7 stars: Good

From the back cover: Both vilified as a publicity seeking egoist and lauded as a fearless advocate, William Kunstler consistently embodied both of these qualities. Langum examines how William Kunstler, under the rationale that his work was a general struggle against an oppressive government, shifted from defending clients whose political beliefs he personally supported to those who were apolitical and scorned by mainstream media.

------------

I first encountered Kunstler in the late 80s movie about the Chicago 8, and from there, read quite a bit about a number of the "8". I had picked up this bio, but it wasn't until this year with the remake, that I decided to read it. It was a good portrait of the man. He was an utter workaholic, blended personal and professional life, had numerous affairs, and used his skills to shed light on what he felt was an oppressive government. I agreed with the author who in the forward says that "I can admire Kunstler for his willingness to do battle against the government.... and it makes no difference whether Kunstler is a candidate for sainthood or perpetual damnation. We need thousands of Kunstlers to fight the government and try to preserve our beloved country." I certainly believe that now as much as ever. I found the book interesting and learned more about some cases I've heard of (such as Atica prison riots) and more about this complicated man.

Some quotes I liked:

[The government plan to weaken black militant groups by tying them up in court] succeeded beautifully. Black Panthers and other militant groups bled to death. Raising bail money and defending the very existence of their organization dominated black militants' thoughts, at the expense of expanding their activities within the community. The Black Power wing of the movement was fatally wounded. However by no means was that apparent as the struggle was unfolding in the late 60s. The fact that this struggle was fought out in the criminal courtroom only expanded the role of those radical lawyers such as Kunstler.

[Chicago] was a peculiar conspiracy since each of the defendants pursued his own agenda, and the goals of the Yippies was far different from the more dedicated revolutionary aims of the SDS contingent. The aims of Seale and his Black Panthers was still different. Abbie Hoffman's quip that it was a hell of a conspiracy since the defendants couldn't agree on lunch, wasn't far off the mark. However, the defendants and their lawyers saw a very different purpose behind their inclusion together as joint defendants on a conspiracy charge. It was, they claimed, and ideological prosecution against dissent itself, since each defendant represented a different part of the spectrum of American protest. Dellinger represented old line pacifism; Hoffman and Rubin the counterculture; Hayden and Davis the student radicals. The prosceution threw Seale in to include black militants. Even Froines and Weiner, minor figures though they were, counted as representatives of academic protest since one was a professor and the other a graduate student.

Kunstler often linked his hesitancy in considering a fundamentally different economic system to his own middle class lifestyle. ..."I wouldn't [encourgage acts of revolutionary violence]. But that's because I'm still too much of a middle class white man. .. you always get the feeling that you would like to be more of a revolutionary..and yet maybe the times aren't right or you lack the guts."

The primary objective of radical lawyers in engaging in political trials is educational, to make their political points known as widely as possible. Radicalization of the public by means of using the trial to expose underlying oppression is generally more important than obtaining an acquittal for the defendant.

[Arguing in front of SCOTUS on a flag desecration case in 1990] Kunstler made two telling remarks. The first was the observation that "one of the most foolhardy things is an overabundance of patriotism goaded on by politicians." The second was his strong conclusion, contending that the government was attempting to turn the flag into a "golden image" that must be worshipped. Respect for the flag must be voluntary he argued because "once people are compelled to respect a political symbo, then they are no longer free and their respect for the flag is quite meaningless. To criminalize flag burning is to deny what the First Amendment stands for." The Court quickly invalidated the Flag Protection Act by a vote of five to four. ( )