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.
salvation is by grace through faith it is a gift of God. Baptism is an outward expression of your faith. The only problem I have with a person not being baptized or the “silent witness”. If I had to go to court and my witness was silent, what good would they be for me. But in those regards in the political realm your faith does you no good except for your personal decisions. It is in our coutries best interest that we have biblical dialogue to the politics of our country.
Jason:
In case you or other commenters are still reading, it’s beginning to dawn on me that what I should have said in the original post is that full immersion baptism is central to Baptist “identity,” not to doctrine. Certainly when I was growing up in the First Baptist Church of LaGrange, Georgia, the practice of full immersion, age-of-consent baptism (not to mention the presence of a baptismal fount right behind the centrally located pulpit) is what most notably separated us from our Methodist and Presbyterian brethren and rivals.
Nowadays, perhaps (as I infer from your last comment) denominational affiliation is more fluid, what with mixed marriages and frequent “conversions” and a general weakening of ancentral connections to particular houses of worship. And obviously, issues like biblical inerrancy and moral theology provide sharper divisions among Protestant denominations than in the past. So maybe “Baptist identity” is less tied up in a particular form of baptism than before. Considering that a hard-line position on separation of church and state also used to be central to Baptist identity (it certainly was when I was growing up), maybe my view of the denomination is simply a bit out of date.
In any event, thanks to all for a stimulating discussion.
One final thing, Ed, since I’ve grown up Baptist and am in Greenville, South Carolina, I can tell you I’ve met plenty of folks who have come from paedo Baptist backgrounds (Presbyterian, Episcopalian come to mind of actual individuals) who attend for years who choose not to be baptized by immersion in a Southern Baptist church.
No one thinks any less of them, they just realize that is a matter of conscious and leave it at that. I can quickly think of some faithful people, especially to their particular church, who have been for years, who just aren’t members due to where their conscious leads them on baptism.
And it works in reverse to. I know a chairman of a local college’s political science department who would make a fine church officer in a Presbyterian church he attends, but refuses nominations to such because of where his convictions are on particular points of Presbyterian doctrine.
Okay, Baptists, I surrender on the theological point about the relationship of baptism to salvation, and apologize for the error, which was based less on sheer ignorance than on a misunderstanding of the famous Baptist preoccupation with the validity of different forms of baptism. I really am surprised to learn from Jason that there are Southern Baptist churches that accept infant baptism as valid.
I would hope that you might acknowledge that my mistake has virtually no bearing on the political point I was trying to make: that having chosen to identify himself as a Baptist, John McCain’s rather casual attitude towards baptism as an option based on one’s “spiritual needs” is jarring, and will be perceived as such by South Carolina Baptists.
On two small points raised by Jason, yes, I’m aware there’s no organic connection between continental Anabaptists and Anglo-American Baptists, unless you get into the weeds of the Tudor-era Strangers’ Church and so forth. That’s why I called them “theological” ancestors. But without question, I stumbled by attaching an active verb to the word “salvation.”
Thanks for commenting.
Ed Kilgore
I hate to beat a dead horse, but your correction didn’t amount to much.
In the essay you say: “Well, you’d think anyone who’s been attending a Baptist Church for 15 years might have caught wind of the fact that the denomination, as its name suggests, believes rather adamantly that baptism is necessary for salvation, a reasonably important “spiritual need” by most measurements.”
In your correction you say: “I may have erred by not making it clear that Baptists do not consider baptism sufficient for salvation”.
It’s not that you “may have erred.” You did err. And your tone was snide and condescending.
You have been corrected by many Baptists, and yet your admission was sheepish and half-hearted.
I am a Baptist pastor, and can tell you that despite our name, we Baptists actually have a “lower” view of Baptist than many denomiations.
Please, do some research before you write things. Your voice is powerful, so don’t abuse it with ignorance. Just learn before you write.
Wow, you don’t know much about either Baptist history or theology.
Southern Baptists most certainly do not require immersion baptism (credo baptism) for recognition of salvation. Many Southern Baptist churches do not accept paedo baptism as sufficient baptism, and as such will not allow a person to become a member of a church, but that only means that individual cannot vote in church matters. A lack of recognition of credo baptism means that they will pass no judgment on a person’s salvation. Not e that since Southern Baptist churches are largely independent of one another, some Southern Baptist churches will in fact accept paedo Baptism, it varies on a case by case basis.
Anabaptists are in no way related to modern Baptists. Anabaptists were continental. Modern Baptists came from an entirely different strain of independents in England in the 17th century.
You said, “Baptists actually differ on whether it is possible to achieve salvation without baptism, but certainly reject McCain’s apparent idea that it’s optional if you want to be a Baptist in any meaningful sense of the term.”
Oh Southern Baptists most certainly do not differ on this at all. And besides, no Southern Baptist worth his salt would ever write the phrase “achieve salvation” as that borders on an acknowledgment of works salvation. They would say “receive salvation”.
As far as Sen. McCain’s idea on being a Baptist, you need to ask is he a voting member of that church, and if so, did that particular church believe that credo baptism was a prerequisite for joining that particular body, as one does not become a member of the denomination at large. Churches are members of the Souther Baptist convention, but individuals are members of particular churches.
Ed–You’re correct that believer’s baptism by immersion is a requirement for admission into the Baptist fellowship. But this Southern Baptist turned Presbie is still bothered by the notion that it is somehow essential to salvation, and I’m honestly surprised that you learned that growing up. Baptism is a human ritual; to make salvation dependent on a human ritual controlled by the church is to deny God’s sovereignty, and further veers dangerously close to the notion that a person can save herself. To the Southern Baptists who taught me, there is no mediator but Jesus Christ; what God does through Christ isn’t dependent on anything a church or an individual does.
That said, I’d hardly be surprised if there were some Baptists who feel differently; after all, there are at least 57 different varieties of ’em.
Er, well, not according to the denomination in question (the Southern Baptist Convention). They require baptism for membership in the local church, but make a distinction between individual local churches and the “church” as “Body of Christ”. This second, larger sense of the word “church” is made up of all redeemed persons (even if they’re not members of Baptist local church congregations, and even if they’re not Baptists!).
(Again referencing the statement of faith I linked to earlier, section VI “The Church”.)
So no, John McCain probably doesn’t qualify for membership in the local church at which he attends. But neither he nor his church nor the denomination to which it is affiliated “believe[] rather adamantly that baptism is necessary for salvation”.
As an aside, I’m curious — could you point me at a Baptist statement of faith (or similar) that claims it is impossible “to achieve salvation without baptism”? (This is an aside because we have the statement of faith of the denomination in question — the SBC — and they certainly don’t make this claim.) I’m not doubting you; I’ve just never come across such a Baptist, so finding such a creature would expand my understanding.
I may have erred by not making it clear that Baptists do not consider baptism sufficient for salvation (indeed, that was one of their major differences with the magisterial Protestants). They require faith, after which a believer’s baptism becomes a necessary passage before membership in Christ’s Church. Baptists actually differ on whether it is possible to achieve salvation without baptism, but certainly reject McCain’s apparent idea that it’s optional if you want to be a Baptist in any meaningful sense of the term.
Goodness, I’m not sure where you come by the idea that Baptists believe that “full immersion baptism is indeed the sine qua non for salvation”. For instance, if you look at the Southern Baptist Convention’s website (the denomination in question):
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp
The section about Salvation doesn’t mention baptism and the section on Baptism doesn’t mention salvation!
Baptism is one of two “ordinances” (the other being communion aka The Lord’s Supper) that are symbolic and memorial acts.
Paulak:
As a Christian, I certainly agree with you that none of us are equipped to evaluate John McCain’s spiritual condition. But the fact remains that McCain has chosen, without duress so far as we know, to identify himself with a particular faith community in which full immersion baptism is indeed the sine qua non for salvation. And he can’t have it both ways, being credited in a heavily Baptist constituency for solidarity with their community without fulfilling its most basic tenets.
And BTW, I didn’t have to do any research on this subject; I was raised as a Southern Baptist, and am now an Episcopalian. I take both denominations seriously; John McCain apparently doesn’t. And that’s his problem.
You appear to have done your research concerning baptism, but have left out some pertinent information. First, whether or not John McCain or any believer, is baptised by immersion, is a totally personal act. Salvation is not dependent on full immersion, although some churches would argue the point. God’s grace is all that is necessary for salvation and lack of immersion will not keep a person from an eternity in Heaven. That being said, because Christ himself was fully baptized in the Jordan River, and did so in front of a crowd, it is the practice for believers to follow giving their life to the Lord by being baptized.
Secondly, John McCain’s beliefs are between him and God and none of can rightly know his heart or his motives. God knows that.