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.
Yes, we have to overwhelm them with a landslide and GOTV will be crucial. But I was getting at what Susan picked up. We need to weigh in on the spin game, and hard. First, we have to shout that Kerry did win, and support all efforts of the Kerry campaign to make sure the votes are counted. And we have to have a good narrative about why Bush lost. We have to create our own facts, starting now.
Alan S,
You are absolutely correct.
The Bush Machine is all about saying something and making it so by saying it over and over and over.
Fox News and Gallup are in on it. So is the New York Post, the Washington Times, and Drudge. Likewise Limbaugh.
They take daily talking points and utilize brainwashing techniques aka marketing techniques.
They are losing because their product sucks so hard. People try Kerry Cola, and even though the marketing sucks, it tastes better.
Bush and team already plan to either declare victory or war the night of November 2nd. Unless there is a landslide, this guy is not leaving office without a fight. I can easily see him counting on litigation or legislatures to steal a few key states.
That is the main reason we need to win by 5 million or more votes. We need a landslide to rid the country of this counterfeit King who stole the presidency once, and will surely do so again if given any chance.
Danton wrote:
“Are there circumstances in which the “50% rule” doesn’t quite hold? Could, say, the majority of undecided voters break for an incumbent in a time of war?”
=================================
What time of war?
The public doesn’t perceive this as a US war, but as a Bush war, and there has been no indication the undecideds are in any way moved by Bush’s constant pitch that this is a war time.
If they would buy that dubious proposition, they would have bought it already.
All polls shows undecideds decidedly anti-war.
Ruy, echoing “Gabby Hayes,” I was very happy to see you get props from Krugman, who’s one of my idols.
But I share Alan’s concern about the guerilla campaign that Bush/Cheney are waging. My advice: volunteer NOW to get out the vote and do what you can to help the Dems keep voter fraud at bay.
Alan, We certainly made a difference right after each debate when we flooded the polls with votes stating that Kerry won. Hope we can be effectively mobilized to help bring about victory on Nov. 2.
At the moment, I’m on pins and needles. My DD and Ruy make me feel hopeful, then I read Altercation and Eric reports that things just ain’t that rosy.
Oyi!
Krugman’s article is important because it says it out loud that we are in an evolving coup d’etat. And it reinforces the picture of Bush’s world painted by Ron Suskind in his important NY Times article
Krugman’s point about Gallup illustrates perfectly what the Bush advisor meant when he told Suskind that “we create our own reality.” This remark has nothing to do with faith vs secular, it is ad-speak. I’ve been around advertising types for years, and it is how they speak. They do create perceptions, and for them, that is reality.
Gallup, Fox, and the others are working very hard to create the perception that Bush is winning. They are not obsessed, like those in the reality-based community with analyzing facts as they exist. They are creating perceptions–reality in the world of politics. And as the Bush adviser told Suskind, the rest of us just have to rush to catch up.
While the rest of us are glued to TV on election night, analyzing the election results, the right wing media machine will be forging ahead, creating the perception that Bush has already won. We’ve all got to do what we can to create the alternative perception, that Bush lost and Kerry won. Let’s not be caught flat-footed this time around.
Are there circumstances in which the “50% rule” doesn’t quite hold? Could, say, the majority of undecided voters break for an incumbent in a time of war? I ask this because lots of blogs seem to take the rule as an article of faith
Ruy, you didn’t mention that he gave you a shout out and props by name.
I was reading Krugman earlier today and saw the tip of the hat he gave you on deconstructing Gallup and others.
Congrats. I’ve been sending people here for the past 6 weeks to get people educated on polls.