Talk:Bayard Rustin

Removing "Films" section

I just removed the following section which was contributed by a California Newsreel IP address. The video may be good and interesting and all, but I haven't seen it to know. I ask someone without a conflict of interest to decide whether and how it should be included in the page.

I am not without interest, as I work for California Newsreel. But I will point out that the film won the 2004 American Library Association Notable Video Award (which is a big deal), as well as the 2003 Cine Golden Eagle Award. It is a very popular academic resource that most University Libraries have purchased.

Films

• Documentary: "Brother Outsider: the Life of Bayard Rustin" distributed by California Newsreel

No mention of the fact that he was chairman of the SD USA? Even if he didn't take an actively role in the organization he was their official leader. That should get a mention.

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality in the U.S.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 26 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DAshanae24 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by DAshanae24 (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

Hi, I would like to improve this article, and possibly try to bring it to good article status. However, I have little experience with GANs and I would love to get some suggestions, no matter how brief, on what I should work on, other than just verifying citations back up claims and working on the lead a bit. Much appreciated + cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Concern over the factuality of calling Bayard Rustin a neo-conservative

From my understanding Bayard Rustin never self identified as a neo-conservative and actively held views incredibly contradictory towards neo-conservatism. He was a major player in American socialist movements and continued to support organized labor until his death. I really the claim needs to be reexamined. ~2025-43675-22 (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Per the reliable sources, Rustin pivoted to neoconservatism later in his life. drdr150 (they/she) (Yell at me Spy on me) 16:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This is very much true. Not even necessarily later in life, as he was a follower of Max Shachtman in the 1960s, which undercut his potential opposition to the Vietnam War. GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

We seem to have just one source for this, Vaïsse. Is it really due in the lead? BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Come now, the source is from Harvard University Press, and no one seriously disputes this. GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Many seriously dispute it. Randall Kennedy says his biographer John D’Emilio successfully rebuts it. Adam Gopnik refutes it. Jamie Kirchick (a neoconservative) denies it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

"He was a major player in American socialist movements and continued to support organized labor until his death."

It's generally agreed that Cold War liberalism based out of the AFL-CIO was foundational to neoconservatism. GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The New Republic: “Much as these organizations were the intellectual stomping grounds for neoconservatives, Rustin could not be labeled as such, despite what his detractors, then and now, have said. Unlike the neoconservatives, who renounced the New Deal, Rustin never faltered in his social democratic convictions, supporting all aspects of the welfare state from national health insurance to massive increases in federal spending for education, housing and job creation. While his anti-totalitarian convictions led him to abandon the Democratic Party, Rustin was never a supporter of Ronald Reagan, nor did he ever affiliate with the GOP.”

BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I see a bunch of partisan political periodicals using history for partisan political maneuvers. The purpose of a peer-reviewed publication like Vaisse's is to cut through that junk. GPRamirez5

so Justin Vaisse, then a Brookings Institute fellow, is gold standard, but Professor John D'Emilio’s Chicago University Press book is a partisan political periodical? Randall Kennedy is junk? That kind of dismissive attitude to reliable sources isn’t helpful. The fact is that the sources don’t agree with whether he’s neoconservative or not. The term doesn’t have an objective meaning. He never used it about himself. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you show me where in the Lost Prophet book John D'Emelio denies that Rustin was a neoconservative? Not in a review of the book, but in the book itself? GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Not right now no. Are you saying that Kennedy is an unreliable source? BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

A balanced view: “It's pointless to debate whether Rustin could be called a "neoconservative" in today's terms. He never wavered in his strong commitment to social democratic governance, including limited redistribution of wealth; yet it is interesting that, as Washington Post blogger Dylan Matthews points out, "neoconservative" was first made up as a term of abuse for members of the "liberal hawk" group Social Democrats USA, of which Rustin was the founding co-chairman. He was also a regular contributor to Commentary, the magazine most strongly associated with neoconservatism.” - Cathy Young

"Are you saying that Kennedy is an unreliable source?" I am saying he's an inferior source to Vaisse which is peer-reviewed by a major university press.

And to Cathy Young: It's not "a term of abuse" today, but a term of description accepted by political scientists universally. The encyclopedia entry linked above explains that "neoconservatives believe...since great disparities of wealth lead to class conflict, labor unrest, and political instability, such disparities should be reduced (though not eliminated) by means of a steeply graduated income tax, the modern welfare state, and other means"——firmly in alignment with Rustin's version of social democracy.GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Does this source mention Rustin? I can’t see his name. The section you quote opens “In economic matters, neoconservatives favor free market capitalism as an efficient means of allocating goods and services.” Yet Rustin was a lifelong socialist. But it is pure OR/synth to decide if he is based on such an entry that doesn’t mention him. We have one reliable source (a French thinktank employee) saying he was, and others (including his biographer and several experts on US intellectual politics) saying he wasn’t. Our article should reflect that debate not take sides in it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

You're litigating the meaning of socialist WITHOUT providing a source for your definition--or even a definition in the first place--but I'm not allowed to clarify the definition of neoconservative WITH a source? What is this madness?GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m not litigating the meaning of socialist!! Every single source that discusses rustin‘s politics calls him a socialist (and he was in numerous organisations called socialist). You have given a sourced definition of neoconservative (from a source switch does not appear to mention rustin), which says the belief in free market capitalism is fundamental to it. To ascribe this to somebody who opposed free market capitalism has entire adult life is perverse. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I "provide a definition" above? You're referring to The Encyclopedia of Political Science? This says neoconservatives "do not, however, share modern conservatism's unbridled enthusiasm for free market capitalism. As Irving Kristol puts it, capitalism deserves 'two cheers,' not three. This is because, as Daniel Bell contends, capitalism harbors 'cultural contradictions' that undermine its own social and ethical foundations." This is essentially the position of the AFL-CIO and the modern Socialist Party, the organizations that Rustin worked for most of his adult life. Please show me in the platform of the post-1955 Socialist Party where the abolition of private property is called for. Or even a call for wage and price controls. I sure as hell don't see it in the Social Democrats USA platform. GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I’m not advocating we cite this but it zooms in on one of the problems of your framing: anachronism. It also nicely makes the point that he may be associated with neoconservatives or accused of being a neocon but it’s not an objective term or a self-designation BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Quite. I think that by largely working in the background (as well as being something of an autodidact with remarkably diverse powers of intellect) he was able to develop a nuanced and not easily pigeonholed political philosophy which (unlike King, Malcolm X, or some of the more prominent white members of the New Left) didn't suffer the selective pressure of needing to be flattened in order to work effectively from the pulpit.

That's opinion, but what is difficult to deny is that he was more pragmatist than ideologue. Someone whose pacifism extended to the well cited elements of this article (doing time as a conscientious objector, taking beatings while in prison) is not a plausible candidate for a supporter of the escalation in Vietnam, but allying with LBJ (who had a pretty strong mandate as the President with the largest majority in US history) over A Freedom Budget for All Americans wasn't going to work if he came out in opposition to the President's pet foreign war. He was also quite sanguine about figures like Ho Chi Minh, Vo Nguyên Giáp, Che Guevara, and Fidel Castro and being little less authoritarian and militaristic than Mao and Stalin. This was always going to result in accusations of betrayal by a New Left who were desperate for some replacement 'anti-imperialist heroes'. His chief failure here is that A Freedom Budget for All Americans was rendered pretty toothless, but even had it succeeded, the New Left were clearly going to see him as a class traitor for opposing their proletarian folk heroes. ~2026-40208-17 (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)