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.
This is a great website. Thanks so much. I’d happily chip in, if so required.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Adam+parkhomenko
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Adam+parkhomenko
Here’s the AP/Ipsos poll:
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2314
Summary:
Yep, Bush is ahead.
His handling of the economy is up, as is general consumer confidence.
Yep, Kerry is making headway.
His strong support represents 64% of his voters now, up from only 55% of his voters strong in June.
That’s based on Monday-Wednesday poll. On Tuesday-Wednesday only, an additional question was added with full tickets paired. No difference (+4 Bush/Cheney over Kerry/Edwards) than full poll, and down from +3 Kerry/Edwards in June.
Read the whole thing. I think larger trends (improving consumer expectations, handover in Iraq) are more important than first impressions of Edwards in explaining current trends. (Check out the graph called “Consumer Attitudes and Political Measures Chart”)
Let’s see how the rest of July plays out.
See “Kerry’s Non-Southern Strategy”, on how Edwards will help the ticket, by Kenneth Baer in TAP online:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8078
It’s a bit David Brooks-ish in its pop sociological assertions but worth the read nonetheless.
No, it’s a positive theme that we can do something about the divisions in our country, but ignoring them (which seems to be the conservative approcah) will not make them go away.
MARCU$,
Good point; optimistic messages sell well. But do you consider Edwards’ “two Americas” message to be an optimistic one? I don’t. He speaks of the haves and the have-nots, us and them. It’s a divisive, negative theme.
> Edwards has less experience than Dan Quayle.
Conservative TV host Joe Scarborough (of all people!) has a great response:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5389875/
“Today, President Bush took a shot at John Edwards, suggesting the U.S. senator was ill-prepared to be vice president of the United States.”
“The attack was a cheap shot: John Edwards has served the same amount of time in the Senate as George W. Bush served as governor of Texas when he was elected president. The Texas legislature only meets every other year and the governorship of the Lone Star State has long been considered one of the weakest positions of its kind in America. Add to it that Edwards has sat on the intelligence committee through the days before and after September 11th. You could argue that Edwards has more experience in key areas than George W. Bush did when he ran in 2000.”
“Other vice presidents, like Harry Truman, were dismissed as political hacks and lightweights, too, because of their relative lack of experience. But when the Senator from Missouri replaced one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Truman exceeded all expectations and ended up being one of our country’s strongest leaders.”
———————————————————-
> And Edwards’ populist message may sound great
> on the stump but rarely wins votes (ask Al Gore
> or Pat Buchanan).
True, *negative* populism doesn’t sell. But a case could be made that Edwards’ optimistic brand of populism matches that of Clinton and Reagan.
MARCU$
I think Bush’s comment would make a winning campaign slogan.
“Kerry-Edwards ’04:
Otherwise, Cheney Can be President!”
That’s a winner.
Missed the AP Ipsos-Reid poll, which is much worse than the ones you report. It had Bush up 4 and at 50% (albeit with Ralph).
Just want to check arithmetic on the CBS poll. Unless I’ve gone completely off my rocker, isn’t Edwards fav/unfav of 38/9 a net of +29, not +19?
That’s gotta be JamesB3 from dailykos…
Drudge is touting a new AP poll (along w/Faux News, always the most Bush-loving poll) that says Bush has GAINED with Edwards on the ticket, leads Kerry, and has gained confidence on domestic issues and the economy.
The media will make sure that this and the Zogby (who is totally unreliable in good or bad news if you ask new) poll are the only polls that matter, and will try to tell people that Edwards actually helps Bush.
The truth is that it’s just too polarized for any VP candidate to make a real difference.
“Cheney can be president”
Probably the most unintentionally scary thing he could say! đ Let the american people take it as a warning! Yet another unsonsidered statement that will come back quickly to bite W in the ass.
Re: Edwards experience – just to reiterate what has already been stated upthread:
Edwards: 6 years as U.S. Senator
Bush: 6 years as Governor of Texas
Edwards: Successful ($50 million) career as a plaintiff’s attorney.
Bush: Business failed.
Kerry: married into money.
Edwards: made his own fortune.
Bush: born with money.
S Robinson —
Matthew Dowd’s “15% bounce” comment sounds like pure pre-emptive expectations-raising spin to me. Don’t buy it.
I would also add that the prevaling wisdom in 2000 was that who was President would not matter all that much. Times had been so easy with the peace and prosperity that people thought we could put it on autopilot and people could register disgust at Clinton’s affair.
The last four years have disabused us of that notion, and the consensus is that this is an election that matters, and I think a lot of minds have been cast, mostly on the basis of an up or down on Bush — Kerry just needs to not be objectionable.
storwino makes an important point – there is not a lot of room for big changes in this electorate.
Bush and Kerry each probably have 40% of likely voters who are very unlikely to switch in the runnup. Another 5% are pretty devoted to each, leaving about 10% of likely voters in play. So, big bounces are probably not too likely.
If everything plays out normally the undecideds should break Kerry, but if Kerry gives those undecideds a reason not to vote for him – Dukakis in the tank kind of thing, or debate screw ups, it could swing the other way.
I seem to remember though, that under pressure GWB tends to get frustrated and is probably more apt to screw up, whereas Kerry has a reputation of improving when it gets important.
Nice comment, TinMan. The difference is that not many Republicans were taking Hatch seriously as a presidential candidate, while the comment I mentioned came from your (presumptive) nominee. You would have done better to mention the elder Bush’s ‘voodoo economics’ line about Reagan’s tax cuts!
When you hear Republicans disparage Sen. John Edwards’s lack of experience, remember the words of Sen. Orrin Hatch, spoken to George W. Bush at a debate on Dec. 6, 1999.
“You’ve been a great governor,” Hatch declared of his rival for the Republican presidential nomination. “My only problem with you, governor, is that you’ve only had four and going into your fifth year of governorship. . . . Frankly, I really believe that you need more experience before you become president of the United States. That’s why I’m thinking of you as a vice presidential candidate.”
I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Kerry-Edwards would get a quick bounce. Even Matthew Dowd, Bush’s chief strategist, estimates that Kerry may gain a 15-point bounce between naming his VP and the media attention from the convention. My surprise is all the excitement Edwards is generating among the Dems. Edwards has less experience than Dan Quayle. Didn’t Kerry make a comment about Edwards still being in diapers when Kerry came back from Vietnam? And Edwards’ populist message may sound great on the stump but rarely wins votes (ask Al Gore or Pat Buchanan).
As far as ‘earning’ their money, you know the GOP will spin this as one marrying into money (twice!) and the other making it from contingency fees.
The initial reaction was positive, but the long term traction depends on how the ticket is sold – and there appear to be a few great ways to build on the buzz.
1) Pound on the fact that both Kerry and Edwards have been a success in every job that they have ever had.
2) Repeat often that they both have excellent training – great grades, consistent focus on getting things done.
3) Reiterate that neither of them came from wealthy backgrounds – Kerry’s dad was in the State Dept, and one was a mill worker. One upper middle class, one lower middle class. But neither grew up wealthy. Instead they went and earned it.
Of course, these are not too subtle contrasts.
Here’s a press release from Zogby.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews839.html
I tend to agree with Zogby’s take that there just isn’t room for a lot of movement in our electorate today.
I was interested to note at the very bottom they mention the “slight weights” they added to account for region, party, age, race, religion, gender and presidential voter. This sounds really suspect to me. Trying to be conservative, I guessed there would be:
4 categories for region,
3 categories for party,
4 categories for age,
4 categories for race,
2 categories for religion,
2 for gender, and
2 for presidential voter.
Based on that I arrived at 1536 unique categories. I would say that the margins of error in those sub-groups would be higher.
I’m guessing he applies some kind of clustering based on all those factors. Does anyone know anything about what he’s doing?
What are the chances that Bush will drop Cheney, as some Republican bloggers are fantasizing?
Found it– Google “Zogby Edwards July,” then click on the News link (Bloomberg reports the whole poll, which says no bounce– nothing about night one vs night two, though).
Where can we see that Zogby two-night poll?
> “Mr. Bush, is it true, as the New Republic reports,
> that you are playing election year politics with the
> security of the United States? Why was going after
> these high value targets not a concern for years,
> invading Iraq instead, but when you have fallen
> behind in the polls, has it become necessary to
> capture him before the election.
Josh Marshall made the same exact point the other day. Why is getting Osama suddenly such a high priority when it clearly wasn’t in the spring of 2003??
I agree it is probably better if Kerry raises the point in advance. His campaign might perhaps want to repeat this basic message in a number of attack ads, to thoroughly raise the point that the Bushies are “extremely concerned about terrorists” only when it suits their partisan goals at home… Osama was clearly a unwelcome distraction in early 2003, for example, when voters had to be reminded about the real and perceived dangers of Saddam at every opportunity.
MARCU$
Would you comment on the new Zogby 2-nite poll? He suggests a large bounce for Kerry/Edwards on the first night, followed by an even GREATER swing toward Bush on the second night?
Marcus,
Kerry shoudl do something with that article. Something along the lines of
“Mr. Bush, is it true, as the New Republic reports, that you are playing election year politics with the security of the United States? Why was going after these high value targets not a concern for years, invading Iraq instead, but when you have fallen behind in the polls, has it become necessary to capture him before the election.
“The American people will forgive a lot in their President, but they will not forgive a President putting his own election concerns above the security of the United States. These are serious charges and I urge you to repudiate them, and to get to the bottom of why they are being leveled. You might want to do the same with the Plame case. Furthermore I ask you to repudiate your failures in the area of American security, and to change courses to one of greater security for Americans above partisan electioneering. You might not win the election, Mr. President, but it will go along way toward regaing your honor and dignity.”
Perhaps a rewrite or two đ
I am really nervous about July 27, though. THE NEW REPUBLIC reports the Administration is working as hard as it can to pressure Pakistan to capture Bin Laden and/or other leading Al Qaeda operatives before Kerry/Edwards are officially nominated in Boston three weeks from now, or before the November elections at the very latest. And the Paki’s have some incentives to comply, since they reportedly are worried about Kerry/Edwards favoring India if they win the elections (Democratic presidents usually feel less inclined to do business with military dictators in Pakistan than do Republican ones).
MARCU$
Thanks for the breakdown. I have nothing to add to the conversation except that I am a bit surprised by my own gut feeling that it’s s a good choice. Pleasantly surprised.