Jerome Grossman is the author of 'Relentless Liberal' and the retired president of the Massachussets Envelope Company. He is a former member of the Democratic National Committee and the Chairman Emeritus of Council for a Livable World.
- My father was active politically. As I say in my book where I really draw a contrast between my father and myself, he––as the son of immigrants and somebody working their way up from a very poor background––used politics as a vehicle for upward mobility, primarily. I didn’t have to do that because by the time I came along we were fairly comfortable. Not rich, but comfortable. I somehow began reading The Nation magazine when I was fourteen years old.
- There was no history of political activism in the sense that I’m active in my family. However, I made a turn in the family in that my younger sister––I had one brother and a sister, and she was born sixteen years after I was born––and her politics are very close to mine; her children’s politics are very close to mine. So I made a departure in my family. How I got that way, I don’t know. I like to think that I didn't like to see other kids pushed around. I remember getting in fights to protect other kids. But maybe that's a mixed memory.
Father's political activities/handing over the business
- Well, the traditional supporting [of] candidates for public office as a financial contributor. And then he got himself appointed to a number of positions. After I got out of Harvard in 1938 there was a fellow by the name of Thomas Elliot who was a distinguished lawyer, rather a liberal Brahmin. He was running for Congress. And [he] got other people to make contributions. As a result of that process my father went to Washington towork with Kenneth Galbraith in the Office of Price Administration. He was a dollar a year man. We still have the dollar. When he came back he supported James Michael Curley. James Michael Curley appointed him to be the Commissioner of Penal Institutions for the City of Boston, Suffolk County. Then he supported Governor Paul Dever of Cambridge. And when Dever was elected––you have to pick winners; you can't support losers the way I do who get two and a half percent of the vote, and raise issues––and then Dever made him the Commissioner of all of the jails in Massachusetts. My father took that because he had served on a recess commission studying this once. He thought it would be fun. And he also served on the Boston Finance Commission.
- By this time he had left the business. When I was twenty-four he gave me the keys, and says, “You run it.” So that’s what he did. So he was known as a capable, effective, well-respected political person. I’m known as the Massachusetts liberal. Not radical––liberal. Although a lot of peoplethink I’m radical––I’m more radical than they think. But my activities have been along those lines.
- I get The Nation. I get the The New Republic. I get The New Yorker. I get Dollars & Sense; that’s another magazine put out by little enclaves of academics with various specialties. I get the Political Hotline that comes out every single day and that has summaries of everything that has gone on politically all over the country, what newspapers are saying,
- The dynamics of the modern world under capitalism tend toward the growth of large corporations with semimonopoly positions. That’s my basis for supporting a big government, is to control big corporations.
Peace movement beginnings
- You have to go back to the Eugene McCarthy campaign. I had been working in the peace movement for many years. My motivation was the knowledge of the power of atomic weapons. Anything that might precipitate a war between the countries that had nuclear weapons might wipe out humanity. When I learned about that in the middle 1950's it was the kind of knowledge that spurred me into action. Actually, I only learned about it by being taken to a meeting of the American Friends Service Committee on Brattle Street in Cambridge. I can hear Russell Johnson explaining the whole thing to me. I had three young children. I was a Little League coach and very close to children, whether it was teaching them baseball or teaching them tennis. The idea of the race, the species being eliminated, to say nothing of a Shakespeare, Homer––even Larry Bird––not existing anymore, was something that just spurred me into action.
- This in the middle 1950’s. And, of course, everybody was still terrified of McCarthyism, unwilling to do anything that appeared to recognize the existence of the Soviet Union and that they had a right to exist. It was interpreted as being against the Cold War. I was against the Cold War and I wanted it resolved. The reason why I wanted it resolved is so that nuclear weapons ought not to be used. So I became involved in National Committee For A Sane Nuclear Policy and various other organizations that were founded virtually every other year in response to various pressures. Of course what we were working on then was the nuclear test ban. We're still working on the nuclear test ban to try to complete it. But I was the one who became quite dissatisfied with the fact that we were essentially talking to each other in church basements and academic meetings, middle class, upper class, highly educated people. We weren’t reaching the public.
Hughes campaign and "Red baiting"
- I was the one who said, you know, we have a political system in this country. Let’s use the political system to bring issues and ideas to the people, and as a way of talking to them because we can’t reach them any other way. It was exploiting the political system. But I don’t feel badly about that, because it’s there to be exploited. That’s what it’s there for. So that was the turn that I took. I think that’s also related to the fact that I had had some political experience through my father and through my other local activities. We ran a candidate for the United States Senate, a professor at Harvard by the name of H. Stuart Hughes. That was in 1962. And we were viciously “Red-baited.” Ted Kennedy, who is now one of my close friends, was the Democratic candidate. It was the first time that he ran for his brother’s seat.
- It was a fantastic event. We didn’t get many votes. We only got two and a half percent. But we made a lot of noise, and we did get the issue out there. We really ran to get the attention of the President, John F. Kennedy. This is 1962. In 1963 there was a partial nuclear test ban signed. So we think we had something do with that.
- But more important than that was the fact that people came from all over the country to work in our campaign. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but the students at Harvard, MIT and B.U. who participated in the campaign, the men and the women, they all went home with this experience under their belts and in their psyches. And they knew the techniques that were used. They knew how we got publicity. This is all brand new. They knew how we broke through the crust of the Cold War to have people not think in stereotypical terms. And they began organizing in their own towns and places, wherever they lived. That’s the most exciting part of the Hughes campaign. It was a seminal event. And of course Hughes was a wonderful candidate. I saw him in La Jolla just a couple of years ago. He’s very frail and fragile now. He’s eighty-one, eighty-two, something like that. But he never wavered in his candidacy. Bill Clinton and all these other guys should take lessons from him. And there was pressure put on him to run a campaign like that in the middle of the Cold War.
- Okay, after that campaign the three thousand volunteers, many of whom were women, housewives, incidentally––not incidentally––and they were very important in the campaign. They were part of the decision-making apparatus. We all got together; we decided to stay together as an organization. And this brings me to the Vietnam affair. We continued running candidates and agitating on issues.
Long term political consequences of the Hughes campaign
Opposing Ted Kennedy in the 1962 Massachusetts Democratic Primary was Edward McCormack, nephew of House Speaker John McCormack; Kennedy's Republican opponent was Yankee scion George Cabot Lodge; and on the left was Independent peace candidate Harvard Prof. H. Stuart Hughes, chair of the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, and grandson of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.
- Hughes needed 72,000 signatures, a purposely prohibitive number in that era of McCarthyism and nobody in fact had tried to reach it since the law had first been passed.
- In this talented field, Hughes polled 50,013 votes, 2.3% of the votes cast. However, we collected a startling 149,000 signatures in ten weeks for a "peace candidate." The Cuban Missile Crisis arrived in October just before the election. With the integrity that was his hallmark, Hughes went against the popular hysteria: he accused President Kennedy of acting over hastily in imposing the blockade of Cuba, of bypassing the United Nations, and unnecessarily stirring up an atmosphere of national emergency. His position cost Hughes thousands of votes.
- In the process we built a town-by-town organization all over the state, a structure that remains in place today. A clear result has been the election over recent decades of so many progressive voices to the state's first-rate Congressional delegation, including Michael Harrington, Father Robert Drinan, Gerry Studds, Jim McGovern, Barney Frank, Ed Markey, John Tierney, Michael Capuano and John Kerry.
- The Hughes campaign built the strongest statewide peace movement in the country, a movement that changed the face and reputation of Massachusetts politics.
Massachusetts Political Action for Peace/promoting Eugene McCarthy
Massachusetts Political Action for Peace, which was the organization that grew out of the 1962 Hughes campaign, began focusing on the Vietnam War in 1974.
- We did everything that we could to call attention to it. We worried about it. My worry about the Vietnam War was that it could result in a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union or the United States and China. That was my main motivation. We were working in various ways. Then the presidential election of 1968 was looming. I worked with Allard Lowenstein and Curtis Gans to try to find a candidate who would run against Lyndon Johnson for the Democratic nomination on the issue of the Vietnam War. We went to George McGovern and he turned us down. He was Senator then. We went to Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas who was the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and had had very good hearings. He turned us down. We went to Bobby Kennedy and he turned us down. We had nobody. Then one day in August, 1967––I’ll never forget it–– I got a telephone call out of the blue from this obscure Senator from Minnesota, Eugene J. McCarthy, wanting to talk to me about his running for President. What do you think he said? He asked me all kinds of questions. I said, “You know, I’m thrilled that you called,” I said, “but we have to talk about this.” He says, “Can you come down to Washington tomorrow?” So I went down there the next day. I took with me people from the Mass PAX organization, the fellow who had been the organizer of the grassroots, Chester Hartman, he came with me; Marty Peretz and his wife, Ann Peretz, I took them down because they were the money people.
- So I was bringing organization and I was bringing money. And I’m the political maker of things happening and so forth. We met with Eugene McCarthy at five o'clock in the afternoon in his office. We talked steadily with him for five hours, went out to dinner and so forth. Then we went to the airport and compared notes. We all felt that he didn't know as much as about the Vietnam War situation as we did. We thought that he didn’t have the depth of understanding that we did. And, as a matter of fact, he talked mostly about the dangers of the imperial presidency, that Lyndon Johnson personified this. And he thought that was the worst thing for the country. He regarded the Vietnam War as an aspect of the imperial presidency. That was the heart of his objection.
- So when we got to the airport we talked. Chester Hartman says, “This guy is not left enough for me.” Marty Peretz and Ann Peretz, who later became his bosom companions felt that well, he was all right, but he was the best that we had; let's go with him. And so I listened. I felt there was enough there. I came back and I called a meeting of all of our thousands of supporters. And I got up on a table and I described McCarthy and how low key he was, and how he had a gray pallor and he wears gray suits and a gray tie and gray hair and a gray personality. I said, “But he's ours, and he's going to do it.”
- Well, everybody went crazy. It was a focus, right? And we worked very hard in the campaign. As you know, the prime issue was the Vietnam War. We propelled Bobby Kennedy into the race. Then, of course, Nixon was elected. So, in answer to your question about the Vietnam moratorium––after, when Nixon was elected, he said that he had a plan for ending the war. We waited for something to happen, and nothing was happening.
- Then we met in April of 1969; I called a meeting of Mass PAX––that's Massachusetts Political Action for Peace, that's the nickname for it––and representatives of other organizations, [to] see what we could do about pushing him on the promise that he had made to the American people in the election. It was just about the only thing that he said of any consequence. We sat around the room throwing out ideas. Then I got the inspiration for the Moratorium. Originally what I suggested was not the Moratorium; it was a national strike. Everybody fell off their chairs. Here I was, a businessman; I run a factory; I run a large organization. I said that what we ought to do is to give him a certain number of months in order to deliver on his promise. Until eventually the country is shut down unless we stop this murder. I approached it like a business problem. You have to research it;
- There was another twist that I put in it and that was, instead of going to Washington and spending a hundred bucks––which is what it takes you––that you save the hundred dollars and put it into local activity. On October 15, instead of going to Washington, everybody would go door to door in their own home town where people knew them, where people trusted them, where they weren’t faceless figures on a television screen that could be screamed at as disloyal or whatever, where you would be the person who coached the Little League team, you're the person who helps them burn the leaves––all that kind of thing––that you work in your own town. As a matter of fact on October 15 we had George McGovern as the speaker. He flew in and I met him at the airport. Then we went to City Hall where there were some ceremonies, and then we were driving to Boston Common. There were over a hundred thousand people there. And I said, “George, let me off at the subway stop at Arlington Street.” He said, “What do you mean? Aren’t you going to introduce me?” I said, “No. I’m going back to my home town of Waban”––that’s a village of Newton––I said, “I’m going to stay in front of the supermarket all day handing out literature, because that’s what I think ought to be done. I’ve had it with these large demonstrations. I think that they are relatively ineffective.”
- One of the major aspects of the Moratorium was that we structured it in such a way that you could participate without having a particular view. There was no line. Anybody who opposed the war for any reason, even if you didn't want to pay the taxes for it, even if you thought we should be fighting the Soviet Union instead of the Viet Cong. So it was wide open. Everybody could participate, and they did. Even Cardinal Cushing participated. The Republican Governor, Frank Sargent, participated. All of a sudden everybody saw this was just crazy and vicious and wrong. Well, not everybody thought it was vicious, but I did, anyway. And that’s another reason why the Vietnam Moratorium took off, was its openness––that there was no line. Of course, at that time in the sixties there was severe criticism of U.S. social and economic institutions. And people were spelling “Amerika” with a “K.” Not in my movement, no. In the first place I don’t think America has a “K” anyway. In other words, I don’t believe that. Not only that, I thought it wasn't effective for mass advertising. But in addition to that, I just didn’t believe it.
Fr. Drinan/John Kerry
- I can tell you that my first experience with a Vietnam veteran was in 1969 after the moratorium. We decided that we wanted to elect a member of the House of Representatives who was against the Vietnam War. We had one––been there for twenty-six years, a person of great power by the name of Philip Philbin. He was the Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and he was a hawk. Nice man, but a hawk. And you couldn’t do anything with him. Newton, where I live, had just become part of his district. In 1968 there were two candidates who ran against him for the Democratic nomination and they got fifty-one percent of the vote. He got forty-nine, and they got fifty-one between them. So we said, hey, we can beat this guy. And it’s also an opportunity to run a peace campaign, an anti- Vietnam War campaign. We were flushed with the success of the Moratorium and the impact that we had made with the Eugene McCarthy campaign. So we furthered our activities against the Vietnam War by using the most Democratic tactics, by bringing in all of the two thousand anti- Vietnam War activists in the fourth Congressional district; bringing them all into a school for an all-day session and selecting a candidate from people who ran.
- I was a candidate, and I was the likely candidate, until I found a Jesuit priest, Father Robert F. Drinan, the Dean of the Boston College Law School. I had met him once or twice, had a very good experience with him. On October 15, Moratorium Day, I spoke that evening at Boston College. To show you how broad the movement had become by then, the Jesuit priest who was the President of Boston College invited me, the Newton radical, to be guest of honor at a dinner with all the faculty. But there were other speakers on there including a young Vietnamese man––he must have been eighteen, nineteen, twenty––whose father was in jail in Vietnam under very difficult circumstances. I saw Father Drinan talking to him, I heard him talking to him. I was very impressed with his concern about the boy, and about his father, and about the Vietnamese people. And I said, “There’s a real guy.” Okay. So when I heard that Drinan, a well known priest, the Dean of the Boston College Law School, might be interested in running, I called him up immediately and said, “I’m dropping my candidacy; I will work for you.” So we nominated him at the caucus, and we elected him. And electing him was part of the process.
- While this was going on I got a telephone call from somebody I had never heard of. I was still working at Massachusetts Envelope Company. This fellow calls me up and he says, “You don't know me, but I have a brother who is a natural politician, and he’s over in Vietnam now. He’s coming back. And he wants to run in the caucus that you are organizing.” And I said, “I already have a candidate.” He says, “Yes, but my brother is special.” I said, “Who’s your brother?” He says, “John Kerry.” This was Cameron Kerry who at the time was a junior at Harvard College. He interested me so I said, “Get over here.” He hopped a bus and he came over in his sweater and everything. And we talked. John Kerry did run in that caucus and did very, very well in the caucus. I was hard pressed to beat him. But John Kerry, after he lost, he stood up and he said, “I’m going to respect the wishes of the caucus. I’m not going to run in the primary. I will dedicate the rest of the campaign to working for Father Drinan.” And that’s why I have been a supporter of John Kerry every since.
Vietnam Vets Against the War
- So then our Mass PAX office was in Cambridge. Jean Rubenstein told me that there had been a number of Vietnam veterans who were hanging around the office and looking for ways to organize themselves. She said, “What can we do for them?” So I said, “Well, what do you want to do for them?” That’s the kind of an executive I am. She’s on the scene. I’m not on the scene. So what is her suggestion? She said, “Well, you know, we could give them some space, and we could give them materials. We could give them telephones. We could give them organizing assistance, and we could show them how to do things politically and for organizing. What do you think?” I said, “Sounds good to me; let me come over and meet these guys.” I went over there, and I sat down with them. It was hard for me to relate to them directly. I’m, you know, shirt and tie, president, CEO of a company, and they were in what I would call duds, and maybe unkempt, maybe unshaven. They weren’t ready for job interviews and so forth. Also, there was a generational gap. How old was I then? Let’s see. I guess I was fifty. I didn’t think of myself as old, but I knew that they did. Also the fact that even though I was running a peace organization, I maybe represented the people that got them into this mess, or got the country into this mess. So I played it cool by listening and tried not to be too paternal. I wasn’t paternal at all. I let Jean handle most of it and give them all the help that I could. Having seen these guys recently, I’m surprised they even remembered me. But they did. They had a get-together at John Kerry's house, and they told Chris Gregory to invite me. I said, “Are you sure?” Because I didn’t think that I was that tied to the thing. They said, “No, no.” Anyway, it worked. So we did for them whatever they needed done that was within our power to do.
- My impression was that they were seeking to organize other veterans into a coherent group that could have some political muscle. I also was under the impression that they were trying to help each other in the winding down from their Vietnam experience––that they were trying to help each other comes to terms with their experience, and come to terms with the new world that was out there that they were facing, and come to terms with their new responsibilities. I felt that they knew that they had responsibilities to tell their story, number one. Number two, to make sure that the war ended. And number three, to make the country a better place. To that extent, I thought that our interests and our reactions dovetailed; and that even though they're not going to do it the way I was going to do it they deserved support. I think it turned out right.
Civil Liberties Union
American Committee on East-West Accord
As at March 10, 1982, Jerome Grossman, president, Council for a Livable World was a member of the American Committee on East-West Accord. The ACEWA, based in Washington, D.C., was a tax-exempt "independent educational organization", with the stated aim of "improving East/West relations, with special focus on U.S.-Soviet relations." JORJA also endorsed the Kennedy-Hatfield Nuclear Freeze Resolution which was introduced in the Senate on March 10, 1982.
Council for a Livable World
Grossman worked in the family business for thirty-five years, sold his interest in that, and then as a result of his participation in the peace movement he accepted a position as the president and national executive director of Council for a Livable World. I was the director of that for twelve years. Then he became the chairman of the organization.
As at March 12, 2010, Jerome Grossman served as Chairman Emeritus on the board of the Council for a Livable World. The Council was founded in 1962 by nuclear physicist Leo Szilard and other scientists. Its purpose is to campaign against the proliferation of nuclear weapons through lobbying and by supporting candidates who share their vision.
Influence of CLW
Grossman claims that by funding Senators at the beginning of their careers, Council for a Livable World was able to influence them later on.
- Now Council for a Livable World is playing the money game which is another reason why I didn't even want to be associated with Council for a Livable World. Because I consider myself an organizer and a person with ideas to throw into the pot. That’s what we do. We try to find obscure people who would make good Senators or Representatives and early on try to give them the initial funding. Now we can’t compete with the big money. We only raise a million and a half each election cycle. But that’s a million and a half that has no cost to them. Because we get in early, and because it’s tied to issues, seems to have some kind of an effect. Then if we elect somebody they’re eternally grateful. Then we go and we are able to get a hearing.
- George Mitchell who's going to be Secretary of State––when he ran for Senator in Maine the first time, he was against a very popular member of the House of Representatives in Maine, a Republican by the name of Emory, Robert Emory. Was it Robert? Well, Emory. And Mitchell had run for Governor and run for Representative before. He had lost both times. He was considered a terrible politician. He had been a Federal Judge briefly. And he was considered a basket case. He was thirty-six points behind. We raised fifty, sixty thousand dollars for him. He never stops telling that story. Now it so happens he’s a good guy anyway. But in time he was majority leader of the United States Senate. And we could walk in any time and tell him what we wanted. We even got him to oppose the President on the B2 bomber and so forth.
Grossman taught political science at Tufts University. In 1996 he was teaching Business Management at Tufts University. In addition to he formally taught at Palm Beach Community College in January, February, and March. In the fall semester he taught at an RSVP program, "which is essentially a lifetime learning institution".
Well into the mid 1990s, Jerome Grossman claimed to have considerable influence in Washington DC.
- I go to Washington for three days every month. Last time I was there, I saw a few Senators, a few members of the House of Representatives. And I also went in the Pentagon because the Pentagon is now doing another bottom-up review before they put their budget in. Because their budget now is based on fighting two regional wars simultaneously. So they’re going through the motions––well, I’m being unfair. They’re re-studying it, all right. While I was there I went in to see if I could have some input. I have had input.
- When Les Aspin was Secretary of Defense he actually solicited my opinions. He didn’t do what I said. You look for any crevice. Well, the Congress, one of the Senators that I know put in a bill requiring that this be done, and that also there'd be nine people from outside the Pentagon who would present another plan. I found out about that and I’m nominating a couple of people on our board like Kosta Tsipis [MIT professor]. Do you know Kosta Tsipis? And George Ratkins, and William Kaufman––authentic experts. See, we’re tying to get them on the alternate one.Then I got to the State Department, too. And the Pentagon is doing some good things. There are some good people there doing good things. Because some of the humanitarian functions have been passed off onto the Pentagon.
- And then the State Department––wow, there are some [people] there––they want to see the Chemical Weapons Treaty pass. It hasn’t been ratified. And [Senator Jesse] Helms won’t bring it up. So, I conspire with them. The point is that I get…and people are calling me all day, and I'm calling people all day to find out what goes on. In addition to that I read a lot of technical journals like the material put out by the Arms Control Association, and a whole bunch of it.
National Jobs For All Coalition
Getting the GOP to accept nuclear disarmament
- A world without nuclear weapons would do much in terms of security, but more so, it would enhance and protect the superpower status of the United States. Giving up nuclear weapons and accepting US hegemony may be the price humanity must pay to avert the threat of total annihilation.
- President Barack Obama has called for a major change in world policy on nuclear weapons, leading to eventual elimination. His initiative is supported by a powerful group of conservative and military allies led by former Republican Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz and Democrats former Secretary of Defense William Perry and Sam Nunn, longtime Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
- These leaders recognize that nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and dangerous ever conceived, that kill and maim without discrimination, the only weapons ever invented that could destroy all life on planet Earth. That must not happen. Disarmament is the only answer: If any country has nuclear weapons, others will want them. Then, some day they will be used by accident, mistake, or design - the ultimate catastrophe.
- These conservative leaders agree with the Democrats in the US Senate. Both argue for dramatic reforms in the US and world nuclear policy. The problem is political, how to persuade the Republican Senators to adopt these reforms. It won’t happen unless Kissinger et al do some serious lobbying. Obama can not do it alone and GOP support is essential.
- While the public argument will advocate the ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons, immediate reduction of all nuclear arsenals, guarding nukes and nuclear materials, enhanced verification and enforcement procedures, their private argument will point out that complete and verifiable elimination of all nukes will enhance world-wide US military hegemony.
- During President Clinton’s administration, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was sent to the US Senate for approval. It failed to reach the 67 votes necessary for ratification, but did attain a majority, 51- 49. In 2010, there will be another attempt to reach 67, hopefully by persuading seven Republicans to join 60 Democrats.
- Some conservatives and military leaders believe that a worldwide policy of no nukes would be the most advantageous policy for the US, enhancing and protecting its status as the only military superpower with the capability to deploy overwhelming non-nuclear forces anywhere on earth in a matter of hours. It would legitimize US action against alleged rogue states and tighten control over the nuclear black market. It would support the present US hegemony by eliminating the so-called suicide defense prepared by North Korea and Iran. Giving up nuclear weapons and accepting US hegemony may be the price that humanity must pay to avert the threat of total annihilation.
- Several countries including Libya, Ukraine, Belarus, have given up their nukes as not worth the high cost of development and maintenance. Some have found the prestige of having nukes to be over-rated. And others have found themselves under an informal US nuclear umbrella: Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Israel, and others. And finally, nations that find US hegemony onerous and oppressive, with or without nuclear weapons, could ally themselves for resistance.
Son's DSA endorsement
- Son of CPPAX founder Jerome Grossman (one of DSA’s first Debs-Thomas honorees), Steve Grossman has strong labor backing and says he will use this office to leverage progressive issues. He’s also a hard line AIPAC opponent of Palestinian rights, which would be more of a concern if he was running for Congress, not Treasurer.
- ↑ LEXINGTON ORAL HISTORY PROJECTS, INC. Jerome Grossman, Interviewed 12/3/1996, Jerome Grossman December 3, 1996 by Nancy Earsy
- ↑ LEXINGTON ORAL HISTORY PROJECTS, INC. Jerome Grossman, Interviewed 12/3/1996, Jerome Grossman December 3, 1996 by Nancy Earsy
- ↑ LEXINGTON ORAL HISTORY PROJECTS, INC. Jerome Grossman, Interviewed 12/3/1996, Jerome Grossman December 3, 1996 by Nancy Earsy
- ↑ Jerome Grossman Ted Kennedy: His First Election Monday, February 16, 2009, The Relentless Liberal blog
- ↑ The Yankee radical September/October 2010
- ↑ East-West Outlook newsletter, March-April 1982, Vol. 5, No. 2
- ↑ CLW website: Board
- ↑ National Jobs For All Coalition: Who We Are (accessed on Nov. 16, 2010)
- ↑ Accepting American Hegemony, Jerome Grossman, Atlantic Community.org], January 22, 2010]
- ↑ TYR Sep. 2010