In reading this book and re-reading the Port Huron Statement, I am struck by the continuation of a tension between the “micro” of participatory democracy and the “macro” of the big policy battles of then and today. It is a tension that has long divided the left and, indeed, it is a tension that has long been within each of us.

The micro concerns for democratic life at all levels, from the workplace and community life to the national and even international level, expressed in The Port Huron Statement and SDS were important influences in political life of the 1960s and remain so today. They articulated criticism of “bosses,” be they of the party, the union, the workplace, or the state. This “bottom up” perspective can be found in discussion of workers control, union rights, safety conditions in the workplace, decentralization of government, and citizen activism in civil society. The macro context had to do with the un-finished New Deal, fulfilling the dreams of a fully developed welfare state: health care, full employment, educational opportunity, and ending apartheid. The concern with macro issues raised questions in the United States about the weakness of the progressive movement at the national level to achieve the goals its European counterparts had achieved by the 1950s.

These debates were very real to me at the time the Port Huron statement emerged. At Oberlin College (1959–1963), I met SDS leader Rennie Davis among other political activists, and felt a lively political culture there. In the summer of 1963, with an internship in Washington, I attended the civil rights march at the Lincoln Memorial and was deeply moved by King’s speech. My cousin Helen Garvy was active in SDS and I heard about it from her and other activists. Being a graduate student at Harvard meant being surrounded by protest, discussion, ideas and action, and lots of interesting people:

Barney Frank, a fellow graduate student, impressed all of us, whatever his views, and Jane Mansbridge, contributor to this volume, graded papers (with me) for Stanley Hoffmann’s course on France. Protest against the war in Vietnam elicited action and debate: objecting to the visit of Robert McNamara, demonstrating in downtown Boston U.S. government offices, and the occupation of Harvard’s University Hall. There were long debates, over what to do about the war, about race, about class, as the various groups that comprised the left argued vividly. When the famous protests of 1968 occurred in France, I went with some colleagues to do research on what was going on there.

In retrospect, I would say it was the issue and the politics of the time that engaged me, the kinds of things SDS was doing, some of the people I knew and tracked, more than the words of the Port Huron statement itself. I don’t recall people discussing it, and its argumentation. I do recall discussions about SDS activities and political protest. My personal political thoughts were about what to do: what organizational activity, what demonstrations, which not. My intellectual thoughts were about comparative market economies and the domestic political economy of international trade disputes, what today would be called the “varieties of capitalism.”^{Footnote 1}

Some chapters in the volume by Richard Flacks and Nelson Lichtenstein explore the micro participatory side, such as Jane Mansbridge on collectives, James Miller on grass roots efforts of “Occupy Wall Street,” and Michael Vester comparing the U.S. efforts to experiences in Germany. One other chapter makes a comparison—Lisa McGirr on an intellectual position of the international New Left,. But macro policy comparisons are not explored very much here. The comparison of the United States to Europe and the shifting fortunes of the left in different countries, involve political parties, trade unions, business associations, social pacts, strikes, and policy bargains among major groups: the factors that produce the big policy outcomes such as the New Deal and the factors that limit it (e.g.: Taft Hartley labor legislation, the deregulation movement, globalization, or the financialization of the economy). The failure of Medical reform in the 1990s, and now Obama Care in the current era are both interesting frames for considering the strengths and weaknesses of the progressive moment.^{Footnote 2} Understanding the American left can be helped by situating it in an international context. The political answers to national differences lay, we thought, in the character of the “historical compromise” that emerged in Europe, whereby some elements of European business were willing to accept bargains that traded social programs, workers job security, high unemployment benefits, retirement, and medical insurance in exchange for limiting the right to strike and ceding to management prerogatives on running the firm. The American bargains were more limited.

In re-reading the Port Huron statement in the present political climate, I am struck by its American centeredness. This made sense for SDS, of course, as they were seeking to mobilize in the United States. It is interesting how many people in the United States seem unable to locate Bernie Sanders’ references to Socialism or Denmark, and that the content of Michael Moore’s recent movie ”Where to Invade Next” is surprising to many. The Port Huron statement confronts racism toward African Americans quite forcefully—indeed that was such a core issue for progressives then and today. It says nothing about women, Latinos, or Asians, or about gays, gender, or identity politics generally. A fascinating passage evokes the “macro” variables in calling for a party realignment, to move the conservatives out of the Democratic party, so that the racist conservatives would not control the Congressional Committees. I recall yearning for that. When I first was able to vote in 1964, I felt the pain of voting for a Democratic Congressperson knowing that in so doing I enabled a racist white Southerner to control an important committee. That realignment has occurred, with catastrophic results that we did not foresee: It has contributed to the GOP lock on the House and the shift of U.S. politics to the right. Many progressive bargains in the past involved an unholy compromise with the forces of darkness, the Southern racists, as Ira Katznelson explains in Fear Itself.^{Footnote 3}

Forty years ago while traveling to Europe, many people complained correctly about our racism and the treatment of African Americans in the United States. This has faded today and some progress has been made. Migration into Europe has provoked a backlash and made European politics resemble the United States. Globalization, trade, ethnic tension, and dislike of outsiders have all led to an intense fragmentation of the left and center that opens the way to disturbing politics. These changes in current life trace back to the experiences of the left in the years that led to Port Huron statement. The people who produced it felt a tension between the ideal and the practical. Do we fight for what seems plausible in a constrained political context or do we fight for an ideal whatever the practical consequences? And what organization foundation seems most effective or doable? SDS mobilized well, drawing on the reaction to the draft and the Vietnam War. Electoral politics provoked skepticism back then as a vehicle for change. In 2016, there is a high level of interest in electoral politics, but also in lessons drawn from earlier years on the importance of building social movements and organizational foundations, as vehicles of doing good and of putting pressure on the political system.