As I mentioned in the first piece I wrote on the observations of Eric Hoffer, he was addressing, primarily, the historical cycles of "mass movements." Whether they were driven by religious (Islam in the 5th and 6th centuries), political (democracy in 18th century America), or other factors, he concluded that all "mass movements" share many features across the spectrum of organization, leadership and their ultimate endpoints. I would now presume to apply some of Hoffer’s - and some of my own - observations to one such movement that resonates to all of my age and my citizenship.

No one can deny that one of the most positive and productive "mass movements" in history was the American civil rights struggle of the mid-20th century. Led by what Hoffer (recall that he published his seminal work, True Believer, in 1951, well before civil rights became a "mass movement") would identify as a "man of words," Reverend Martin Luther King, was an articulate, charismatic and forceful man. In Hoffer’s chronology, it is the "man of words" who always begins any mass movement. As Reverend King led the nonviolent marches and spoke his words of the principled rights for America's "second class citizens," he and his followers became an immutable and irresistible movement. The "devil" (Hoffer would say the mass movements may begin without god but they "must have a devil") was segregation and few - even the racists whites - could deny the movement's true righteousness. The "fanatics" (used merely as Hoffer would have categorized them in his discussion) - i.e. those ready and willing to die for the movement were called into action by the "man of words." That is the way of the mass movement throughout all of history. The spark is the man of words. The action is through the "fanatics" (again, Hoffer’s term) who sacrifice and, if need be, give their lives for the cause. These are Hoffer’s "true believers."

The "mass movement" that was civil rights, with the words and truths of the "man of words" and the legions of "true believers," after much struggle and sacrifice, bore the fruits of success. First, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The "man of words," Dr. King, was there for both. He received the Noble Peace Prize awarded in 1964. He was untimately martyred - as many "men of words" in many movements throughout history -  in 1968 doing what he was called to do: standing with the Memphis Sanitation Workers in their strike for a living wage.

Hoffer sums up the natural history as follows:

"A movement is pioneered by men of words, materialized by fanatics and consolidated by men of action."

It was with the death of Dr. King that the "mass movement" that was civil rights was taken over by the "men of action." Hoffer observes that the appearance of the end of action "usually marks the end of the dynamic phase of the movement."

He elaborates:

"The chief preoccupation of the man of action [the last leader(s) of any mass movement] when he takes over an 'arrived' movement is to fix and perpetuate its unity and readiness for self-sacrifice. His ideal is a compact, invincible whole that functions automatically. To achieve this he cannot rely on enthusiasm, for enthusiasm is ephemeral. Persuasion, too, is unpredictable. He inclines, therefore, to rely on drill and coercion [emphasis mine]

It is at this point that I will undertake some observations of my own while continuing to draw on some "Hofferian" parallels. The personal musings that follow, such as they are, spring from a body of literature, quite separate from Hoffer, that I will comment more on in the near future. It will suffice, at this point, to say that the writers of these wonderful books have struck me with such startling clarity that I am still sorting through the wisdom offered. These authors have also empowered and emboldened me to write about something that a white man has always been reluctant to address - namely, race.

My points, in brief, are as follows:

1. The civil rights "mass movement," so nobly fought for by Dr. King and many others, has been usurped and, subsequently, perverted from its principles by those that lead that movement today. Hoffer's "men of action."

2. When the "men of action" assumed leadership of the movement, they - as Hoffer has observed - became more concerned with personal power and aggrandizement. As Hoffer writes: "In the hands of the man of action, the mass movement ceases to be a refuge from the agonies and burdens of an individual existence and becomes a means of self-realization for the ambitious." These means transform "a movement into an enterprise."

Reverend King was simply seeking a time when Americans could look at their fellow citizens and see the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. His vision was principled, grounded in our own Constitution and single-minded. He wrote, as early as 1946 of his crystal-clear vision of America:

"We want and are entitled to the basic rights and opportunities of American citizens: The right to earn a living at work for which we are fitted by training and ability; equal opportunities in education, health, recreation, and similar public services; the right to vote; equality before the law; some of the same courtesy and good manners that we ourselves bring to all human relations."

He succeeded on a scale for which he is, rightfully, honored. Against all odds and against a powerful, well-entrenched enemy with centuries of training - the "devil" of racism - he made it to his mountain top. Undoubtedly, Dr. King would say today that there is still a great deal of work to be done. But, in my opinion, it will not require the institutional and governmental work of the 1960s. Instead, it will require personal and individual examination and reflection. We will have to mend our souls and our minds. That is most difficult work of all.

But, Dr. King's movement for principled and just government and institutions is no longer about equality. Civil rights, garbled and contorted as it is today, has become more about quotas, affirmative action, multiculturalism, and diversity. These are a few of the watchwords of the current "men of action." Dr. King's driving vision - the opportunity to compete equally - not as black Americans but, simply, as fellow Americans - has become, in the hands of his successors, something much different.

The movement's second-generation "men of action" remained extraordinarily effective - at least through the early 1990s. The leaders keep their followers regimented and thinking as one through "fervent propaganda." American citizens who coincidentally are black (not the other way around as some would have it) are encouraged to believe and vote as one mind and one race - i.e. for Democratic candidates. And this is accomplished by "keeping the faith" or, more currently, "keepin' it real."

Again, Hoffer describes this phenomenon in terms of power:

"[The new "men of action"] cannot help being awed by the tremendous achievements of faith and spontanieity in the early days of the movement when a mighty instrument of power was conjured out of the void. The memory is still extremely vivid. He takes, therefore, great care to preserve the new institutions an impressive facade of faith, and maintains an impressive flow of fervent propaganda, though he relies mainly on persuasiveness of force. His orders are worded in pious vocabulary, and the old formulas and slogans are continually on his lips."

If anyone threatens this power consolidated by the movement, they must be silenced. If anyone - black or white - were to suggest that the old enemy is beaten and in retreat, they must be suppressed. And the tools for suppression are potent, painfully effective and well-established in the movement's history. If a black man or woman would dare to speak these words (and some have), they are called an "Uncle Tom." This moniker remains an extremely powerful culturally-negative word. The phrase depicts the speaker as a traitor to the group and calls for their being ostracized by the movement. If a white man or woman dare to hint that racism is receding in American society, the source of such a blasphemous utterance would be silenced by the all-purpose "racist" calumny. Since American whites have been relegated, in the post-civil rights era, to a "moral vacuum," they simply have no voice in matters of race. This, gentle reader, is to be a subject for a future discourse; it is a subject all unto itself.

For where there is an enemy (though it be retreating or even, for practical purposes, vanguished) to be conjured from a current act (for example, when a white cop shoots a black criminal), the "men of action" can continue to lead. They can recall the still-vivid injustices heaped upon their folowers in the past and rekindle the "faith." To admit victory - that is, to not leap to confront the foe of olden days no matter how shadowy it may reincarnate itself - would be to lose power and that, in the movement they inherited, would be untenable and would be fatal to their grip on power, prestige and control. Only by leading the charge against windmill after windmill - real or simply agrandized for the benefit of the believers - can the movement's leaders cling to power. And their power remains only as long as they are able to dictate (or at least focus) the thought processes of their followers. Let not the followers hear of individual responsibility or self-determination. Let not them hear that unfortunate accidents occur in stressful confrontations that have nothing to do with racism at all. Let them not hear that the battle is principally won and they are now masters of their own destiny. If they were to do that, they would begin to see that they are, the movement would be ended and those who would benefit from it, made impotent.

Remember, Hoffer said movements "imitate those they hate." In my opinion, the anti-segregation movement has managed to survive, if not flourish, through its own form of re-segregation - "us against them."

I will have a great deal to more say on these and related topics in the next entry. I feel it is only fitting to close with this quote from "The True Believer":

"Thus, at the end of its vigorous span the movement is an instrument of power for the successful and an opiate for the frustrated."