The Mets and the Moratorium

I can only imagine the glee with which my father came up with his sermon topic for this particular week in October 1969. To look at the day’s events and find the common thread between the unpredictable victory of the New York Mets and the unprecedented demonstration of antiwar sentiment evidenced in the Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam reflected his understated sense of humor as well as his serious concern for the moral fiber of the country.

The pent-up emotions which the country feels, therefore, broke out … in … the Vietnam Moratorium. And if anything was more amazing than the “Amazin’ Mets” it was the amazing moratorium.
​

IN THE PAST FEW DAYS TWO EVENTS COMPETED for public interest and produced tremendous outpourings of public emotion and sentiment. The uniqueness of these events and their impact on almost the whole country, and especially upon almost everyone who lives in and around this metropolitan area, justifies, I believe, my postponement of the topic originally announced for this evening so that I may make a few remarks which might be entitled, if I need a subject title, as The Mets[1] and The Moratorium[2]. At first glance it might seem that these two items are vastly different from each other, so tremendously different in their significance that there could not possibly be any relationship between them, and perhaps you will say I am, indeed, straining by linking them together, but the dramatic climax to the efforts of what has been called a team of destiny and the unprecedented outpouring of individuals from coast-to-coast on behalf of the Vietnam Moratorium did at least come together in time. Both happenings alike have left ever so many people filled with amazement and surprise, and I think that we may find something else they share in common.
 
First of all, a word about the Mets. Not everyone is a sports fan, and my own mild interest is limited to baseball, but I think everyone has paid at least a little bit of attention this past week, if not before, to the victories the Mets have achieved. The mere fact that any rabbi might want to mention them in a Friday evening sermon is in itself proof that they must have done something unusual. Here was a team that last year was among the worst.[3] This year it was expected to be a bit better, but still was rated only a 100 to 1 chance to win a pennant, and yet it made it all the way to number one. No one on the team, except perhaps two of the pitchers, had been considered to be a star performer, yet it was able to win out in its division and in the playoffs,[4] and in the World Series over a team that was considered unbeatable. How did it happen? I think there was a clue as to how it happened about two or three weeks ago one day when they were playing the St. Louis Cardinals, and they were still counting down the magic numbers. Perhaps some of you will remember the game in which the Cardinal pitcher[5] set a new baseball record by striking out the Mets 19 times, but the Mets won the game nevertheless on a home run by Swoboda.[6] What I found interesting about this was the comments made after the game by the Cardinal pitcher and the Met home run hitter. The Cardinal pitcher was asked how he felt about losing it after such a great pitching performance, and his reply was something to the effect that he would rather win, but losing did not disturb him too much. He had the record, and win or lose they could not take it away from him. He was quite satisfied with himself for having struck out the 19th man. When Swoboda, on the other hand, was asked to comment on his home run, he said all he could think about was that he wished he were already in the dugout instead of running the bases, because he wanted to share together with his teammates the delicious moment when they were taking the lead in the game. He did not like being out there running alone. And there is the key to success. In one case there was a selfish individual concern. In the other there was no individual pride, but only a feeling of being part of the team. And I suspect it was the wonderful team spirit that brought the Mets their victory when perhaps individual talent might not have carried them so far.
 
There is a bit of a moral in this incident about how much individuals can accomplish when they cooperate and act together, but that is not really the main point to be made. What was of interest was not merely that the Mets won, but the reaction of New Yorkers to their winning. After all, sports are fun, and what happened with the Mets was dramatic and perhaps more fun than usual, but how important in the scheme of things is it after all, and what difference would it make if the Mets had lost or even if they were the same old Mets as before? Why should New York have followed the progress of the Mets so nervously? Why should they have torn up the stadium after the playoffs and after the Series and filled the streets of Manhattan with paper as if there had been a tickertape parade? The players are, after all, professionals reaping the monetary rewards involved, and what does it benefit us if they win?
 
I think it was more than baseball that was involved. I think New York was reacting not only to the Mets, but to the problems of the day — to the very unhappy political and social situation in which the whole country finds itself. New Yorkers and perhaps people all over were longing for some fun, for a lighter touch. We are so tired today of racial conflict. We are so concerned today about our young people. We feel beaten down by the rising cost of living and the effects of inflation. And we especially have had our fill of the Vietnam War. This, more than any other problem, worries us and depresses us and pricks our conscience as Americans. I think the Met-mania was a temporary release, a momentary conquest of our frustrations. It was a chance to forget for a few happy and delirious moments the serious problems that the television newscasts constantly remind us about, and to indulge in the fantasy, even if briefly, that all is well and life is a pleasant game. And this, perhaps, is what the Mets have in common with the Moratorium. The public enthusiasm for the Mets was also to some extent a product of our times, a symptom of our distress. It was an escape valve for the emotional pressure we have been feeling.
 
Baseball, however, can provide a pleasant release, but it obviously does not solve the social problem. The pent-up emotions which the country feels, therefore, broke out also in a more constructive way — the Vietnam Moratorium. And if anything was more amazing than the “Amazin’ Mets” it was the amazing moratorium. To think that an idea thought up for students on the campus could spread to such an extent and involve so many hundreds of thousands of people on campus and off, ordinary citizens and political figures of prominence as well! A few weeks ago the odds would have been more than 100 to 1 that such a widespread, vociferous, but peaceful demonstration could have taken place! It can only be that the weariness with the war and the discontent and feelings of guilt that it has aroused among us are much more deep-seated than the Administration in Washington and some other people are ready to believe, that even though we have our fun with sports there is a gnawing feeling of despair within us that we can not altogether escape.
 
Of course, there are differences of opinion with regard to the Moratorium. It does not represent the protest of the entire American people. Arguments pro and con have been given, arguments on both sides which merit consideration. In the past few days, I am sure, you have heard them and read them in abundance, and I do not propose to review them again, but when all is said and done, it is my feeling that this protest is inevitable and right.
 
When the history of this period is written sometime in the future, I think that these years of our involvement in Vietnam will prove to be the most embarrassing and disgraceful period in American history. We have in the course of the past several years lent all our strength and all our prestige to the support of dictatorship and corruption. We have acquiesced in the imprisonment of those who dared to voice reasonable opposition to these high-handed political leaders in Vietnam. We have helped to bring death and destruction to Vietnam and have devoured our own young. We have let ourselves be dominated by the military minds in our own country, and have failed to pursue opportunities of peace which have presented themselves in the past. We have squandered our resources in Vietnam and neglected to deal with the social and moral decay here at home.

​It took time for all of this to seep into the awareness of the American people at large, although there were voices of warning from the very beginning. Now that we are more aware, it is unrealistic to expect the people to be silent. Both our personal well-being and conscience are involved, and the counsel that we must be patient and wait is no longer acceptable. The American people disposed of one president in office because he failed to end the war in Vietnam.[7] They elected another president[8] who said he had a plan. This president was given a time of grace to make known his plan and to act upon it. But so far we have nothing to show that his direction is any different than his predecessors. All that he has done is take small steps which he naïvely has thought would silence his critics, but has done nothing to give us any confidence that we are really on the way to peace. We are now offered the hope that the war will be over in three more years, and we are abruptly dismissed with the declaration that he will be utterly unaffected by what the people of the country have to say. Under such circumstances it is inevitable that the voice of the people will be raised and our young men whose lives are at stake in this cannot be blamed for their impatience and their protest. And to say that those who do protest are unpatriotic is the most provoking aspect of it all. It is to avoid the issue and to attempt to muzzle the public with a wave of the flag. It can be said with perhaps even more logic that those who have cost us our honor among the nations and who allow themselves to be dictated to by the government in Saigon are the ones who are lacking in patriotism.
 
The Administration may belittle the Moratorium and suggest that it will not be influenced by it, but the cry for peace is coming from all parts of the country and is drawing many different types of people together. It cannot and must not be ignored. And as Tom Seaver[9] has said, "if the Mets can win the Series, the United States can end the war." Let us hope and pray that his political predictions are as good as his pitching.


[1] The 1969 New York Mets or the "Miracle Mets" as they became known had never had even a winning record in their previous seven seasons as a Major League Baseball franchise, yet, on October 16, 1969 they clinched the World Series in five games, beating the heavily favored Baltimore Orioles who were considered to be one of the finest teams ever.

[2] The Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam was a massive demonstration and teach-in across the United States against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. It took place on October 15, 1969, followed a month later by large Moratorium Marches in Washington and San Francisco (where, incidentally. I met my wife, Debbie, then a UCLA student).

[3] The 1968 New York Mets season was the 7th regular season for the Mets. They went 73–89 and finished 9th in the National League, one game ahead of the 10th place Houston Astros. This was the last year before the leagues created smaller regional divisions.

[4] The 1969 National League Championship Series was a best-of-five match-up between the East Division champion New York Mets and the West Division champion Atlanta Braves. The Mets defeated the Braves three games to none. Nolan Ryan was the winning pitcher of game 3.

[5] September 15, 1969, Steve Carlton set the major league record with 19 strikeouts in a nine-inning game. The Mets won the game on a pair of 2-run homers by Ron Swoboda in a 4-3 Mets victory in St. Louis.

[6] Outfielder, Ron Swoboda had a few flashes of brilliance in an otherwise unremarkable career.

[7] In 1968 American public opinion had turned against the war effort. Demoralization about the war was everywhere; 26% then approved of Johnson's handling of Vietnam; 63% disapproved. On March 31 Johnson announced to the nation an immediate unilateral halt to the bombing of North Vietnam and announced his intention to seek out peace talks anywhere at anytime. At the close of his speech he also famously announced, "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President".

[8] Richard Milhous Nixon (1913 – 1994) was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974 when he became the only U.S. president to resign the office. It would 1973 before U>S. troops were withdrawn from Vietnam and 1975 before the North Vietnamese conquered the South Vietnamese who continued fighting.

[9] George Thomas "Tom" Seaver (born 1944). In 1969, on their way to the Mets’ first World Series championship, Seaver won a league-high 25 games and his first National League Cy Young Award. Seaver was the winning pitcher of Game 4 of the Series on Wednesday, October 15, 1969, the day of the Moratorium. Controversy arose when Seaver's photograph was used on some anti-war Moratorium Day literature being distributed before the game outside of Shea Stadium in Flushing, New York. Seaver claimed that his picture was used without his knowledge or approval.