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.
Sometimes I wonder if T. Bevans really believes all the shit that he shovels on RCP. I almost fell off my chair when I read that one. But its not just that, RCP is full of ludicrous claims, childish ad homimen attacks on anyone who deigns to challenge Bush on anything and unsupported claims (i.e. Bush has MORE volunteers than Kerry, just look at the Bush04 website!!!). We should all do ourselves a favor and boycott the damn thing. I know I won’t be looking at it anymore. The commentary, if any, on RCP is right wing tripe. The polls you can get on Pollingreport.com (without “analysis” explaining why the fact that kerry is up 5% in a GOP leaning state is a sure sign of a Bush win in that state) and the editorial links are available elsewhere on the web.
I tend to believe that today’s Bush/Sharon annoucement was made in large part due to short term political factors., i.e. in one stroke Bush firms up the Christian dispensationalist wackjob base, which was getting antsy about Iraq, and splits off a significant portion of the Dem-leaning Jewish vote.
Plus, as a bonus, as an absolutely unmistakeable “f___ you” provocation to the entire Arab world, any subsequent terrorism only benefits Bush as the nation will tend to rally around the president as they did post 9/11.
Do anyone think this was a factor behind today’s announcement?
Uh, I would like to advise those who take Rasmussen seriously to look at this:
http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2000/11/000020.html
Tuesday, November 7, 2000
The final Rasmussen poll has Bush 49, Gore 40, Nader 4.
And just what do they base this cheerful assessment on? They don’t say, but it is worth noting that this represents a considerable lowering of the bar for Bush (just keep it at 45 or above and even 40-44 isn’t so bad!) compared to earlier Republican claims about his approval ratings.
It gives cover as they try to force though legislation the next 7 months.
While I’m sure the Republicans would like to run on the controversial social issues again this time around, it’s going to take a back seat to the more high profile Iraq and terrorism issues for the near future. It looks like we might even have a decent foreign policy debate as part of a presidential campaign. I can’t recall the last time that happened!
For what it’s worth, toward the end of Bush’s remarks last night, I could’ve sworn he said, “We need to have a debate about whether we’re going to take the lead in the world or whether we’ll share responsibilities.” Listening to it again (I had taped it), it was clear he said, “shirk responsibilities,” but the way I had heard it seems more appropriate…
My impression is that gay marriage has been a complete dud for W as an issue. His shameless pandering has turned off moderates, his ham-handed announcement has angered fellow Republicans and the 9/11 commission has completely pushed it out of the papers. In addition, Kerry has managed to take what appears to be a moderate ground that will not let Rove portray him as a radical. At the same time, he has been low-keyed enough about it that he has not angered the gay and lesbian community.
Of course, I live in Massachusetts. I would be interested in hearing if people in battleground states feel differently.
Polling within African American communities indicates less than the margin of error difference in expressed intentions re: 2004 and the way the vote stacked up for Gore in 2000. If anything, the voter intentions among Hispanics are more favorable to Democrates than 4 years ago. (Though different Hispanic Communities have different patterns.)
I think Peter is completely wrong. Blacks are not abandoning the democrats over gay marriage or any other issue. Ditto for hispanics. I haven’t seen any data that remotely supports his case.
Alan, it’s the same-sex marriage issue that is making blacks reject Democrats. Hispanics and blue-collar white Democrats will probably do the same soon, unfortunately. The GOP has played this brilliantly.
I just looked at a Battleground Poll (tarrance.com) and while the poll shows a 1-Point lead for Kerry (49-48), the underlying numbers do not look good for Bush basically because the numbers in the Battleground states are worse for Bush than his national numbers. The one negative note for the Democrats so far is that it appears the African-American community is not energized at this point.
Hopefully they will become so but I must say that if you can’t be energized now when can you be? So as of today Kerry would probably win narrowly but this underscores the importance of Registering and Turning out OUR Voters especially in the Battleground States.
Does anyone know how Bush’s speach has been received by the general public? People on blogs say about what yu would expect them to say. Bush haters think he tanked, Bush supporters think he was inspirational. Did his speach make any difference in anyone’s thinking?
“And just what do they base this cheerful assessment on?” – RT
Perhaps 40-44 percent is within Diebolding distance. Any smaller percentage, and they won’t be able to steal the election undetected.
Has there EVER been an incumbent president who won re-election w/ an approval rating BELOW 50% in JULY of the election year?
Has there EVER been an incumbent president who won re-election during a RECESSION?
I think the answers to both are no, but I’m not positive.
As for a president’s approval rating, I don’t see how a president with an approval rating of 40-45% can be in a close race. I know approval ratings aren’t “who would you vote for,” but if less than half of RVs don’t like the job Bush is doing, that is automatically a problem for him.
Rasmussen Reports tells you to go to that site to assess presidential approval ratings. I wonder what to make of this.
In head to head match ups, when can Kerry be said to have an advantage? Lets say they’re running, 55 (Kerry) – 45 (Bush), is that still just a dead heat? Does Kerry have an advantage at 60-40? I can already see the cries of “Liberal Media Bias” When commentators announce Kerry is leading at 60-40
They’re worried, OR
they’re getting us ready for the “magic” of electronic, touch-screen, sorry no recount possible, voting.
A disconnect between honest polls and election returns will be our only clue that the election has been stolen.
REMEMBER: only the paranoid survive
“A 40% – 44% job approval for the President would translate into a dead heat race, and below 40% and you would have to give the advantage to Kerry.”
Wow, if Bush is down by 10%, you have to admit that Kerry has an advantage?! They sure are giving a lot, aren’t they. This is ridiculous, 40-44 is a dead heat I would love to be a part of.
Rick P., that Rasmussen tracking poll fluctuates a lot (although neither Bush nor Kerry rarely ever has a lead of more than 4 points), and as Ruy has said, a tracking poll of likely voters this far in advance of the election doesn’t make a lot of sense. The bottom line is, this is a close race, and that bodes well for Kerry because incumbents who aren’t comfortably ahead at this point lose.
Tuesday’s Rasmussen tracking poll has Bush and Kerry tied at 46%. More importantly, “[e]ighty-three percent (83%) of Bush voters say they are ‘certain’ they will vote for him. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Kerry voters are equally ‘certain.’ Based on the firmness of support, that translates into a 3 to 4 point lead for Bush. Using a crude yardstick, Kerry will need to be up by five points or better to beat Bush.
The Kerry campaign needs to get into third gear and advertise more. The Iraq issue is out of everybody’s hands, but he should be slamming Bush on the environment, federal spending, and other issues.
One non-controversial promise that Kerry could get a lot of mileage out of:
Pledge to hold a full press conference at least once every calendar month for the duration of his Presidency, with no advance vetting of reporters or questions.
The contrast would be dramatic.
What I’m afraid of is that these assertions are being put out there to lay groundwork for going on the offensive when they’re accused of stealing the election via the electronic voting machines this fall. With numbers in the low 40s, a win for such a candidate would ordinarily give rise to a prima facie case for strong suspicions of tampering — they’re campaigning to weaken that presumption. Just a little conspiracy-theorizing.
This is one bar that I don’t mind them lowering because it is based on self-delusion. If they choose to commission polls and then completely misread them, well, more power to them.
–Dan