A lot of people who weren’t alive to witness the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago are wondering if it’s legendary chaos. I evaluated that possibility at New York:
When the Democratic National Committee chose Chicago as the site of the party’s 2024 national convention a year ago, no one knew incumbent presidential nominee Joe Biden would become the target of major antiwar demonstrations. The fateful events of October 7 were nearly six months away, and Biden had yet to formally announce his candidacy for reelection. So there was no reason to anticipate comparisons to the riotous 1968 Democratic Convention, when images of police clashing with anti–Vietnam War protesters in the Windy City were broadcast into millions of homes. Indeed, a year ago, a more likely analog to 2024 might have been the last Democratic convention in Chicago in 1996; that event was an upbeat vehicle for Bill Clinton’s successful reelection campaign.
Instead, thanks to intense controversy over Israel’s lethal operations in Gaza and widespread global protests aimed partly at Israel’s allies and sponsors in Washington, plans are well underway for demonstrations in Chicago during the August 19 to 22 confab. Organizers say they expect as many as 30,000 protesters to gather outside Chicago’s United Center during the convention. As in the past, a key issue is how close the protests get to the actual convention. Obviously, demonstrators want delegates to hear their voices and the media to amplify their message. And police, Chicago officials, and Democratic Party leaders want protests to occur as far away from the convention as possible. How well these divergent interests are met will determine whether there is anything like the kind of clashes that dominated Chicago ’68.
There are, however, some big differences in the context surrounding the two conventions. Here’s why the odds of a 2024 convention showdown rivaling 1968 are actually fairly low.
Horrific as the ongoing events in Gaza undoubtedly are, and with all due consideration of the U.S. role in backing and supplying Israel now and in the past, the Vietnam War was a more viscerally immediate crisis for both the protesters who descended on Chicago that summer and the Americans watching the spectacle on TV. There were over a half-million American troops deployed in Vietnam in 1968, and nearly 300,000 young men were drafted into the Army and Marines that year. Many of the protesters at the convention were protesting their own or family members’ future personal involvement in the war, or an escape overseas beyond the Selective Service System’s reach (an estimated 125,000 Americans fled to Canada during the Vietnam War, and how to deal with them upon repatriation became a major political issue for years).
Even from a purely humanitarian and altruistic point of view, Vietnamese military and civilian casualties ran into the millions during the period of U.S. involvement. It wasn’t common to call what was happening “genocide,” but there’s no question the images emanating from the war (which spilled over catastrophically into Laos and especially Cambodia) were deeply disturbing to the consciences of vast numbers of Americans.
Perhaps a better analogy for the Gaza protests than those of the Vietnam era might be the extensive protests during the late 1970s and 1980s over apartheid in South Africa (a regime that enjoyed explicit and implicit backing from multiple U.S. administrations) and in favor of a freeze in development and deployment of nuclear weapons. These were significant protest movements, but still paled next to the organized opposition to the Vietnam War.
One reason the 1968 Chicago protests created such an indelible image is that the conflict outside on the streets was reflected in conflict inside the convention venue. For one thing, 1968 nominee Hubert Humphrey had not quelled formal opposition to his selection when the convention opened. He never entered or won a single primary. One opponent who did, Eugene McCarthy, was still battling for the nomination in Chicago. Another, Robert F. Kennedy, had been assassinated two months earlier (1972 presidential nominee George McGovern was the caretaker for Kennedy delegates at the 1968 convention). There was a highly emotional platform fight over Vietnam policy during the convention itself; when a “peace plank” was defeated, New York delegates led protesters singing “We Shall Overcome.” Once violence broke out on the streets, it did not pass notice among the delegates, some of whom had been attacked by police trying to enter the hall. At one point, police actually accosted and removed a TV reporter from the convention for some alleged breach in decorum.
By contrast, no matter what is going on outside the United Center, the 2024 Democratic convention is going to be totally wired for Joe Biden, with nearly all the delegates attending pledged to him and chosen by his campaign. Even aside from the lack of formal opposition to Biden, conventions since 1968 have become progressively less spontaneous and more controlled by the nominee and the party that nominee directs (indeed, the chaos in Chicago in 1968 encouraged that trend, along with near-universal use of primaries to award delegates, making conventions vastly less deliberative). While there may be some internal conflict on the platform language related to Gaza, it will very definitely be resolved long before the convention and far away from cameras.
Another significant difference between then and now is that convention delegates and Democratic elected officials generally will enter the convention acutely concerned about giving aid and comfort to the Republican nominee, the much-hated, much-feared Donald Trump. Yes, many Democrats hated and feared Richard Nixon in 1968, but Democrats were just separated by four years from a massive presidential landslide and mostly did not reckon how much Nixon would be able to straddle the Vietnam issue and benefit from Democratic divisions. That’s unlikely to be the case in August of 2024.
Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley was a major figure in the 1968 explosion in his city. He championed and defended his police department’s confrontational tactics during the convention. At one point, when Senator Abraham Ribicoff referred from the podium to “gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago,” Daley leaped up and shouted at him with cameras trained on his furious face as he clearly repeated an obscene and antisemitic response to the Jewish politician from Connecticut. Beyond his conduct on that occasion, “Boss” Daley was the epitome of the old-school Irish American machine politician and from a different planet culturally than the protesters at the convention.
Current Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson, who was born the year of Daley’s death, is a Black progressive and labor activist who is still fresh from his narrow 2023 mayoral runoff victory over the candidate backed by both the Democratic Establishment and police unions. While he is surely wary of the damage anti-Israel and anti-Biden protests can do to the city’s image if they turn violent, Johnson is not without ties to protesters. He broke a tie in the Chicago City Council to ensure passage of a Gaza cease-fire resolution earlier this year. His negotiating skills will be tested by the maneuvering already underway with protest groups and the Democratic Party, but he’s not going to be the sort of implacable foe the 1968 protesters encountered.
The 1968 Democratic convention was from a bygone era of gavel-to-gavel coverage by the three broadcast-television networks that then dominated the media landscape and the living rooms of the country. When they were being bludgeoned by the Chicago police, protesters began chanting, “The whole world is watching,” which wasn’t much of an exaggeration. Today’s media coverage of major-party political conventions is extremely limited and (like coverage of other events) fragmented. If violence breaks out this time in Chicago, it will get a lot of attention, albeit much of it bent to the optics of the various media outlets covering it. But the sense in 1968 that the whole nation was watching in horror as an unprecedented event rolled out in real time will likely never be recovered.
Clarke’s comments from bombing a Sudanese baby formula plant in 98, his commetns in ’00 to the Post that “we should have a very low barrier of evidence that can be used in court of law” and ’00 he also defended Clinton justly by saying it was so sophisticated it could not be stopped yeah a rubber boat is very sophiticated while crazy men on planes all hijacking planes at the same time should have been easily stopped. These are the comments that are taking hold.
I am Josh and I approved this message.
What do you guys think about the Sibel Edmonds testimony? If I understand her correctly. she is saying that she was offered a bribed to change translations tocover up the fact that specific iformation about the 911 attacks had been given to Rice, Rumsfield et all, prior to the actual attack. Is this credible? laura
Thought I’d offer up a sobering thought here about the stakes in the upcoming election (as if we don’t have enough already).
When Bush ran in 2000, he did so on the pretext that he was a “compassionate conservative”, and not driven by a radical agenda. Despite this promise, and his razor thin “victory”, he turned right around and implemented probably the most extreme political agenda we have seen in our lifetimes.
Now, simply imagine what he will do should he win by any margin AFTER pursuing his radical agenda, and when he need not worry about re-election.
Point is, this man better go down in November, or we ain’t seen nothing yet.
The interview with Colin Powell on “Face the Nation “today (3/28) is one of the most depressing things I have seen to date. He got through a 20-minute interview without answering EVEN ONE of their questions and at the end Bubba Schieffer thanked him for his “most candid interview”. WHAT?
We are doomed. A week ago Rumsfeld tripped over his own lies, but there will never be any truth dug out by these media clucks.
Apparently Kerry is off the campaign trail this week for another small operation on an old shoulder injury — out of commission on Wed, and then for 4-5 days. I don’t think this will hurt him much, but hope it is the last “time our” for a time. Now is the time for the set-piece speeches on major themes — perhaps one a week for about 6 weeks. But I really don’t like the fact that the campaign has become so hot so soon. Taking down Bush’s approval points in his best areas is happening — and not because Kerry’s personally inflicting damage, more because Bush’s record is coming home to haunt him. But soon, Kerry has to pick up the themes and start driving them himself.
Two things hearten me. First, Bush has spent a goodly chunk of money (but of course there is more where that came from) and thus far his advertising efforts have not accomplished much. Second — I would suggest you can read into the full court press against Clarke a great fear on the part of Bush and Rove. They probably have the best internal polls available, and perhsps they are seeing the unreveling of Bush’s approval numbers on War on Terrorism, Military Affairs, Foreign Policy and all much more clearly than we are with in most cases the big general national polls.
It’s not just a question of Kerry’s saying the right things; he needs to work on his style, and fast. He needs to use short, direct sentences that convey a vision and belief. Bush does this, and it’s so effective that a lot of people don’t notice that he’s spouting nonsense. Take a look at the article in the Washington Post from last week: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24918-2004Mar25.html .
A number of people have expressed disappointment that Clarke’s testimony has not taken a larger toll on Bush’s approval numbers so far.
I think, though, that it is quite enough if the impact of Clarke’s revelations is real, but modest. Suppose that the long term effect of Clarke’s attack is to shave say 3% off the baseline of Bush’s approval numbers. THAT would be a major deal, given the tipping point on which Bush’s numbers sit. The average approval rate for Bush today is in the 48-49% range. Strip 3% from that, and one gets 45-46%. There is no question but that this lower rate would make it virtually impossible for Bush to be re-elected. Even if his numbers on a given day had a modest spike, it’s unlikely he would be above water in his re-election bid. And the ongoing perception would be of a losing campaign, which would only feed on itself.
In short, Bush is at a stage in which anything that pushes the ceiling of his numbers down will destroy his chances for winning, and if Clarke can help bring that about, then the Clarke factor is all we need it to be.
I don’t think it was an accident that Kerry took a week-long vacation just as the Clarke book came out and the 9/11 hearings started heating up. The 9/11 issue has been Bush’s strongest issue and Democrats have long known that they couldn’t dislodge him from it by themselves. I think the Kerry team made a calculated decision to clear the decks for the 9/11 hearings. I would even go so far as to speculate that they had an advanced copy of the book and figured that Clarke could take care of himself.
So I’m glad that Kerry didn’t distract the distractable media from the 9/11 hearings. But I really don’t want him to pull his punches on 9/11 in the weeks ahead.
–Dan
He’ll have other opportunities. But Kerry could have looked like a leader this week–and did not. Not strike three but maybe strike one.
A few simple words from him this week would have helped a lot–words to the effect that:
*the need for accountability for what has happened must not prevent us from keeping our eye on the ball.
*I remain hopeful and expect that we will capture Osama bin laden soon.
*But this fight is about far more than that.
*It is about leading and rallying the world community–including the overwhelming majority of Muslims who want no part of the tyranny the global al qaeda network is dedicated to imposing on the world–to act now to prevent further catastrophes before it is too late.
*The path of freedom is not for the faint of heart. But unlike the path offered by our adversaries, in it lies endless possibility for bettering our world.
That kind of stuff, that just about any dimestore speechwriter could put together in a day.
Richard Clarke’s book lays out the main elements of what we need to do. The Clinton Administration was on the case and was making progress. This Administration allowed itself to become distracted. If we get back on track and have a President who will be hands-on in forcing the bureaucracies to be responsive, in this post-9/11 world we should be able to make rapid headway. My own strong sense is that there are governments all over the world who will follow our lead if they have confidence in the direction of US leadership on this issue and don’t see us instead as al qaeda’s indispensable recruiting agency, reliable and steady only in ramping up animosity of millions of Muslims around the world towards us.
I’m all the more disappointed because I feel Kerry has it in him to be the commanding and reassuring alternative Americans will elect this fall if they feel they have that choice. Randy Beers with his campaign certainly knows what needs to be done re al qaeda.
I really don’t want to feel as though I’m allowing myself to dream a little too much these days.
The downside, as an extremely pro-Bush article on the MSNBC/Newsweek site mentions, is that thanks to Bush’s ads more and more people believe that Kerry is insincere and will say whatever he thinks people want to hear.
If people trust Bush to keep his word, then they will vote for him no matter what their feelings on Iraq or the economy are. They are afraid to give the Presidency to someone they think is not trustworthy.
“Currently, Kerry leads Bush by one point (48-47) in this poll, slightly up from a tie one week ago.”
so…basically, people hate Bush’s policies, but they may end up voting for him anyway?
I’m not sure proposing a corporate tax cut (which hasn’t been mentioned yet in any of these mini-articles) constitutes being a tax-and-spend liberal, so Kerry must have a problem getting his message across.
Sure, the election season is young, but if Kerry can’t get his message across…
for instance, i read about a voter who is “concerned about the economy and the defecit” but recognized that Bush is “a strong leader, and does what he believes in.”
I hope Kerry’s vacation is over. He’s got some serious work to do.
Carville’s theme for the ’92 election was “if your opponent is drowning, throw the s.o.b. an anvil.”