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.
If whether or not the war is worth fighting is being ignored it is because the question is moot. No, it was never worth fighting, but it is being fought. The question of the moment, the one that requires an answer today is whether to continue this fiasco or leave Iraq to its own or the UN’s devices, and the UN is very reluctant to take it on (with no blame for me on that score). At this point, as much as I hate this fiasco, what we need to do is put someone who is competent in charge, which leaves the entire Bush administration out. I do not think we can just walk away now. We can’t leave a total mess. That does not answer American interests. Mind you, it is a total mess right now, but picking up our ball and going home will be an even greater disservice to the Iraqi people than plunging their country into chaos has been.
eh, I don’t know what’s good politics, but I can’t imagine a really concrete ‘exit strategy’ is feasible or wise at this point. We ought to start planning of course, but we can only plan contingencies – the events of the next few months will be largely dependent on the thoughts and actions of Iraqis, and depending on this very uncertain variable the best strategy could change any number of ways, most of which will probably be unforseen. Not only would a firm exit strategy be impractical, but it would also be an obvious boon the enemies of Iraq and the US. The best Kerry – and Bush, for that matter – can and should offer is a vision of realistic goals to achieve and, as importantly, a determination to achieve them.
It won’t be McCain or any Republican — in fact I doubt if it will be someone currently in congress — Kerry needs someone slightly more of a populist, and with few obvious ties with the beltway. Richardson, Vilsack — or as thngs move along, I see an argument for Wesley Clark increasing in value.
What’s happening to Bush right nos is a near perfect storm — everything is coming up a cropper, and he doesn’t seem to be able to take effective action on any of it. It is going to be a difficult time till the election, but with Bush unable to change his mind on ANYTHING — admit that any policy was anything but perfect — he is walking into the storm eyes wide open, and into the arms of disaster.
I am worried about Nader — does Kerry have a decent plan to attack him nicely, politely, to cut off his support? It needs to be done before Nader gets any sort of core support that seems organized.
why are we still talking about a kerry/mccain ticket? is it just fantasizing? like the cubs winning the world series?
is there anybody who thinks john mccain would actually accept the nomination?
Ruy, in case you’re passing through: are you aware this site has, in the past day or two, turned into a browser-eater? I can’t exit the site without closing down the browser entirely — and this has happened from both my home and work computers. Anything you can do to fix it is appreciated.
I agree that Kerrey doesn’t need to be signaling intentions of withdrawing from Iraq at this point in the campaign. But neither can he permit the perception that he is advocating essentially the same thing as Bush. At some point before november he will have to distinguish his foreign policy approach, and it will probably fall again on the good will he can muster from the international community. It would help if he could be seen building bridges with europe. I bet even england would welcome him this summer. It might be fodder for Bush and Cheney in their attacks, but moderate voters could really appreciate a leader who is respected and welcomed on the world stage, as opposed to our current president who is an international pariah.
The Alliance for Justice has launched a new website urging Justice Scalia to recuse himself from the Cheney energy case! Check it out: http://www.ChooseToRecuse.org Scalia can recuse himself anytime before the Supreme Court renders its decision.
There is a great flash animation that goes with it too. You have to see “Quid Pro Quack” http://www.allianceforjustice.org/action/scalia/flash.htm Duck’em!
I don’t see that Kerry needs to start speaking about withdrawal from Iraq. Bushco is standing by the June 30 deadline for ‘sovereignty’ handover and I think it’s quite possible that soon after that, they’ll start a major drawdown of troops. They won’t say that’s what they’re doing, but that’s what they’ll be doing. That way, they will get what they hope will be the best possible spin — soldiers coming home (mollify the increasingly upset military families) and Iraqi ‘independence’ run by John Negroponte. Let’s see how well this half-baked scheme does in the oven before talking about what Kerry needs to add to the recipe.
One thing I really don’t want to see happen is the Republicans being able to point to ‘political pressure’ from the election campaign as a reason for whatever amount of withdrawal they are eventually forced to do. If they can do that, it might help mitigate the anger their base will feel at them for not ‘following through’ and ‘standing tall’.
This bunch of bad actors is so aware of all the ways available for deflecting hatred and avoiding accountability. Kerry has to be very careful.
McCain as VP nominee is a tantalizing notion. But I hope it will not happen. He differs substanially with Kerry in his views on so many big issues that, even though the media still has not had its fill of him, it doesn’t seem as though it would work in practice.
At this point I’m hoping it will be either Edwards or Vilsack for VP. Alternatively, Edwards might make a terrific Attorney General.
Ah, but first things first…
Marcus:
In the case of the President dying while in office,the Presidency will go to the vice president.Also, the VP slot is traditionally regarded as a launching pad for the Veep’s own Presidential bid.
No way the Democrats are going to risk it.
Andrew Sullivan (who used to be an enthusiastic supporter of “Shrub” in the war on terror) suggests the latest scandal makes a Kerry/McCain ticket seem even more attractive.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=sullivan051104
If McCain agreed to help his good friend (and remember: he reportedly loathes Bush…), would it be a plus or minus for Kerry? A few thoughts —
+Great bipartisan “save America” dream team (McCain is possibly the most popular national GOP politician among independents and Democrats).
+Awesome national defense credibility.
+It might beef up Kerry’s centrist credentials as a balanced budget, tough-on-defense liberal hawk.
+It would showcase how “inclusive” the Democrats are, if an anti-abortion GOP senator is made VP nominee.
-The result might be an ideological mess, showing Kerry/McCain don’t stand for anything except an obsession with beating Bush at any costs?
-As a result, Nader might siphon off even more voters from disgruntled war opponents and the far left.
-McCain’s defection from the GOP might badly damage his credibility as a straight shooter, which until now has been his main asset.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Yes, I know it remains a far fetched idea. But it’s fun to speculate, nonetheless.
MARCU$
> I am struck by how much of the current debate
> between supporters and opponents of the Iraq
> war ignores the fundamental issue which many
> pollsters and those they poll have locked onto.
> The issue is whether or not this war was worth
> fighting.
There is indeed a thousand-mile chasm between war proponents and opponents in this regard, sigh. Both sides basically accuse each other of being stupid, reckless and naive. And they draw entirely different conclusions based on 9/11.
> It is wrong to wage war against a sovereign
> nation that has not attacked the United States.
Oh, I agree 100% with you.
I just don’t follow the logic of the pro-war side. Let’s examine their rationale on a “personal level”, though. Suppose you *suspect* a certain “evil person” is out to get you. Does this mean you have a right to preemptively kill him or even storm his compound? Of course not. It is the same story regardless of whether we are discussing individuals or states. Now, the neo-cons claim we are essentially hiding our heads in the sand while blindly trusting that the bad guy won’t harm us. Utter rubbish! If the CIA is reporting Al Qaeda is planning to strike on U.S. soil and airplanes “somehow” will be involved (as they did in August 2001 while “Shrub” conveniently was strutting around on vacation in Crawford, TX), you can strengthen airport security and issue a warning to the U.S. public. You don’t launch a major invasion based on at best circumstantial evidence, though.
: “Shades of Vietnam! “?? Ruy, what are you
: writing? are you actually happy that everying
: that’s happened in the last few weeks has come
: to pass?
Of course it’s a tragedy, but I think the bad news is essentially inevitable and a result of this Administration’s numerous screw-ups. In that case, doesn’t it make sense to hope voters will clearly see the consequences of these policies before the November elections, ensuring the usual suspects in the White House won’t get a chance to do even worse things in 2005-08?
MARCU$
“Shades of Vietnam! “?? Ruy, what are you writing? are you actually happy that everying that’s happened in the last few weeks has come to pass? Maybe I misunderstand you, but bogged down = people dying, Iraqis and Americans alike.
Yes, in a certain way, I’m glad that our body politic is *finally* realizing the idiocy of Bush’s Iraq strategy (fyi, Fareed Zakaria has an amazing column in the next newsweek condemning the neo-con strategy, http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4933882/).
however, while I too am “glad” that the warnigs of those of us who opposed Bush’s war have been validated within the last month, let’s not forget what this means in terms of the people who have to pay the price for the Bush Administration’s hubris.
The exit strategy is very simple. The war in Iraq is simply over! Who are we fighting there and why? No good answers. Kerry should simply declare that combat with the people of Iraq is irrelevant to the “war” on terror. The iraqis and the rest of the world would respect us more if we just pulled up stakes and leave. Let a real international peacekeeping mission sort it out. Kerry needs to make it clear to americans that he has the diplomatic capital to make it happen. And when Bush asks him to name names in the debates tell him “can’t, its a violation of executive privilege, George”.
Don’t worry about it, Joe. Before the leaves fall, Kerry will be committed to an American withdrawal within six months of inauguration.
As America’s enthusiasm for the Iraq war declines, I become more concerned about Ralph Nader’s position. He says we must get out in six months. As the situation worsens there, more Americans will come to agree with him, especially Democrats.
That could result in Nader peeling off more support for Kerry whose position is perceived as vaguely supportive of staying the course.
C. Ama-
Go on with your bad self!
Well stated.
Reality Check
for those who wonder why Kerry isn’t ahead:
June 1992
Bush approval rating below 40%,
but Gallup has
Bush 48
Clinton 40
May 1980
Carter approval 44%
Carter 40
Reagan 32
Anderson 21
May 2004
Bush approval 46%
Bush 48
Kerry 47
I see defeated presidents… but they don’t know they’re defeated…
See also
May 1988
Dukakis 52
Bush 38
May 1968
Humphry 42
Nixon 36
Wallace 14
Say goodbye, George…
The text of Kerry’s speech reads in part:
“The common foe we face today is different in every way, but fully as dangerous, as the one that Churchill so famously described here.”
Maybe he ad libbed it into the speech. Maybe I just missed it in the text. But I did not find in the text of the speech a statement saying who in his mind is our “common foe” today. For me, reading the text of the speech came off as having a “disconnect” in this way.
I am struck by how much of the current debate between supporters and opponents of the Iraq war ignores the fundamental issue which many pollsters and those they poll have locked onto. The issue is whether or not this war was worth fighting. These endless discussions about process and consequence ignore the simple truth that this adventure was doomed to fail, not from the first shot, but from the first thought. It is wrong to wage war against a sovereign nation that has not attacked the United States. Period. This war has no chance of success because the very fact of its existence means we have failed. We, the American people, failed to curtail the grand ambitions of an arrogant, incompetent, intellectually stunted president. This president failed to recognize the folly of applying a long-standing pipe dream (the neo-cons’ dream of Middle-East conquest) to the Global War on Terrorism. Ostensibly responsible members of the administration failed by deferring to the majesty of the office, rather than loudly and publicly denouncing Bush and the cabal before they could drag us into this nightmare. There is no way to finesse a good solution to a situation born of an inherently evil act. The first death to result from this war was a stain on the soul of this nation. It is tragic to have to ask now, so many deaths later, whether or when it is appropriate to cut and run. If we pack up and leave now, leaving the objective unfulfilled, we admit that every one of those deaths was pointless. The only other option is to stay, knowing that every lost life will be lost in the service of a goal that was, from the beginning, pointless. I hope that God and history judge America more kindly than we deserve.
Thank you.
I wish his support was lower. It is mind boggling to me that half the population still thinks he is doing something worthwhile in Iraq.