How many American adults can correctly identify 'Daniel Ellsberg'?

[Smarmie Doofus]

Help me research this.

I've been a little shocked ( I'm 61; I don't shock easily) at recently discovering several ( 3, to be specific; all younger... but not MUCH younger.... than me) friends ( and these are "political" people; not a random sample) who didn't know who Ellsberg was when I mentioned his name.

It occurs to me: if they don't know who Ellsberg is/was...... they don't know anything about Viet Nam. Also... they can't possibly understand Watergate. Therefore they can't possibly understand Nixon, why he was impeached., etc.

There are a lot of implications to this.... needless to say.... including peoples' reactions to and appreciation of the gravity the NSA/ Snowden phenomenon, etc.

So... what's going on here? Is my sample skewed? ( I HOPE it is.)

Did the schools start brainwashing kids when Reagan was elected? ( Did the hospitals start lobotomizing them?)

I'm following up because there's something important going on here. Google hasn't been much help. Contemporary online research is not my strongest point.

What's my next move?

Again: what percentage of the American electorate can correctly identify "Daniel Ellsberg"?

[cwydro]

1. Probably a pretty low percentage.

Probably about the same percentage who could identify John Dean or Gordon Liddy.

I'd bet Spiro Agnew would even draw a lot of blanks.

Time marches on.

[HassleCat]

4. Spiro Agnew

Yes, and there is some irony there, since he was pretty much an unknown when picked to be the veep candidate. Part of the campaign was the goal of "...making Spiro Agnew a household name..."

[cwydro]

7. Lol, I can't believe someone with that name was elected in that time period of our history.

I still like "the nattering nabobs of negativism," though I believe it was William Safire who actually wrote that.

[virtualobserver]

13. I love Spiro for a different reason

A VP and a POTUS resigning because of two completely separate scandals.

[cwydro]

17. Omg, how funny! Ya know, I had forgotten that!

I would have to google to find out what happened to Agnew.

All I remember was that my family was in Spain when we learned Nixon resigned.

My dad (rest his soul) was heartbroken.

[csziggy]

50. I remember when Nixon picked Agnew as a running mate

My sister had just become engaged to a guy from Maryland so when he was introduced to my parents they wanted to know all about what kind of governor Agnew had been. My parents were so impressed by the fiance's description they ended up voting for George Wallace.

[Smarmie Doofus]

47. But Ellsberg is first of all a heroic figure, at least to people on the "left."

Last edited Sun Nov 8, 2015, 10:41 PM - Edit history (1)

And even to non-left libertarians and pacifists.

Secondly.... unlike Dean, Liddy and Agnew... his actions reverberate today.

His name brings... or OUGHT to bring... into question continued American assumptions about how the US should interact w. the rest of the world. ( If one starts w. "VN is OK", one inevitably ends up w. "so is Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Honduras and Syria.)

And of course.... how the US govt should interact w. its citizenry. ( The governing assumption being that the citizenry is there to be deceived and manipulated. )

The other three ( Liddy, et al) are not consequential in the same way. They may have said or done provocative things...... but the effect of those things was pretty much limited to the period. ( i.e. early 70s.)

[onehandle]

2. Wasn't he a judge on American Idol?

My guess is that it's less than 3%.

[HassleCat]

3. I couldn't ID Ellsberg

If I had not lived through those events. It's a fairly convoluted story, as I remember it. The CREEP operatives broke into the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist, looking for material they could use to show Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers with some pathological motive in mind. It's this parallel to Edward Snowden that makes the Ellsberg case significant. I think it would be interesting to tell the Ellsberg story whenever Snowden is mentioned, particularly when somebody suggests he's a traitor, emotionally unstable, etc. Many younger Americans are aware of Snowden, and they deserve to know we have done this before. By the way, Nixon was not impeached, just forced to resign when he realized he would be impeached.

[Smarmie Doofus]

51. Parts of the story are NOT convoluted:

1. Individual inside gov't becomes aware of a profound evil.
2. Said individual... after much internal debate... decides to break existing written law ( i.e Espionage Act of 1917) in order to prompt a halt to a much greater evil.


>>>It's this parallel to Edward Snowden that makes the Ellsberg case significant. I think it would be interesting to tell the Ellsberg story whenever Snowden is mentioned, particularly when somebody suggests he's a traitor, emotionally unstable, etc. Many younger Americans are aware of Snowden, and they deserve to know we have done this before.>>>

This is what I'm saying.

And you are correct about the word "impeached."

[Art_from_Ark]

92. For the longest time, I only thought of Ellsberg

as someone who had a nameless psychiatrist.

[Octafish]

5. Forbidden Knowledge.

The WarParty works to make Daniel Ellsberg an unperson. His crime, telling the truth about Vietnam. He leaked thousands of pages (missing NSAM 263 and NSAM 273 and changes in policy JFK represented) and how America got lied into war in Vietnam. Sum it up in two words: Pentagon Papers.

[Smarmie Doofus]

52. Agree in full ( more or less) but what's this:

>>&gt missing NSAM 263 and NSAM 273 and changes in policy JFK represented)>>>>

[Octafish]

64. John M. Newman found a gap in Pentagon Papers...

In his landmark work, JFK and Vietnam, the then US Army major and West Point professor Newman found that the Pentagon and CIA gave LBJ, as veep, a more accurate picture of what was happening in Vietnam than they provided JFK, as president.

Why? JFK said he would not get into a land war in Southeast Asia and he certainly was not going to place US draftees in the middle of Vietnam's civil war; Johnson would and did after the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Vietnam Withdrawal Plans

The 1990s saw the gaps in the declassified record on Vietnam filled in—with spring 1963 plans for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces. An initial 1000 man pullout (of the approximately 17,000 stationed in Vietnam at that time) was initiated in October 1963, though it was diluted and rendered meaningless in the aftermath of Kennedy's death. The longer-range plans called for complete withdrawal of U. S. forces and a "Vietnamization" of the war, scheduled to happen largely after the 1964 elections.

The debate over whether withdrawal plans were underway in 1963 is now settled. What remains contentious is the "what if" scenario. What would Kennedy have done if he lived, given the worsening situation in Vietnam after the coup which resulted in the assassination of Vietnamese President Diem?

At the core of the debate is this question: Did President Kennedy really believe the rosy picture of the war effort being conveyed by his military advisors. Or was he onto the game, and instead couching his withdrawal plans in the language of optimism being fed to the White House?

The landmark book JFK and Vietnam asserted the latter, that Kennedy knew he was being deceived and played a deception game of his own, using the military's own rosy analysis as a justification for withdrawal. Newman's analysis, with its dark implications regarding JFK's murder, has been attacked from both mainstream sources and even those on the left. No less than Noam Chomsky devoted an entire book to disputing the thesis.

But declassifications since Newman's 1992 book have only served to buttress the thesis that the Vietnam withdrawal, kept under wraps to avoid a pre-election attack from the right, was Kennedy's plan regardless of the war's success. New releases have also brought into focus the chilling visions of the militarists of that era—four Presidents were advised to use nuclear weapons in Indochina. A recent book by David Kaiser, American Tragedy, shows a military hell bent on war in Asia.

CONTINUED with very important IMFO links:

http://www.history-matters.com/vietnam1963.htm

Recently, The Nation magazine wanted to know "Why don't Americans know what really happened in Vietnam?" Interesting read, it brings up how much USA uses the volunteer military and observes the corporate owned news media don't want to bring that up so that people continue to thank the troops for their service without wondering why they're tasked with missions in 133 countries around the world. What the article missed and people need to know:

JFK ordered withdrawal from Vietnam. LBJ reversed it four days after Dallas.

In National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) 263 JFK orders everybody out...

The 1,000 advisors were the beginning. All US military personnel were to be out of the country by the end of 1965, reported James K. Galbraith.

Then in NSAM 273, four days after the assassination in Dallas, LBJ changes the policy to stay and support South Vietnam in its "contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy."

That important part of the Vietnam story doesn't get repeated much, except on DU and a few gargling places on the Net.

[valerief]

6. I can, but I'm old, too. nt

[Nay]

35. I also can, but I'm also old. nt

[tishaLA]

8. too low

Here's a great account of the effort to raise money for his legal defense fund: http://barbra-archives.com/live/70s/ellsberg_aclu_streisand.html

I have most of the songs Streisand sang that night--a good progressive helping out another good progressive who helped the nation.

[Hepburn]

9. This issue scares me more:

What percentage of the public can name the three branches of the Federal Government and the function of each?

Try discussing that sometime in a group and watch the eyes that will not meet yours. Very scary. What I have seen is that there are few that can pass a High School final civics exam.

[cwydro]

14. So very true.

Sadly.

[hlthe2b]

23. I can top that--how many members of CONGRESS can accurately cite the constitutional

separation/functions of each branch of government?

Considering one party actually lauds those who wear their ignorance on their sleeve, it can not be surprising.

[X_Digger]

25. Heck, we see it on DU. Chiding the president for not doing something via Executive Order..

.. that would be outside the executive branch's power in any case.

[Hepburn]

10. Absolutely know who he is.

[99th_Monkey]

11. RWers have been airbrushing textbooks in Texas for decades.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/

esp. history. Labor history? nah.
History of the Black Panther's armed insurrection? probably not so much.

Even the New Deal apparently has been erased, so no one gets any more "Socialistic ideas" about
leveling the US's economic playing field, ever again.

Just another one of those things, that Democrats and influential leftists have ignored for
way too long, and it's pathetic really.

I have no idea why the textbook industry got so easily co-opted by neo-cons & RWers, when Leftists
are supposedly the book-lovers. go figure.

[Fumesucker]

19. Conservatives in America are a lot more organized than liberals

I'm a liberal and an atheist and I have zero idea where I could go in my community to meet people like myself but I know dozens if not hundreds of places I could go and mingle with conservatives, the churches.

Will Rogers had it right when he said " I'm not a member of an organized political party, I'm a Democrat."

[99th_Monkey]

21. True dat. I wish that Will Rogers quote was not do damn true.

I've heard Micahel Moore make a similar point, can't remember the exact quote though..
something about Cons knowing where their keys are, at a moments notice when it counts,
while Lefties are left in the dust .. or some such.

It kind of makes sense, because authoritarians love order, discipline and such; while Lefties
lean the other way.

[PufPuf23]

20. The answer is that "so easily co-opted by neo-cons, RWers, and

neo-liberals, when Leftists and Liberals are supposedly the book-lovers."

[BlueJazz]

12. I can but most of the populace (by now) would not have the faintest idea who she was.

[TexasProgresive]

15. I remember who he is

But one "fact" in your post is different from what I remember, "Therefore they can't possibly understand Nixon, why he was impeached." How I remember it is that Nixon resigned when it appeared a near certainty that he would be impeached with support from some republican reps. So he was never impeached and never tried by the Senate.

[Smarmie Doofus]

53. You are correct. I misspoke.

But... he WOULD have been impeached.

[mountain grammy]

16. The other night at trivia we were asked what the T stood for in Spiro T Agnew

Huh? Who's that, I heard all over the bar. I knew the answer: Theodore.

Daniel Ellsberg was an American hero who went to prison instead of Russia.

[PADemD]

38. Ellsberg did not go to prison. All charges were dismissed.

Due to the gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering, and the defense by Leonard Boudin and Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, Judge Byrne dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973 after the government claimed it had lost records of wiretapping against Ellsberg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

[mountain grammy]

46. oops, glad he didn't ask that one at trivia..

I'm thinking of John Dean..

[Smarmie Doofus]

54. Good catch. n/t

[Marrah_G]

18. I am 45 and I have no idea who he is

[PufPuf23]

22. Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers and

spread the truth about the Vietnam War to the masses.

[Marrah_G]

29. thanks

[WinkyDink]

40. Now see, I would have Googled before admitting that. But that's me.

[Smarmie Doofus]

56. I'm glad... in fact I appreciate the fact that Marrah did NOT google it.

It's not just "average" folks that don't know who he is.

Many politically sophisticated people are as well.

That's what makes the situation so strange to me.

[ebayfool]

24. I can, but I'm of an age to have felt his influence w/Pentagon Papers.

Also had the pleasure to have met him (and Wolfman Jack ... what a combo. eh?) at a Joan Baez concert. Yep. Dating myself aren't I?

[LiberalArkie]

61. How about the Chicago 7?

[LiberalArkie]

62. How about the Chicago 7?

[yeoman6987]

26. Looks like we all need to brush up on history

Nixon was never impeached he resigned. Only two presidents in the history of the United states were impeached and Nixon was not one of them

[WinkyDink]

41. Ahem. Not "all."

[yeoman6987]

49. Ok. You are right. Very true not all.

[Smarmie Doofus]

57. OK. Point.

But not a *major* point. He resigned to avoid certain impeachment..... and the strong likelihood of conviction.

[Blue_In_AK]

27. I can.

[wendylaroux]

28. My Dad was a politics/news fanatic,

plus back in the day,60's 70's,there was REAL news.

So I remember who he is.

[Brother Buzz]

30. Ellsberg was on my radar when my drug addled buddy burgled his Mill Valley home in 1972...

and the idiot didn't even know he had the working copy of the Pentagon papers in his purloined booty.

Interesting dance Ellsberg went through to get the 'twice' stolen papers back from the Marin county DA and Sheriff.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=19741208&id=5AYvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RzMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3359,1228343&hl=en

[tularetom]

31. I couldn't pick him out of a lineup if that's what you mean

But I sure remember who he was and how he affected the events of the day.

My kids, who were 10 and 7 at the time of Nixons resignation, probably have no clue as to his identity (they are currently 51 and 49). And Id have to say they are probably fairly typical of their generation.

Beyond that group, I doubt that even 10% of the population would recognize the name.

[Smarmie Doofus]

71. I'm a "political history nerd" also.

The McCarthy period ( the blacklist, HUAC, Roy Cohn, the Rosenbergs) has always fascinated me.... despite the fact that ( maybe BECAUSE OF the fact that..... these events took place *just* before I came on the scene. (McCarthy was censured in '54, I believe; the year I was born.) It's an area of EXTREME interest to me.

I don't know that there's much in your analysis though, that's relevant to my central point. My point is this: Watergate ( i.e. gov't malfeasance and its surveillance war against its own citizenry) whistleblowing ( personified by Ellsberg here; but reprised by the actions of Snowden and many ..... less celebrated.... others in this era), Viet Nam ( the US govt's determination to dominate --- and impose it's will on smaller, presumably "weaker" countries, because its elite sees a potential geopolitical and/or economic advantage in doing so.

A painful, continuous theme. What else is American foreign policy, except for that?

All of these things COME TOGETHER in the Ellsberg saga. He personifies and unifies these otherwise un-connectable phenomena. Graphically and dramatically. In a way people could relate to.

IF they knew who he was. He's not Patty Hearst, fer' gosh sakes.

[cemaphonic]

93. Yeah, I agree with your take

I'm 41, which means than people that were born when I became an adult are adults themselves, and the Pentagon Papers still happened before I was born. I know about the PP because I've always been interested in history (and thanks to boomers twin obsession with mass media and themselves, there's a lot available on the late 60s-early 70s), but I only recognize Ellsberg's name in connection to it, because he gets referenced frequently here.

Ellsberg and the PP are, like you say, a footnote to Vietnam. He would fit very well in a college level class about Vietnam-era American politics, or 1st amendment legal history. But he's not big enough to merit focus in a typical High School American History survey class, which is about as far as most people are interested in learning history.

[Hydra]

33. I only know a little about him because I hang out here

My school years were good for the formative stuff, but almost a pure whitewash on what really goes on in the world. I learned far more during the Bush Admin through their abuses and the roots they sprung from than in all my years in school.

The establishment counts on people not remembering and information not being readily available. The only narrative that can be allowed is theirs.

[Smarmie Doofus]

65. The left in general should make more of an issue of....

...political content in school, esp hs, history/ss texts.

Every once in a while there's a kerfulffle over some textbook lie about slavery or the massacres of Native Americans but it rarely goes beyond that to modern era gov't policy relative to foreign and domestic outrages.

[madinmaryland]

34. A lot of it has to do with the fact that most kids do not get much education in recent/current

events. An inordinate amount of time is spent on the colonization of the western hemisphere, the Revolutionary War, up to the first world war. Any recent history is breezed over in the last 2-3 weeks of the year when kids are clearly not paying attention.

[madinmaryland]

42. I personally think that all kids should be required to take a recent history course that

encompasses from the end of the second world war to the present. Take for example the iran hostage crisis, which was in effect caused by the overthrow of the democratically elected government and replaced with the Shah. We could go on and on about this, but they need to understand recent history in addition to the older history. But, alas, that will never happen in this country.

[Smarmie Doofus]

82. Iraq IS Viet Nam.

Complete with the repeated (failed) attempts to "Vietnamize" the conflict. ( Create a puppet army to support the puppet gov't.)

"Vietnamization". A maddening, sickening refrain of the Nixon era. Repeated ad nauseum by the ... even then.... all too cooperative mass media.

They have to erase Ellsberg and all related concepts from the collective public mind to make these innumerable foreign wars possible.


And they DO. And it WORKS! Over and over!

[hifiguy]

36. A name I know very well indeed.

[WinkyDink]

39. Everyone on Medicare. ;-) (AKA, Baby Boomers)

[davekriss]

58. I have it and vaguely recall how it sounds, does that count?

I still haven't been able to make out all the words to Radio Free Europe...

[WinkyDink]

67. Bwah! Are you talkin' 'bout my g-g-g-generation?!

[forsaken mortal]

45. I didn't know who he was until reading this thread.

Such is the nature of politics, the old names quickly wither away while new ones take their places. And if his role in history was/is taught in history class, I doubt most students would even remember the name after awhile even if they had read about him unless it's a subject they're passionate about. I doubt much time would be spent on him to reinforce the knowledge.

[davekriss]

60. Which is why sites like DU are important

And that's why the PTB will continue to do everything they can to erode net neutrality. My understanding is the TPP will issue a major blow (but in terms of intellectual property, not network speeds).

[Recursion]

48. I think you're really overestimating the country's attention span

I would be surprised if it was 20%; I doubt it was much over 50% during Watergate.

That said, I also doubt anyone has ever polled this.

[davekriss]

55. The manufactured ignorance in America is legion

I would guess that 4 out of 5 of my colleagues at work, all educated professionals, would struggle to state who Daniel Ellsberg was and why he was so important. (I think I'm going to take an informal poll - now, how to work it into conversation among so many fact-free Republicans, not sure yet...)

[MinM]

63. Mort Sahl

FWIW Mort Sahl maintains that Daniel Ellsberg was not acting in an all together altruistic manner when he exposed the Pentagon Papers. Although it should be noted that similar charges have been levied against Edward Snowden. Not sure if there is any proof in either case.

[panader0]

66. Hell, I even remember Daniel Berrigan....

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

69. I didn't know who he was, but I was aware of the Pentagon Papers

I know Woodward and Bernstein a lot better.

[H2O Man]

70. I hear you.

I find it troubling that so many intelligent people are grossly ignorant in the context of political events that have taken place in fairly recent times.

[H2O Man]

75. Very interesting.

I think that I saw the poll that you are talking about. The list of options struck me as curious. Since I've never conducted a DU poll, I'm not familiar with what limitations there may be. But, in general, I would agree that there are numerous posts that reflect self-inflicted limitations.

I'd also agree that "age" is an area where differences can create stumbling blocks, that hinder communications. Similar factors, including but not limited to, seem to include sex, race, economics, education, life experience, and sexual identity. Yet, in every one of these, there doesn't need to be the nonsense.

If we consider age, for example, a healthy, high-functioning community, there will always be a span of ages among its members. They coordinate their efforts. I'm mighty old now, but even though my children are convinced otherwise, I used to be young. Now, I'm not particularly bright or talented, but I have learned a few things in life. I had good teachers. Some of their lessons aren't the type that come out of a text book.

Thus, it is my responsibility to pass that knowledge on to younger folks. It's not as if I own it. More, even if I somehow did, it would be improper to try to sell it. It's intended to be shared. Now, I'm about as far from "dynamic" as any person has been in human history. But, no matter if I attempt to communicate it in things that I right, or standing in front of a classroom, or addressing a rally, or going on a lone adventure like a hunger strike, I have been able to hand certain information on to the next generation. It's their turn. As an old man, I'll continue to try to contribute.

Similar approaches can be taken in literally every one of the situations that damage communications within this community.

[H2O Man]

78. A local grocery store's

policy is to card literally everyone who has beer among their supplies. I try to make jokes about looking so young. The younger ones are polite enough to laugh.

I'm encouraged by the young folks that I know. It's a limited pool, I suppose, with most being friends of my kids. And I have pretty high standards. I think that they have the potential to bring about a much higher level of social justice than there currently is. And soon enough, it'll be their turn to coordinate with the next generation.

[TransitJohn]

95. You said it

I'm 44 and feel like I'm 16 when I'm on the DU, sometimes.

[Bottoms_Up]

74. Never heard of Ellsburg until I read your post.

I am younger though - so I would fit your hypothesis.
I read up on the guy. It's like the long lost prequel to Wikileaks and Snowdengate.
Crazy.

Thanks for the neat rabbit hole to explore!

[upaloopa]

77. My brother was a Captain in the Army at Fort Ord

He worked with Donald Segretti who offered him a job with CREEP.
My brother turned him down but was a rabid Nixon supporter.

[merrily]

79. I bet many Americans in the 1970s didn't know who Ellsberg was, let alone today.

Jay Leno proved to us many times that people walking the streets of Manhattan don't know who the current Vice President is. Why would they know Daniel Ellsberg.

We political message board posters are a small minority in terms of awareness of such things.

[Smarmie Doofus]

83. I'm not really talking about apolitical people.

I realize most people don't give politics much thought until a day or two before the general election.... if then.

But I'm encountering this sort of word-blindness even among people who are politically active. At least in local and job related (i.e. union) politics.

Let's put it this way: "whistle-blower" is a term they are intimately familiar with.

Yet they've never heard of Ellsberg.

I don't get it.

[merrily]

84. Have they heard of Snowden and Drake?

[Smarmie Doofus]

85. I'm sure none of the three would know Drake.

One of the three has mentioned Snowden.

[merrily]

86. I'm going back to I don't find it odd they don't know Ellsberg

[Smarmie Doofus]

87. He's a *pivotal* figure in modern US history.

Even Snowden's bold and brave action didn't bring down a president.

Or (arguably) end a war.

Snowden's actions..... like Ellsberg's..... did expose a heretofore dark and well-hidden dimension of US governance but he at least had some models (principally Ellsberg) to light the way... at least a little. Ellsberg was pretty much hacking his way thru a jungle.

Are you saying they don't know Ellsberg because they've never been TOLD about Ellsberg?

Well... I'm saying that too. Whether its odd or not.... is a matter of perspective, I suppose.

To ME, it's odd. And disturbing. More disturbing than odd, as I think about it.

But odd as well.

[merrily]

89. I don't think Ellsberg brought down a President. Nixon's insanity and personality and dishonesty

brought him down. I don't think he ended a war, either. He did exposed the extent to which the US government will lie to its citizens. And I don't think Ellsberg's revelations were all that "modern." It was 44 years ago, before the birth of the oldest millennial.

But, if two of the three never heard of Snowden, I don't find it strange that they don't know who Ellsberg is. What can I say?

[merrily]

91. Meanwhile, look what you made me learn today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellsberg_paradox

Thanks!

[Octafish]

81. Kissinger on Ellsberg

“Because that son-of-a-bitch—First of all, I would expect—I know him well—I am sure he has some more information---I would bet that he has more information that he’s saving for the trial. Examples of American war crimes that triggered him into it…It’s the way he’d operate…. Because he is a despicable bastard.” (Oval Office tape, July 27, 1971)

SOURCE: http://www.alternet.org/world/top-10-most-inhuman-henry-kissinger-quotes

[H2O Man]

88. !!!!!!!!!!!!

[TransitJohn]

94. That's mid-20th Century history

Or at least close enough to it to make no difference. The Pentagon Papers are a lot closer to WWII than now, temporally.