Oswald’s Ghost After watching it and thinking about it a few days, I have three big problems with the documentary. While it does, finally seem to come down on the side of Oswald as Lone Gunman, it does so subtly and quietly. I wish the director had been more clear and forthright about the manifest problems with the conspiracy theories. The film uses Tom Hayden and Todd Gittlin as talking heads who spend most of their time talking about the impact the “unanswered questions” surrounding the assassination on the politics. Since both men were leaders in the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) we get a heavy does of New Left perspective and apologetics. Hayden is especially problematic because he is more propagandist and activist rather than sober historian. Morevover, the famed socialist Irving Howe said of him: “Tom Hayden gives opportunism a bad name.” I can’t help wondering if Gitlin’s and Hayden’s explanation is the whole story. The New Left was quite willing to seize an issue and use it to their own end: From The Roots of Radicalism by Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter: (1982)

Quoting Mark Rudd (SDS president at Columbia): "We manufactured the issues. The Institute of Defense Analysis is nothing at Columbia. And the gym issue is bull. It doesn't mean anything to anybody. I had never been to the gym site before the demonstration began. I didn't even know how to get there." "Even Berkeley had a slogan that "the issue is not the issue," meaning that the real issue was not free speech on campus but thoroughgoing social change." Mike Goldfield in New Left Notes (1966): "You have to realize that the issue didn't matter. The issues were never the issues....It was the revolution that was everything. The only thing that mattered was what you were doing for the revolution. That is why dope was good. Anything that undermined the system contributed to the revolution and was therefore good."

Hayden and Gittlin’s narrative is debatable. Maybe the New left was energized by the conspiracy theories. OTOH, maybe The Movement promoted the theories because they fit their preconceived ideas about a corrupt power structure and also helped undermine the authority of the Establishment. That’s a key question for historians. Are we looking at an honest attempt to grapple with unanswered questions, or a species of “popular delusion”, or a cynical exercise in agit-prop. “Oswald’s Ghost” treats the conspiracy theorists and promoters as honest and never addresses the other possibilities. The movie basically ignores the toxic, noxious, consequences of the Grassy Knoll cult. Very little time is spent on Clay Shaw, the innocent man that Jim Garrison indicted in New Orleans as part of his crude, demagogic charade. Shaw was bankrupted and died a few years after the jury exonerated him. Or take the case of Dallas police officer J D Tippett. He was shot by Oswald shortly after the assassination. His murder is a problem for the conspiracy theorists. Rather than revise their opinion that Oswald was innocent, they perform contortions to exonerate LHO on this murder as well. Many of them suggest that Tippett was part of the plot (i.e. he helped kill JFK or helped those who did). Thus, the “buffs” smear a policeman who died in the line of duty so that they can still pretend that Oswald was a patsy. They have no evidence, of course, but that has never stopped the Church of the Grassy Knoll.