[sixties-l] Ghost of 1968 Haunts DNC

From: radman (resist@best.com)
Date: Wed Aug 16 2000 - 06:21:15 CUT

  • Next message: radman: "[sixties-l] Hero faces the horror of experiences in My Lai"

    Ghost of 1968 Haunts DNC
          Jeff Cohen, AlterNet
    August 15, 2000

    Tuesday, August 15 -- A tiresome Democratic vice president seeks the top
    job, but his administration's policies have so alienated
    Democratic-oriented activists they take to the streets during the party's
    convention. Meanwhile, the Republicans serve up a shrewdly repackaged
    candidate with a surname rejected eight years earlier by the national
    electorate, a candidate speaking well-scripted words of moderation and
    If this scenario feels like a recurring dream, that's because we lived
    through it once before, in the tumultuous election year of 1968. To
    Democrats, it may be more like a nightmare; if history repeats itself, the
    GOP will reinhabit the White House. There is one significant difference
    between then and now, Ralph Nader, and it's a difference that may hurt the
    Democrats' chances.
    First, the similarities.
    In 1968, Richard Nixon won by appealing to voters in the center with the
    help of soothing talk about peace in Vietnam and "bringing us together
    again" at home. His opponent, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, lost the
    support of the left by clinging to his boss's failed Vietnam policy.
    Humphrey's hawkishness led some Democratic voters to stay home or vote for
    protest candidates. It dampened enthusiasm among young activists for
    crucial get-out-the-vote efforts. And it divided the party.
    As if reading from the vintage 1968 script, today's Democratic leadership
    clings so fervently to its policy of
    corporate-oriented trade, and the campaign funding it brings in, that it
    seems to be almost deliberately
    dampening the enthusiasm of core activists allied with the party.
    Like the World Trade Organization officials who were blindsided by protests
    that disrupted their meeting in Seattle last fall, Vice President Al Gore
    is underestimating the depth of resentment caused by the administration's
    trade policies. Seattle-inspired protesters, who see those policies as
    protecting corporate profits at the expense of workers, human rights and
    the environment, have descended upon Los Angeles in droves.
    In June, Gore made it even more clear that he takes them and their votes
    for granted, by choosing as his campaign chairman William Daley, the White
    House's top lobbyist for the North American Free Trade Agreement and the
    China trade deal. (Daley, incidentally, is the son of former Chicago Mayor
    Richard J. Daley, the Humphrey-backer and conservative Democrat whose
    mishandling of the convention contributed to Humphrey's 1968 defeat.)
    And here come the Republicans, who won in '68 with "the new Nixon,"
    offering up a new Bush in 2000: "George the Compassionate."
    Although there are uncanny parallels between 1968 and 2000, there are also
    differences, which may make
    prospects worse for Gore, but, paradoxically, more favorable for the future
    of progressive politics.
    In 1968, the only peace-oriented alternatives to Humphrey were fringe
    candidates like Eldridge Cleaver and Dick Gregory, and they were on the
    ballot in only some states.
    This year, Nader, a widely respected political figure, will be on the
    ballot as the Green Party candidate in almost every state. Nader is
    capitalizing on the dissatisfaction with Gore, tapping into the energy of
    activists who see Gore as not only wrong on trade but also unduly beholden
    to corporate interests in general.
    In 1968, the Democratic dissenters were primarily young people, many below
    the then-voting age of 21, with few resources. Their social and cultural
    positions often put them outside the mainstream.
    Today, progressive dissent is more mature, has more resources and brings
    together mainstream issues from economic fairness to environmentalism.
    And whereas the unions in 1968 largely sided with Humphrey against
    dissenters, many in labor today loudly question Clinton-Gore trade policies
    and have actively supported the protests in Seattle and elsewhere. Two
    powerful unions, the Teamsters and the United Auto Workers, even flirted
    with endorsing Nader, a powerful critic of trade deals deemed hurtful to
    workers. The Teamsters have not yet endorsed a candidate; the UAW endorsed
    Gore last week.
    If George W. Bush wins over a divided opposition, there will be much
    soul-searching on the left. Some will blame Gore's conservative policies on
    issues like trade, military spending and the drug war. There will also be
    scrutiny of Gore's campaign choices, like his selection of Daley and
    pro-business, free-trader running mate Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Others will
    blame Nader as a spoiler.
    The blame-Nader chorus has been rising from Gore backers since national
    polls last month found Nader's support as high as 8 percent. Although Nader
    is indeed popular with disgruntled Democrats (10 percent of union members
    in Michigan, according to one poll), he is also popular with independents
    and John McCain voters.
    But where Nader may do best is with disaffected or unengaged Americans who
    otherwise would not bother casting a ballot, especially newly eligible
    voters on college campuses. For progressives, this mass of new voters may
    hold the key to November.
    Most voters registered and brought to the polls by the Nader campaign will
    likely vote Democratic for Congress, because the Green Party won't be
    fielding candidates in many districts. These voters may decide whether
    majority control of Congress returns to Democratic lawmakers, many of whom
    bristle at the Republican Lite programs of Clinton-Gore.
    Haunted by the ghost of 1968, the American left is a long way from learning
    whether this recurring dream will end well or end badly. The real test may
    come after the 2000 election.
    If the Nader electoral movement evaporates in 2001 while the GOP wins the
    White House and keeps Congress, few on the left will call it anything but a
    nightmare. If, however, the Nader upsurge leads to a permanent, emboldened
    progressive electoral force, whether inside or outside the Democratic
    party, it would widely be deemed a success, even if a new Bush is
    temporarily in the White House.

    Jeff Cohen (jeffco@ulster.net) is co-author of "Wizards of Media Oz" and is
    a weekly panelist on Fox News
    Channel's "News Watch." He wrote this article for Perspective.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 17 2000 - 01:05:26 CUT