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.
Agreed, that he must use the truth. But in a sense he already does, and it does not work. What I would add to this is that he must use the truth, and do so with as much venom and punch as possible.
Lies and truth are merely types of weapons, you see. But like any weapon, they can be used well, and they can be used poorly.
You can lightly jab and tickle someone with either lies or the truth. Or you can bludgen them relentlessly into the ground with either one of them.
The problem with the American electorate is that they are lazy, and not very bright. So, they will gravitate towards the candidate that will beat people to a bloody pulp with lies, more so than they will gravitate towards a candidate who just take small, glancing blows with the truth.
So the key is to use the truth without shame..the truth all of us down on the ground floor of the campaigns already know…McCain is a bad tempered, lying and capitulating old coward, beholden to bigots. His running mate not only shows his poor judgment, but also is a two faced beauty queen with no record, no experience, and who is in favor of views so extreme that even most of the American public is against them in the polls. (For what they maybe worth.)
If we are going to use the truth… let’s use it. Don’t preface it, as Biden did the other day, with calling Palin a tough smart politician with a compelling story. She is none of those things. Preface the truth with, “a former beauty queen who has no rights to claim allegiance to America when she addressed a secessionist political convention….a politician who has lied about her views on the bridge to nowhere, Barack Obama, and her frigid religious views on pre-marital sex.”
Or something to that effect. But we all know she is not compelling, or smart or anything. We are now she is trash. We need to just say it, over and over again. You know, like the Republicans do as they win election after election after election after election…
Why are Democrats Afraid to Speak the Truth?
The Democratic campaign enjoyed a spectacular and spirited convention climaxed by a phenomenal speech by Senator Obama. The McCain campaign followed with a phenom of its own with the addition of Governor Sarah Palin to the ticket. Prior to that spontaneous decision, John McCain was experiencing difficulty attracting an audience. In fact, with the prearranged agenda including Bush and Cheney, they would likely had difficulty filling the convention hall. This situation was remedied by the creation of the John McCain traveling burlesque show. Hopefully, the same people who support Sarah Palin are those who supported Sanjaya right up until it was time to declare him an American Idol. While the Republican propaganda machine is frantically fabricating a history for Palin, scrambling like canaries in a cage startled by the appearance of a cat, Barack Obama himself appears tired, bored, deflated, and even defeated. It’s time for the Democratic Party to employ a novel strategy in the political arena. It’s time to tell the truth.
It is a foregone conclusion that multi-national corporate interests own the federal government lock, stock, and barrel, with Big Oil as the majority shareholder. George Bush is a president with no leverage over these entities in fact; he invited them to the party. When Bush proclaims, “we must protect American interests abroad,” it is these corporate interests to which he refers. The lobbyists who represent these interests have written any and all legislation passed within the last eight years. The Republican hierarchy has embedded within it, individuals in key positions who steer all government policies to favor these groups. If John McCain and the Republican Party remain in power, this situation will not change. Furthermore, if some tragedy were to befall McCain, Palin has left no doubt in anyone’s mind that she is completely capable of reading the commands issued by these individuals. While the McCain/Palin Campaign portrays itself as the reform ticket, these same multi-nationals are pouring money into the effort directly and through 527 provisions to insure its success. This phenomenon can be compared to the scenario in which a drug kingpin who has already bought-off key players in law enforcement and the judiciary, finances the campaign of the ‘law and order’ candidate who is secretly also on his payroll.
This reality is understood throughout the world (except among the religious right which is, by the way, neither) so much so that the European Union was formed in large part to insulate governments on that continent from this same corruption. Any and all candidates running for political office in democracies throughout Europe who have ties to our corrupt administration are handily voted down. The impact of this unified agreement has resulted in a blockade of many American products to a consumer base of nearly half a billion and the subsequent loss of countless American jobs. The distrust of American enterprise has facilitated a rapid increase in the demand for Russian oil and natural gas causing the current tension between the oil friendly Bush Administration and the neo-capitalist Russian government. It is no wonder that the Republican Party will never support successful programs for public education. It is to its advantage for its core electorate to remain oblivious to its true priorities and their consequences. Anyone interested in the future of these great United States must focus on the interview in which Dick Cheney openly admitted that the Republican Party, “will say what we need to, to get elected,” and then pursue, with reckless indifference, the policies agreed to prior to the campaign.
Barack Obama must reinvigorate his campaign by simply implementing the truth. In plain terminology, Obama must educate the American people in how it works, how it got this way, and how it can be fixed. He must loudly proclaim that this Republican Administration has not only undermined the Democratic process through trickery and fraud, but has nullified the legislative process by expanding the powers of the presidency which has led to the paralysis of Congress. America is not only crying for change but is also starving for truth. Somebody has to go first.