"Without Max Yasgur, there would have been no Woodstock."
If one were to mention Woodstock to most conservative Republicans they might react in the way Senator John McCain did during his bid for the White House. In October 2007, during one of the umpteen GOP debates, he criticized then Senator and then Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton for getting an earmark of $1 million for the Bethel Woods Center for the Arts – a museum built on the site of the Woodstock Music & Art Fair. Senator McCain described Woodstock as "a cultural and pharmaceutical event." He lamented not being there as he was "tied up at the time." The line earned him a prolonged standing ovation and began to revive what had been a dormant campaign.
But did McCain know that the man who owned the field where Woodstock took place supported the Vietnam War? How much do conservative Republicans know about Max Yasgur, the man who leased his land for those three days in August 1969? His son Sam Yasgur, during a speech at the New York State Court of Appeals last October in Albany, set the scene:
In August of 1969, my 49-year-old conservative, Republican, pro-war businessman father invited tens of thousands of his hippie friends to our farm in the tiny hamlet of Bethel, ninety miles distant from the village of Woodstock.
Naturally, curiosity got the better of me. I wanted to know more about Max Yasgur's Republican leanings and conservative inclinations. I wanted to know what drew him to conservatism and to the Republican Party. I wanted to know why he supported the War in Vietnam. I also wanted to know what he thought about Republicans like Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Unfortunately, Max Yasgur had a long history of heart ailments and would die in 1973 at the age of 53. So the next best thing would be to talk with his son. Not only would there be an opportunity to ask about his father's politics there would be an opportunity to inquire about politics in the Yasgur household. Was there lively debate at the dinner table or in the living room?
Alas the younger Yasgur declined my request for an interview for this piece. Yasgur, who currently serves as the Sullivan County Attorney in upstate New York, told me he was working on a book about his father although he gave no indication when it might be published. Whenever it is released it is my hope that he will shed more light on those questions. However, it is worth noting the only further elaboration Yasgur provided during his Albany speech was one that left the unmistakable impression he thinks very little of present day conservatives:
In describing my father, I emphasized the word conservative because it had a much different meaning to him than it does to so many people now. To him, being a conservative meant defending the rights of others to be heard even if they expounded ideas with which he did not agree. He believed that if he wanted to be heard he had to be willing to listen. A very rare notion today.
There is a kernel of truth in Yasgur's argument. One can make the case there isn't enough listening to differing points of views in today's political discourse. Yet one can also make the case that liberals are just as guilty of this behavior as conservatives if not more so. Would Yasgur agree with Nancy Pelosi that those who disagree with President Obama's health care plans are "Astroturf" and "un-American"? I would be interested in listening to his answer.
In the absence of Sam Yasgur, further illumination would be provided by Michael Lang, who was one of the main organizers of Woodstock. Lang recently co-authored a book with Holly George-Warren titled The Road to Woodstock recounting his experiences with the festival. If anyone outside of the Yasgur family could tell me about Max Yasgur it would be him. After all, Woodstock was originally supposed to take place in the town of Wallkill, New York. But barely a month before the festival was to kick off the town abruptly withdrew its support. All things considered how could one have three days of peace and music in a town called Wallkill?
Yet Lang and his partners needed to find a new site and fast. They came upon the land by chance while driving around Bethel after another potential concert site fell through. A short time later they found out the land was owned by Yasgur and a meeting was quickly arranged with him at his home. Lang writes, "Without Max Yasgur, there would have been no Woodstock."
During an appearance in the Boston area to promote the book last month, I had an opportunity to ask Lang about his personal insights regarding Yasgur. Lang described Yasgur as an "unusual guy" who had "his own ideas about the war." Yet he praised Yasgur as a "genuine human being" who believed "everybody deserved a chance to prove themselves." Indeed, by the third day of Woodstock, not only had the organizers proven themselves to Yasgur but so had the half-million people who had gathered on his farm:
I think you people have proven something to the world. Not to the Town of Bethel or Sullivan County or New York State, you've proven something to the world. This is the largest group of people assembled in one place.
The important thing that you've proven to the world is that a half a million kids and I call you kids because I have children that are older than you are. A half a million young people can get together and have three days of fun and music and nothing but fun and music and I God bless you for it.
I hope my fellow conservative Republicans will gave Max Yasgur's words and deeds some thought as the 40th anniversary of Woodstock is celebrated this weekend.
Aaron,
Forty years ago, I was just out of high school and faced with the probability I’d soon be drafted. I hadn’t made up my mind about the war or how I felt about buddies who’d proposed sitting it out in Canada. The year after Woodstock, my brother was drafted into the Army and, soon after (Spring 1971), I enlisted on learning my brother was headed for Vietnam. I grew up in a liberal family and surrounded by liberals, so I was as thoroughly versed in liberal group-think as possible. Yet, this was no slam-dunk for me, as liberals in those days weren’t quite so strongly anti-war as they’d become in a couple more years, and many of us looked for ways to serve our country that meshed with our media-stoked fears. Even my dad was deeply conflicted by the war and what to make of it; and wouldn’t condemn those resisting the draft (which didn’t exactly help me decide) any more than he would condemn our military (which he strongly defended against criticisms). Despite my relative ignorance and innocence, I did get it that anti-war militants were deliberately poisoning public perception against the military to spike the war effort. That was the beginning of my disenchantment with the left. It would take me a few more years to figure it all out and make a complete break, but by the time I’d rotated out of the Navy I was fairly immunized to leftist rants.
I have been accused of many things as a conservative, but no one can say I have ever shouted-down, ganged-up on, or refused to hear the arguments of ideological adversaries. Many have been the times I have been the one ganged-up on and shouted-down, and, always, I have taken it on the chin and without returning the favor. If anything, I encourage a lively exchange of views so much so my family winces I am at it again!
I can’t speak for most conservatives, but my impression is that liberalism is far more the magnet for the ‘politically-intolerant’. This is because it is an ideology that encourages causes and novelty; whereas the conservative generally prefers things as they are (or were until recently). This was almost as true in 1969 as today. Demographically, this means the average liberal is significantly younger, more driven, and impassioned than his counterpart; and far less willing to hear arguments apt to demolish his cherished convictions (or, saying this another way, hasn’t yet learned real tolerance). A great many conservatives are, like me, ‘reformed liberals’; making us a little more tolerant of dissenting views and willing to hear them out before thrashing. There are virtually no ‘reformed conservatives’, so this too adds to the quantitative and qualitative differences between the species. Conservatives do exhibit some view-intolerance, to be sure, but in far fewer numbers or extremes; and it is my belief this is mainly a difference of age and temperament. The conservative may shout to be heard at meetings and campus events and is as capable of getting a bit rowdy; but it has only been liberals who organize beforehand to dominate or disrupt (i.e., when it is a conservative event). On average, my experience has been liberals are so view-intolerant they often need muzzling just so someone else can have one. Maybe it’s because, where I live, conservatives are so few we have to genuflect or get pulverized, but somehow I doubt that. Little wonder, then, I sometimes mock liberals who sport ‘Choose Civility’ bumper-stickers. Hey, Mr. Holier-than-thou-liberal, we’re all for it!
I don’t know which group is more intolerant of opposing views, but I know one thing: no one’s been listening to me lately, because if they were, then by the time I’m finished, they would be convinced.
Just for a moment, imagine what the last 40 years might have been like had Woodstock never happened. How many of my generation, veering first one way then the other (on the war, on politics, on the societal paradigm, on drugs, on marriage and sex) may have held to the straight-&-narrow rather than swept up in the anything-goes mentality Woodstock released? Who would you be now? What might your personal world look like? What things might you have done differently, and would that really change the way you now think on issues before us?
This is not as simple a question as it seems, nor as obvious. As amateur historians and political-analysts, we know it is the kind that has to be asked of seminal and emblematic events (as Woodstock was). Quite possibly, the world would be greatly different; though my own feeling is its impact was something of a shockwave that is dying out leaving only residues of the culture it spawned. I would like to hear what others think of this question.
Explanation: post #2 appears to be obscure. I meant that what sometimes bothers us may not be that people don’t listen to our point of view, but fail to recognize what seems to us to be a compelling argument. But I didn’t want to speak for others and didn’t want to dispute what B. Stapler said in #1.
Woodstock is a mixed legacy. One of the problems of youth/immaturity is that you mistake peer pressure for free will. I think that the harm Americans have done to themselves with recreational drugs is underestimated.
One difference today: a person like A. Goldstein or Ted Nugent who loves rock ‘n’ roll but is a conservative was unheard of in 1970. Rock has gone from being counter-culture to mainstream. And along with it, perhaps some of it liberal leanings?
If indeed the elder Yasgur was not merely tolerating views with which he disagreed, but actively giving them greater exposure, he had to believe that honest debate will bring out the truth. But today many people (on both sides)believe instead that the public is being brainwashed, and that honest debate will not save us from calamity, but rather that the people with the aberrant views need to be drowned out. There is a lot of fear.
I give IC credit for listening plenty to liberals. That’s why some of you are angry!
[...] Goldwater Sr. and the man who owned the farm at Woodstock — Mr. Max Yasgur, who was, in fact, a libertarian Conservative; I might not agree with those who protested this past weekend, but I will advocate to my dying [...]