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 partyâs 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 antiâVietnam 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 Clintonâs successful reelection campaign.
Instead, thanks to intense controversy over Israelâs lethal operations in Gaza and widespread global protests aimed partly at Israelâs 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 Chicagoâs 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 â68.
There are, however, some big differences in the context surrounding the two conventions. Hereâs 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 membersâ future personal involvement in the war, or an escape overseas beyond the Selective Service Systemâs 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 wasnât common to call what was happening âgenocide,â but thereâs 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 âpeace plankâ was defeated, New York delegates led protesters singing âWe Shall Overcome.â 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. Thatâs 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 departmentâs confrontational tactics during the convention. At one point, when Senator Abraham Ribicoff referred from the podium to âgestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago,â 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, âBossâ 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 Daleyâs 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 cityâs 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 heâs 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, âThe whole world is watching,â which wasnât much of an exaggeration. Todayâs 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.
I am from Kansas City, though an expat who chooses to live in Australia with my Australian wife.
They have universal Health Care here, and no employer has to bear the cost of health care for it’s employees. It is a mixed balance, and has some downsides (I think America has the best health care in the world, if you can afford it), (and US doctors have to run more tests or they get sued, which happens only rarely here).
But if people know they are going to be taken care of when they get sick, no matter what, you can focus on jobs in a much more efficient way. As an employer here in Australia, our firm added employees without the concerns you raised above even coming into the equation.
The costs associated with universal health care here in Australia are 1.8% of income, up to the first $70,000. If tiny population of Australia can afford universal health care, surely we in the US can afford to do it.
I don’t know how to turn that into an instant winner for Kerry though. I agree wth erasmus above. The issues that Oregon has addressed, (like when do we use public money to save a Down’s syndrome child? Heck how tough does it get?). It is a complex issue, and will probably take even progressives a while to solve the problem, changing the way we fund health care in America.
RE: one of BC Inaz’ points: that we should be”HAMMERING the point that we are now living with the TAX and SPEND REPUBLICANS, and not much to show for the record setting deficits.”
Actually, the current Republican model is much worse than Tax and Spend. It’s Binge and Borrow—binging on the Iraq War and huge tax cuts for the rich, and then borrowing it all from the next generation.
A Tax and Spend Democrat is beginning to sound like the soul of prudence and wisdom.
IMHO, we need to reframe the whole, jobs, economy, tax cuts debate.
1. BIG emphasis on the fact that they weren’t Tax Cuts they were Tax Shifts. Shifting the burden of government onto the backs of those who have less now and for a couple of generations of those who will have even less at the current rate of spending within this crony capitalist administration.
2. HAMMERING the point that we are now living with the TAX and SPEND REPUBLICANS, and not much to show for the record setting deficits.
3. If we can RECAPTURE some fiscal sanity, we can put a down payment on and begin investing in and creating jobs by aggressively trying to solve our energy dependency addiction to oil. Proportional investment in Solar/Wind/Bio/Geothermal technologies. Government spending on a scales as, say, building the Boulder Dam and other Depression Era projects. Same with Environmental restoration. George Bush is creating a level playing field of free trade by allowing the degredation of our environment and wages to the point at which WE will be competing for JOBS with workers in the THIRD WORLD. Isn’t the idea to lift people out of poverty?
4. A true commitment to National Security would also start putting people back to work.
The magic show is over, it’s time to turn on the lights and put the rabbit back in the hat.
Not on topic I know but …
I would like to float the idea of organising a petition drive in support of Kerry’s call for regular monthly debates with Bush.
We won’t get the debates of course but it will be effective in maintaining the initiative whilst keeping republicans on the back foot since they will have no option but to oppose it.
A petition, whether or not it is succesfull, can offer several advantages for us. It will be very popular among democrats and equally unpopular among republicans allowing us to frame their reluctance to debate in a very bad light for them. It should be relatively easy to achieve and cheap. We can draw on the basic organising skills of a wide variety of movement organisations from unions, DNC, Kerry campaign, and especially online organisations like Move On. As the petition grows the media will have to report on it and continue reporting on it allowing the petition drive to be framed as a theme rather than a single non-recurring event.
I could go on, any other ideas ?
Check out the Decembrist’s and Pandagon’s recent posts on this subject. Both highlighted rising health care costs as a significant disincentive to hiring permanent workers (costs that are of course born by government, rather than private industry, in most of our competitors). Pandagon had some good suggestions on how to address this thru tax policy.
IMHO, retraining and tax incentives are losers. They’ve been put out as remedies for years. I think Kerry would be better to have specific proposals to stop job loss overseas, even if he gets labelled protectionist. With the steel tariffs, Bush has already shown he’ll go protretionist first if he sees any advantage.
Remember what America and Americans have always done best. Impliment Technology! When steam power first became available it was the USA (and England) who lead teh world and sold these products to the rest of teh world.
When man learned to fly it was the USA who lead the rest of the rest of the world in this industry and many jobs were created.
When automobiles became available it was the USA who lead the world in manufacturing, creating many jobs and support industries.
When computers first appeared it was the USA who lead the world in their integration into manufacturing and business cerating many jobs.
AMERICA has always done best at the cutting edge of technology.
Today the world desparately needs alternative sources of energy. Why is it Japan who is leading in hybrid automobiles? It should be the USA. Its inevitable that this is the wave of the future. Why is American clinging to all the old industries when there is a tremendous opportunity out there to become the world leader again in all forms of alternative energy and its innumerable applications.
It will require bold moves and bold decisions but American can lead once again in the manufacturing base that arrises from technological inovations and applications. It requires vision….
Vernon Bush
Agree with Tom. Pushing forward alternative/renewable energy program. Whatever happened to the electric grids that need to be updated. That can be made into some type of “new deal-like” program, sort of along the lines of the highway buidling that FDR enacted, that forces energy companies to update their grids maybe tax incentives or penalties for not updating. Scholarship and training programs for students who enter these fields of study. A space program that promotes alternative/renewable energy. This also promotes new technology spinoffs the way the race to space did in the 50’s and 60’s. The countries that push forth alternative energy are going to make the new jobs that are being lost to cheap labor. The next economic power will be the one who creates and sees to it that these alternative fuel technology succeeds. This gives Amercia a goal, a vision, and something to challenge Americans. It offers a future of hope not seen since JFK. We need to be on the forefront of creating alternative fuels and moving away from fossil fuels. We do this and we continue our domincance as an economic power. Also lowering the trade deficit stops the bleeding from jobs being lost. Pledge to balance the budget along the lines of Clinton. Crush supply-side economics once and for all as a failure. It didn’t work during Reagan who rasied taxes four times during his eight years. And it is totally abysmal under Bush who just kept cutting taxes. Promote the idea that raising taxes for the wealthiest Americans the top 2% and forces them to pay there fair share America is able to balance the budget.
What about a substantial public investment program that would put people directly back to work?
Something along the lines of the “Apollo program,” – spending $30 billion a year, for 10 years, on improving energy efficiency and sustainability, better transit, urban development, and so forth.
One estimate suggests that such a program could add 3 million jobs to the economy over a decade, plus reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and other nice benefits.
Federal severance assistance for jobs lost to international competition. Game, set, match; good luck fending off that one, GOP.
Tripsarecopsem (sp?) hit one point right on when he said “But there’s a whole ‘nother side to it. If businesses are not required to cover employees’ healthcare, it’s apparently a big win for them. Even if they pay more taxes to cover the cost, it seems likely that it’s a net benefit for their bottom line. Don’t know if the numbers are there or not, myself; but I’ve heard the opinion from a number of people who ought to know.” As usual, Walmart is a good example. Since they offer no healthcare coverage and we taxpayers have to pick it up, they have a huge cost advantage over retailers who try to do the right thing by their employees. There are a lot of business owners who would love to cover their employees healthcare cost if they could afford it and if it wasn’t a one-way ticket to bankruptcy. (think “small businesses — a hugely Republican block) They would be a perfect audience for a healthcare plan that leveled the playing field regarding healthcare. They might not even care if they had to pay for it, so long as everyone had to pay for it.
The heavylifting has to be done by embryonic-going-on-fledgling providers of customized lifelong learning and career services (CLLCS). The federal government needs to appoint an “opportunity czar” who will preside over the crafting of appropriate policies to support the industry. Details (in ‘rough draft’ form) at http://www.opportunityservices.com.
An excerpt:
My Plan To Win A Spot On The Apprentice 2
— By Helping You Win A Spot!
Hello all,
I’m Frank Ruscica, and in anticipation of being interviewed for The Apprentice 2 in March or April (I already submitted my application and the required videotape), I am preparing a presentation — Maximizing Return on The Apprentice 2 for Donald Trump, NBC and GE — that explains why:
* Donald Trump, NBC and General Electric (NBC’s parent company) are best served if The Apprentice 2 is set at the White House, where the 16 apprentices would help President Bush’s then-newly appointed “opportunity czar” create more good jobs for Americans
———————————————-
“George W. Bush is apparently giving the White House seal of approval to a television series, D.H.S.–The Series, a drama about the Department of Home Security being introduced Thursday night to prospective networks at an industry gathering.
President Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge both ‘endorse and contribute sound bites to the introductions of the series,’ according to the show’s producers.”
E! Online
February 26, 2004
———————————————-
* Facilitating growth of the customized lifelong learning and career services (CLLCS) industry is the best way for the czar to create more good jobs for Americans
———————————————-
“Frank, you are a good man. Have you thought about joining this team? Your only alternative, of course, is venture capital. But their usual models require getting rid of the ‘originator’ within the first eighteen months. With Netscape it took a little longer, but you get the idea.”
Randy Hinrichs
Manager
Learning Sciences and Technology Group
Microsoft Research
November 1998
———————————————-
* CLLCS ‘1.0’ will synergize and build on Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VOIP) telephony, blogs, online social networks and, of course, reality TV
I think we should get tough on China for undervaluing its currency
I think Erasmus nails it in several ways.
First, he’s splitting it into short-term and long-term lines of thought. This is important. Bluntly, from the point of view of the Democratic party, short-term is about winning this election, winning it big, Kerry in a landslide with velcro coattails. Long-term is thinking about how to govern wisely and responsibly.
In his short-term topic, he talks about healthcare. You (when I say “you” I mean “you Democrats”) may not realize how much of a political hammer you could swing if you get this one right. Sound, guaranteed healthcare is potentially such a winner. There are a lot of people who are uninsured or underinsured. A lot more are *worried* about becoming un- or under-, because not too many people are feeling completely, entirely, indifferently secure in their employment these days.
But there’s a whole ‘nother side to it. If businesses are not required to cover employees’ healthcare, it’s apparently a big win for them. Even if they pay more taxes to cover the cost, it seems likely that it’s a net benefit for their bottom line. Don’t know if the numbers are there or not, myself; but I’ve heard the opinion from a number of people who ought to know.
So, if you think this through and craft it carefully, you could get a lot of hardheaded CEOs saying that the measure is great for business, great for American competitiveness.
Short-term, that’s a good one.
Long-term… oh man. Here. Head over to Billmon’s Whiskey Bar (http://billmon.org/archives/001200.html) for a pretty good wrangle on the difficulties of dealing with the whole free/fair trade/protectionism issue. Erasmus gets some support there too. Disclaimer: other than the occasional troll, the place is filled with progressives. đ
And Maxcat has a point too, but advocating a swift withdrawal as part of an economic recovery plan is fraught. For one thing, I count myself among those who feel the Iraq War was a horrible stupid criminal blunder, but that we nonetheless have a collective responsibility to try to fix it if we can. Maybe we can’t, of course; but I’d not want President Kerry’s latitude to do the right thing for the Iraqis compromised by an economic plan predicated on running away from Dick and Don’s Excellent Adventure as fast as we can.
First and foremost: let’s not be demogogues. Be honest: we may be able to slow job loss via tax incentives, but not prevent it.
Short term:
Focus on the chief worry about losing a job: portable healthcare for all and coverage for the working poor and their families.
Yes, retraining for many will be required, as Bush has proposed (let’s not be against good ideas).
Longer term:
Then prepare for the global economy by making college available to children of both middle class and working poor.
Trade agreements must strongly encourage sane labor and environmental policies.
Well that’s a very complicated question but how about this for starters.
Bring the troups home and instantly free up billions of dollars to rebuild America and put Americans back to work.
Oh we can spend and spend in Iraq and who knows how many other places while Americans go without and we are doing it by mortaging our childrens future.
Just think of what could be done with all that money here at home and at least we would have something to show for it.
So sorry I jusy had to say that.