August
22, 1996, Thursday, NASSAU EDITION; VIEWPOINTS;
Page A51
By Al Gordon. Al Gordon is a Viewpoints editor.
IN
RETROSPECT, the defining moment of the 1968 Democratic National Convention in
Chicago came on the day after it had ended.
For
more than a week, Chicago had been a circus of insanity. The grainy TV footage
of the events conveys only a minute fraction of the reality: the wall-to-wall
lines of police, the multitude of protest demonstrations, the National Guard
troops in the streets along hotel row, the smell of tear gas and stink bombs,
the tight security, the even tighter political control of the convention, the
prevailing mood of tension and the sense of passions unleashed.
But
on the day after, it was as if the proverbial carnival had crept out of town
overnight. Bus and taxi service, disrupted by a bogus strike during the
convention, were back to normal. The police and protesters - and even the
politicians - weren’t much in evidence. You could walk to the Art Institute,
view the Impressionist collection and meet friends for lunch in the Loop, just
like any ordinary Chicago day.
It
was as if the convention had been some kind of aberrant happening, a bad dream
from which the city, and the nation, was awakening. And, in terms of lasting
impact, that may be the best analysis.
In
1968, the standard view of the convention was that it had “radicalized” U.S.
politics. President Lyndon Johnson and his political allies had been determined
to deliver the Democratic nomination to Vice President Hubert Humphrey and
rebuff any opposition to the administration’s Vietnam War policies. Chicago
Mayor Richard J. Daley was equally determined to crush any protests, on any
issue, in the streets of his city. According to the “radicalization” theory,
those hard-line stances had driven liberal and moderates away from conventional
politics into antiestablishment leftist action.
Nothing
of the sort ever happened.
To
be sure, young Democrats-on-the-make, such as William Jefferson Clinton, did
join in antiwar protest activities and, later, the 1972 George McGovern
presidential campaign. But, as Clinton’s subsequent political career has
demonstrated, his leftist radicalism was very short-lived.
The
prevailing movement in American politics since 1968 has been overwhelmingly to
the right. Richard Nixon defeated Humphrey that fall, and the Republican
Party would go on to hold the White House for 20 of the next 24 years.
Republicans would twice win control of the U.S. Senate, and even take over
control of the House. The only Democratic presidential victories since 1968 have
come with Clinton and Jimmy Carter, southerners who projected moderate images.
Many
of the most important political developments of 1968 took place far away from
Chicago. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, and Bobby Kennedy
was killed in Los Angeles, removing two of the left’s most charismatic figures
from the political scene. And Alabama Gov. George Wallace began the movement of
conservatives, especially southern whites, away from the Democrats with a
third-party candidacy based on “white backlash” against the civil-rights
movement and a rejection of antiwar protests.
Chicago
would be the last Democratic convention controlled by the old-line “bosses”
and by organized labor, but the convention’s role really was to make more
visible a decline of “machines” and unions that already was in progress. It
appears now that, rather than spurring radical activism, Chicago instead started
the process of turning Americans - including the baby boomers - off on politics.
Youthful radicalism would give way to Yuppie materialism, and advocates of
“participatory democracy” would have a mediocre record for voter turnout.
The desire to “change The System,” in the great ‘60s phrase, would give
way to simple cynicism about politicians and the political process.
That’s
the inherent problem with political passion: it really doesn’t work for the
long run. Certainly, some people can remain devoted to a political cause for a
lifetime, and some even can organize protests and demonstrations forever. But
most people aren’t that dedicated. Eventually, the time comes when people need
to get on with everyday life.
In
a strange twist, an effort to provide a counterpoint to the events of ‘68 is
being planned at this year’s convention by Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, son
of the previous mayor, and California State Sen. Tom Hayden, a founder of the
radical Students for a Democratic Society who was tried for conspiracy for his
role in organizing protest demonstrations during the ‘68 convention. This
provides a tempting cheap shot, but, in fact, Daley and Hayden may be on the
right track. Their party and the country could use a rite of exorcism to free
themselves from the ghosts of the past. For the Democrats to have required 28
years to overcome the trauma of ‘68 and return to Chicago is plainly over
obsession.
The
nation shouldn’t forget the Vietnam War era, and the other forces unleashed in
the ‘60s. It was a significant moment in American History. But that moment is
past. There are new issues and new realities we must face. Like Chicago on the
day after, the American political climate has metamorphosed. If too much
militancy stood in the way of solving problems in 1968, then too much cynicism
is an obstacle today.
Copyright 1996, Newsday Inc.