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.
I beleive that the only Americans the terrorists want
at this time is Gorge W. and crew (Cheney,Ashcroft,
Romsfield) If we get them out of office in November
we will have a chance of getting our country back at least to a low security threat level. We have not, nore will we ever be totally free from the threat of terrorists plotting against us. But the ones that are really hated by the terrorists groups of today are listed above.
If the American people put them back in office in Nov.2004, then we are all in a lot of trouble. I Pray America is Smarter than That.
By the way, I think WaPo columnist Jim Hoagland explains (without recognizing it himself-) the problem with”Shrub’s” claim about being the only candidate who is “serious” about the War on Terrorism. It is no longer credible… Sure, there has been lots of resolute firebrand rhetoric and swagger since 9/11, but the actual DEEDS betray the convinction. If the terror war really is about the survival of western civilization, shouldn’t this Administration have been a little more reluctant to push for tax cuts for the rich etc. while favoring less divisive politics at home in the name of bipartisan unity against the Great Enemy abroad?
—
Heck — Churchill reportedly made concessions to Labour left and right in the late 1930s. What, exactly, did the Republicans do in 2001-03? Things like suggesting moderate NC Senator Max Cleland was in cahoots with Osama and Saddam for insisting that civil servants working for the Homeland Security department have the same workplace rights as other civil servants! The GOP has consistently tried to use the War on Terror to advance partisan goals at home, and that is probably who Democrats and independents no longer believe the Administration’s arguments about Iraqi WMDs, the Saddam/Osama connection, prison torture etc..
MARCU$
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35558-2004Jul7.html
[…]
“The lengthening period since Sept. 11 has created a sense of virtual emergency. President Bush mobilized the armed forces to fight the war on terrorism.”
“But he has not mobilized society on a similar war footing at home. He has not conscripted soldiers or factories and other national economic resources as most wartime presidents have. He leaves the impression that the nation does not need to devote all its resources to confronting an immediate, specific threat of destruction, whatever his rhetoric.”
Another encouraging statistic from the PoolKatz blog. It seems the much-anticipated “Bush bounce” is now over!
http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif
There was indeed a positive bump the size of a molehill in “Shrub’s” approval ratings in early June. Fortunately the Chimp seems to be back in 40-45% territory again, though, if you check the last data points on the graph. Hooray…
MARCU$
From my perspective, a major terrorist attack on US soil between now and the election would be the final nail in W’s coffin: about the only thing he has going for him (apart from “nice guy”) is that he has thus far protected us from another attack. When/if one comes, he will have proven himself to be a miserable failure yet again.
I do think that Kerry has an important reason to continue to “pile on” to his national security creds. ONLY an significant national security event, such as an episode of terrorism or the capture of Osama, would stand much chance to change Bush’s poor prospects in the upcoming election.
I suppose it’s way to late in the game to weigh in on this point (not that it makes much diff anyway), but this would be all the more reason for Kerry to select Wes Clark as a VP candidate. If nothing major happens between now and the election, Kerry will have a great chance to win with virtually ANY VP; but if national security is kicked out of its current stasis, only a very strong Dem national security team will do well against Bush and Cheney.
I think that a terrorist attack now will have a net negative effect for Bush. People will not think of him as the light in the storm, the steadfast commander, etc etc etc. Rather they will think “strike three” or possibly “two”, if they don’t count the Iraq Attack as a calamity for our soldiers and the country. The problem for Bush will be, should such an attack take place, that he will necessarily have to argue that he’s the one who can prevent the next attack. This isn’t going to be a position of strength, not even to the most willing suspender of disbelief.
I don’t know about the questions concerning al Qaeda’s positions on Bush or the election. It seems to me that al Qaeda is not really too concerned about American electoral politics. Al Qaeda is focused on rejecting and ousting Western/American culture and influence from Muslim countries. Bush, because of his religiosity and shallowness, has become an icon more to his backers here than to his enemies elsewhere, I think. The fact is that al Qaeda will continue its attacks on American interests and operations in Iraq and elsewhere no matter who is elected here.
I just saw a wonderful poll result on today’s Gallup homepage: Can Kerry and Bush Handle the Responsibility of being Commander in Chief?
Bush
Yes 61%
No 35%
Kerry
Yes 61%
No 30%
A critical confidence barrier met and exceeded!
Now watch to see if Kerry gets convincingly ahead after the looming Democratic Convention!
I remember how completely most people had written off Kerry back when Dean was surging and got Al Gore’s endorsement. He wasn’t even 2nd by most people’s calculations — behind Clarke as well.
This game is played in such a way that you can’t tell luck from strategy from the outside, and they will never tell you which it is. In either case, Kerry’s best shot is clearly to build up now, then go for shock-and-awe after the convention.
With one caveat: “don’t attack an opponent who is committing suicide.” By all evidence the Kerry folk seem to understand this. And boy I can’t figure out how those Bushies stand upright after shooting themselves in the foot so many times.
Marcus, you wrote:
“On the other hand, local Iraqi insurgents may well think a Kerry presidency would be more likely to pull out simply because there would be a perceived mandate for ending an increasingly unpopular occupation. I think this group would be more likely to ramp up the violence in Iraq rather than taking the fight to America soil, though.”
Much to the frustration of many who want him to, I haven’t heard Kerry give a date for pulling the troops. Nothing he has said so far suggests that if he wins it is, as of now, a mandate for removing our troops.
Personally, I can readily understand why he would take this stance at this point, from the standpoint of what is the right thing to do. How can either Kerry or Bush know enough, so early after the transfer, how things are likely to play out and therefore how we should think about the question of troop deployments and withdrawal?
And though I’m very much not a political pro, it also seems to me to be the politically smart thing for Kerry to do at this time. If he differs with a decision or course of action on Iraq he can, if he wants to and feels he can do so in good conscience, choose to do so later in the campaign when more is known about how the transfer is going–and, not incidentally, when the Administration will have less time to react before the election.
I think he has much fatter and lower risk foreign policy targets to shoot at now–the conduct and results of the effort against al qaeda, the pre and earlier postwar conduct of the war in Iraq including the Abu Ghraib fiasco, the overextension and mismanagement of our troop commitments, the treatment of our troops by their civilian leaders, and probably North Korea come readily to mind.
Of course the terrorists would say a terrorist attack would hurt Bush!
Remember John Kerry has a secret line to Osama and they’re in cahoots!
This question is a bit more complicated than it seems. I think Al Qaeda almost certainly would prefer to have a “good enemy” (=someone who offends Arab sensibilities, who proves they are right by invading Islamic countries because of WMDs and alleged connections that just didn’t exist). After all, Osama bin L. would be in much greater trouble now if “Shrub” had focused all efforts on waging a reasonably popular and relatively non-controversial war against him in Afghanistan…
On the other hand, local Iraqi insurgents may well think a Kerry presidency would be more likely to pull out simply because there would be a perceived mandate for ending an increasingly unpopular occupation. I think this group would be more likely to ramp up the violence in Iraq rather than taking the fight to America soil, though.
MARCU$
My answers:
1) Unclear. How the public would respond I would think is inevitably a great unknown. I am wondering to what extent mainstream media will voice and discuss these kinds of concerns that I think many Americans privately share. It could be that the more these concerns are discussed the more ready the public will be if there are attacks near or at election time, and the more likely swing voters will be able to think through in advance what is going on and how they will respond.
2) Who can know how they think about this? Al qaeda certainly has demonstrated a highly sophisticated ability to exploit security vulnerabilities of the US. I dunno–have they hired an unemployed pollster or political consultant to advise them on how to play the election here? Have they assigned someone to monitor and report on the political blog scene? My guess is they would think they’d have nothing to lose if Bush is trailing late.
3) Of course. This one is a no-brainer. Kerry would actually represent a serious threat to them because he is by far the candidate in the race with the greatest potential to effectively rally the international community to combat al qaeda.
4) Probability of them trying it? High. Probability of success to me should be high–I mean, how can we cover absolutely every possibility here? But we’ve got some exceptional people down the food chain who are going to be giving body and soul to trying to stop them between now and then. It would be foolish either to discount the possibility of successful terrorist attacks or successful efforts to thwart them.
Speaking of Kerry, I am hoping that his low profile in the media of late is entirely deliberate, that what is going on is that the campaign is getting all its ducks in a row for a great convention and fall ad and ground campaign. Fence-sitting indies I know perceive him to be almost in hiding of late–they are clearly wanting and expecting to hear from him and a little confused (and unimpressed) as to why they aren’t hearing much from him of late. Which may make it easier for him to get their attention at the convention and from here on out. Let’s hope.
1. Not sure – probaly depends on the attack. Large scale helps Bush, small scale probably hurts.
2. Helps
3. How could they not? – he has been almost a total pawn of theirs. Even they probably could not have wished for an internationally unpopular war in the middle east that significantly increased recruits.
I think they will certainly try. However, the incompetence of Bush and his administration has not yet spread to all of the career service people whose job it is to protect us — so we have a decent shot of preventing it.
OK, three hypothetical questions:
1. Would a major terrorist event on U.S. Soil help or hurt Bush?
2. Which answer would “the terrorists” give?
3. Do the terrorists want Bush to remain in office?
From the answers above, what is the probability of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil between now and November?