s left flank we find, with SANE, the pacifist organizations, Left-liberal Republicans and Demoecrats, and Students for a Democratic Society—indeed, much of the New Left plus, of course, Cassius Clay, Martin Luther King Jr. and the flag-and drafteard-burners.

Varied as is its political plumage, the antidraft movement does not extend across the board. The square majority that constitutes the national Center is not included. To clasp hands, Left and Right have had to stretch their arms over and across the national Center. In an unprincipled front of this sort, it is likely that one side is getting conned? Which in this case? The facts give an unambiguous answer. “The libertarian conservatives would abolish the draft,” declared the NATIONAL REVIEW editorial, “in order to enhance the area of liberty. The Left wants to abolish the draft in order to cripple the warmaking potential of the United States.” In other words: The Right has joined the anti-draft movement for doctrinaire, ideological reasons—reasons “of principle” divorced from time and place. The Left has joined for pragmatic, strategic reasons, with its eye on, precisely, the specific circumstances of time and place. It is therefore the Left component that defines the political—the historieal, existential—nature of the antidraft movement. Politically, existentially, the Right component is only an adornment, that is to say, a cover, for the Left. No adherent of the Council for a Volunteer Military, in truth no active antidrafter, can convincingly criticize Cassius Clay or the drafteard burners. In political essence they are simply himself with guts, giving their living witness to — his principles.

JB

About the Author

James Burnham

Featured Tags

William F. Buckley Jr.

Martin Luther King Jr

Communism

When I was a Trotskyite, the theory and practice of “the united front” used to be a favorite topic for comradely discussion. We made much of a distinction between “principled” and “unprincipled” fronts. It was a principled front when one political tendency joined with another tendency (or other tendencies) to its Right. against tendencies still further to the Right, or with a tendency to its Left against those _ still further to the Left. The front was unprincipled when two tendencies joined against a tendency located between them from the point of view of the Left-Right spectrum that defines dynamic relations in the field of politics. Put summarily: within any given political context, a Left-Center front against the Right, or a Right-Center front against the Left is principled; a Left-Right front against the Center is unprincipled. It was the Trotskyite teaching that at least one party to an unprincipled united front would be politically injured by it. The desired objective would not be effectively served; the rank and file would be disoriented; both leaders and doctrine would be compromised. This analysis then seemed to me valid, and still does. Applying it, we may say that there is now taking form in this country an unprincipled united front against the draft. Part of the Right (mostly those referred to in a NATIONAL REVIEW editorial last issue as “libertarian conservatives’—a term that has always seemed to me self-contradictory) is joining up with parts of the Left, including some very far Left indeed, against the Center in an anti-draft movement. As one externalization of this front, Prof. Milton Friedman, Goldwater economics adviser in 1964, and Sanford Gottlieb, pacifist political director of SANE, jointly announced on May 21 formation of the Council for a Volunteer Military. Sponsors include Karl Hess, Goldwater speechwriter; James Farmer, former director of CORE; James Powell, editor of the right-wing libertarian New Individualist Review; and Norman Thomas, everybody’s socialist. Young Americans for Freedom are going along with the movement, and YAF’s New Guard features anti-draft statements by Barry Goldwater, Russell Kirk and Wm. F. Buckley Jr. On the movement’s left flank we find, with SANE, the pacifist organizations, Left-liberal Republicans and Demoecrats, and Students for a Democratic Society—indeed, much of the New Left plus, of course, Cassius Clay, Martin Luther King Jr. and the flag-and drafteard-burners.

Varied as is its political plumage, the antidraft movement does not extend across the board. The square majority that constitutes the national Center is not included. To clasp hands, Left and Right have had to stretch their arms over and across the national Center. In an unprincipled front of this sort, it is likely that one side is getting conned? Which in this case? The facts give an unambiguous answer. “The libertarian conservatives would abolish the draft,” declared the NATIONAL REVIEW editorial, “in order to enhance the area of liberty. The Left wants to abolish the draft in order to cripple the warmaking potential of the United States.” In other words: The Right has joined the anti-draft movement for doctrinaire, ideological reasons—reasons “of principle” divorced from time and place. The Left has joined for pragmatic, strategic reasons, with its eye on, precisely, the specific circumstances of time and place. It is therefore the Left component that defines the political—the historieal, existential—nature of the antidraft movement. Politically, existentially, the Right component is only an adornment, that is to say, a cover, for the Left. No adherent of the Council for a Volunteer Military, in truth no active antidrafter, can convincingly criticize Cassius Clay or the drafteard burners. In political essence they are simply himself with guts, giving their living witness to — his principles.