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.
Chris, I quarrel with nothing you’ve said here. My quarrel was with the air of frustration expressed about the Democratic Party that emerged from these folks right on the eve of the convention, with vague threats about what is to come – right at the moment when the combined force of the “new forces” and the traditional Democratic party (about whom, by the way, I share many of your frustrations) finally seems to be bearing down on victory. I know recrimination can be fun, but let’s at least wait until we lose before wallowing in it.
My point is that the new forces did provide some powerful (and necessary) wind for the moribund old Democratic sails but that without each other we aren’t going anywhere. And here on the eve of that achievement they were talking about getting a new boat? Did Andy Stern really say it would be better for the new forces in some way if Bush won? I hope to hell he was drunk when he said it, because there’s no other excuse. That’s the worst sort of Naderism (and yes, I voted for Nader in 2000).
Re the “entrepreneurs”, there was one quote in the Bai article, in which one of them could think of nothing to say to the “old” tradtional Democrats. That’s a problem, and it’s one they need to address before I’ll take them as seriously as they want to be taken. It’s also part of why Kerry and not Dean is the nominee, and I have all the respect in the world for Dean.
Steve,
These entrepreneurs are funding the traditional base of the party, not running away from it. They’re giving the traditional base its voice back, after having had it silenced by the cubicle wing of the Democratic Party. I think the point is that the traditional base of the party is liberal, while the current leadership of the party is far from it. The entrepreneurs, the bloggers, the Deaniacs, whatever have stirred and are working toward giving the party back to the traditional Democrats.
Why do you think these political entrepreneurs are on the rise? It’s not because of an excess of good ideas coming out of the Party. The appalling slide of the Party toward little more than middle management for the country has spurred these people to action to empower the base. It’s the current leadership who has disconnected themselves from the traditional base, and are endangering the entire party because of it.
And as for Howard Dean, yes he lost. He lost for a number of reasons, not the least of which was an inability to contain the well-timed onslaught of negative coverage right before Iowa. So it goes. But it takes a fully-loaded ocean-liner about six miles from the time it decides it wants to change course to the time it’s on that new course, and I wouldn’t be spouting about successes and failures of Dean just yet, especially given his goals were something akin to a bottom-up change in the entire Democratic Party.
His immediate success is the fact that Democrats are energized and making headway in defeating the Republicans. His immediate success is currently populating the floor of the DNCC in Boston, and populating local and state campaigns all over the country. His long-term success, I’d wager, will be more profound than that.
The Party needs new blood and new leadership. The problem is as I see it the old guard will not give up power so we have to take it. We must run for party offices and build new coalitions to take back our Party !!!
I don’t think the Democratic National Committee or Party HQ is in much danger — but its role must be massively updated, keeping the essentials. For like it or not, politics in this country is still done by geography. Yep, it matters what precinct, ward, State Senate District, Congressional District, County, State and all you live in, and vote in, and thus must devise politics in and aroudn.
Thus while one can like and participate in the blog world, the fact that it is non-geographic is a significant limitation. Likewise, if the inventors of new entities don’t comprehend this, they too will fail to accomplish much.
I’ve also get real reservantions about the seeming absence from the planning groups of any significant representation of racial and ethnic minorities and women. Something that doesn’t seem to have such persons sitting around the planning tables profoundly offends me. It’s the failure to recognize this absence that really offends me.
Folks, folks, did Howard Dean win the nomination? He did not even come close, notwithstanding all the passion of his supporters.
Are these Silicon Valley entrepreneurs funding the movement by themselves? Hell no! They’ve helped provide the means by which the little people can pool their small contributions to the point where it comes close to equaling those of the fat cats. But its the little people who are doing the funding.
Disconnect this network from its base and you will wind up with … Ralph Nader.
The creators of this network deserve the thanks of Democrats everywhere, because they’ve made themselves into a vehicle for them. But a car does not drive itself.
The minute these guys start to try to dictate policy, it becomes a whole new ball game. Especially when they gush on and on about “entrepreneurialism” and admit they have nothing to say to the “traditional base of the Democratic party.” People who call themselves entrepreneurs have sometimes built great things … and sometimes been snake oil salesmen. You get no points from me by talking about your being an entrepreneur. You get points for your results. And they’d better have something to say to the traditional base of the party before they run off to replace it. This is where Howard Dean failed, and it’s where these guys will fail if they repeat his mistake. They haven’t shown me that they fully understand the nature of the beast yet.
Note: I’m advocating keeping the Democratic party, but as a figure head. Something that most people can recognize.
The only thing I’ve seen from the Old Institutions in response to the new, is a lot of jealous power-guarding.
Turn over the power as soon as the New are developed enough because the OG will NEVER want to work with them.
The idea that somehow the progressive movement in America would enhance its prospects by trying to do an end run around the Democratic Party is so deeply crackpot that I scarcely know what to say.
Democrats are infamously disorganized, and suffer thereby — so the answer is to junk the party, and create even greater chaos? This is just unspeakably stupid.
Kos represents, to my mind, a nearly perfect example of what is wrong, not right, in the progressive movement in general, and in too much of the blogging left in particular. He seems to incapable by deepest nature of thinking and behaving strategically, and seems to follow his impulses for sneering and lashing out whereever they may lead.
There are about a thousand reasons for trying to work from within the Democratic Party — not least of which is the clear expectation of the vast majority of American voters that that is one of the two authentically credible parties in the nation.
I ask these cretins who propose this “new approach”, how, exactly, is a candidate espoused only by these new institutions, and not the Democratic Party, going to get elected? Do these idiots imagine that, say, the Democrats are going to fail to put up a candidate if these “new institutions” put up their own candidate? And if, instead, the candidate runs under the aegis of the Democratic Party, how is it that he or she could presume NOT to be involved in the infrastructure and constituencies of the Democratic Party?
I can most certainly see the point of new institutions trying to inject their point of view INTO the Democratic Party — that indeed is only welcome. But to declare the Democratic Party dead or irrelevant is the unmistakable mark of self indulgent purism or spite, and nothing else. Such advocates are detestable, no different in any way from Mr. Narcissism himself, Ralph Stinking Nader.
Truly, the idea of investing all our hopes in the new institutions at the expense of the Democratic Party is not just wrong. It is sheer idiocy and perversity.
Exactly. I got an email from Dean suggesting that all of his supporters go out and become precinct captains. In other words do to the Democrats what the right wing lunatic fringe did to the Repugs–take over from the ground up. The DNC is dead wood. The Party is as good as it’s members. Let’s get thru this election, then refocus our party.
I can’t believe all this perfect-or-nothing talk. We have a damn good chance to win an election and all of a sudden it’s not good enough. So the patient is sick and we want to kill him so he won’t ever get sick again. Perfect or nothing at all. My way or no way at all. Sounds like a bunch of spoiled Republicans appointing judges. Is someone dreaming of some past paradise that I missed along the way? Let’s hear it for Ozzie and Harriet democracy. Ah, those were the days!
If Kerry were elected and the day after his inauguration the entire Supreme Court dropped dead (god forbid!), he would not be able to appoint a single nominee.
What the Bai article points out is that the DP lacks the day-to-day muscle that the Republicans have, and Kerry’s election won’t change that. Who will be the most happy about that? The business-as-usual Dems who will see it as their vindication. See how smart we were to not mention Iraq!
As the independent force tries to emerge within the DP, the Joe Liebermans will try to cut its throat. What the Bai article notes is that there is the potential for a MAJORITARIAN independent party to emerge.
“Calmer, peaceful, refreshed.” By repeating certain things to ourselves our anxiety level about winning in the fall is supposed to come down. Ruy seems to always be calming his readers down with hopeful interpretations of polling data etc. and i have to admit that i come to this site in large part to see if a thoughtful person like ruy is still optimistic about kerry’s chances. But i can’t help but think of Derrida’s statement in Spectres of Marx that “an assertion of hegemony is a crisis of hegemony.” it seems the more we hear repeated that there is “an emerging democratic majority” the more likely that it is not emerging, but threatening not to emerge. When (if) it actually arises it will be so obvious that there will be no anxiety to quell about its arrival. The repetition of hopeful mantras (as ruy advocated at the end of his post) is a kind of nervous garlic waving to keep the vampires of doubt away.
Not quite. The party is hurting – very badly. Like it or not Clinton came into power in 1992 with the Presidency, the House and the Senate – and left it in 2000 with none of the three. And his hand-picked DNC chair, McAuliffe, has to say it mildly, disappointed a lot of the faithful. Disastrous 2002 campaign, boring speaker, embarrassing financail ties, etc.
Questionable tactics for 2004 – early primaries? Gee thanks for cutting the coverage.
Never go negative? And that hasn’t worked for the Republicans? etc.
In fact his failure as leader of the DNC is what is really driving the other organizations. People with money just don’t want to invest in a loser. And McAuliffe is just not doing much with the cash.
The party is hurting – but killing Kerry is certainly not going to help. But a coup at the DNC just might.