Deja Vu: 2008 as 1968

Consider the stunning parallels between the contest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2008 and the same contest 40 years earlier in 1968, which ended in a party divided. Both contests feature insurgent political campaigns, and the catalyst for the insurgency in both cases is opposition to an unpopular and misconceived war: in 2008 in Iraq, in 1968 in Vietnam.

In both contests, there are senators from Midwestern states: in 2008, Barack Obama from Illinois; in 1968, Eugene McCarthy from Minnesota. Both candidates denounce the usual ways of doing business in Washington and call for a new politics.

Both campaigns draw millions of younger voters to embrace political activism. The masses of young people flocking to Obama recall the hordes of students who became "clean for Gene" and canvassed door-to-door for McCarthy in the early 1968 primaries in New Hampshire and Wisconsin.

Moreover, both draw tens of thousands of supporters to their public events. During the summer of 1968, leading up to the August Democratic convention in Chicago, McCarthy spoke to crowds of 15,000 in downtown Pittsburgh, 30,000 at Look Park in Houston, Texas, and 50,000 at Fenway Park in Boston.

There are of course, differences. While Obama is a consistently inspiring speaker, McCarthy was an uneven performer, even though his earlier speech at the 1960 Democratic convention, nominating Adlai Stevenson for president, is one of the great political orations in American history. Obama is a newcomer to Washington, having served only two years in the Senate before beginning his presidential quest, while McCarthy served in the U.S. Congress for two decades, first in the House and later the Senate, before running for president.

In 1968, after President Lyndon B. Johnson eked out a narrow win over McCarthy in New Hampshire, either McCarthy or the other anti-Vietnam War candidate, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, won every remaining primary, except for two states, Florida and Ohio, that voted for favorite sons. Yet, when the Democrats met in Chicago in 1968 to nominate a candidate for president, after LBJ had withdrawn in March and RFK was assassinated in June, they chose Hubert H. Humphrey, Johnson's vice president. Humphrey had not entered, let alone won, a single Democratic primary contest.

The reason for Humphrey's convention victory was that a majority of the convention delegates were unelected, and it was these unelected delegates who determined the outcome. The result was a Democratic Party split asunder. This split between anti-Vietnam War Democrats and pro-Vietnam War Humphrey Democrats helped elect the 1968 Republican presidential candidate, Richard Nixon.

The past is not necessarily prologue. Yet 40 years later, the Democratic Party faces the possibility of another self-defeating split caused by the selection of the less-popular presidential candidate by unelected convention delegates.

In 2008, superdelegates, who are unelected, have the power to determine the Democratic presidential candidate. Obama has won more votes, more elected delegates, and more states than his principal opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton, has. The latest national polls show Democrats preferring Obama over Clinton and Obama with a better chance of defeating the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain.

These 2008 superdelegates, like the unelected delegates in 1968, once again could split the party and help elect a Republican. If the Democratic nominating convention rejects the will of the Democratic primary voters, the risks of electing the Republican candidate may be just as grave in 2008 as they were in 1968.

Comments

[1dogs2]

The greater danger to the Democratic party is not what the superdelegates will do at the convention, but the current behavior of the Clinton camp, its superdelegate supporters (like Emanuel) and its large financial backers (who have been unable to come close to raising the kind of money that Obama's million+ small donors have). The polls are showing what rational observers have been warning of for months now -- the Clinton camp's scorched-earth campaign is damaging both candidates' prospects for the general election, Clinton's prospects more than Obama's. The split within the party this time is not between pro- and anti-war factions, but between DNC and DLC factions, the "new politics" and "old politics" factions, and they are fighting not just for their candidate, but for their fundamental political values. What remains to be seen is whether the superdelegates, by publicly endorsing Obama sooner rather than later, will force Clinton to concede before the damage to the party is irretrievable for this election cycle and who knows how many years to come.

[1dogs2]

This analysis leaves out a great deal, including the extent to which Humphrey was unfairly tagged with LBJ's war policy (unfairly because Humphrey could hardly criticize that policy as LBJ's V-P, and could speak in his own voice only after he became the nominee; that's a major problem for a V-P running to replace an extremely unpopular President). The riots following the MLK assassination and the massive anti-war demonstrations, not to mention the blood running in the streets of Chicago during the Democratic convention, seriously frightened "the silent majority" who were looking for a "law 'n' order" candidate. Anti-war Democrats certainly did not vote for Nixon in 1968 in significant numbers. Only lunatic fringe sorts who thought that electing Nixon would bring about the second American Revolution did that. The 1968 superdelegates were influenced by the "it's his turn" tradition -- a less irrational factor when applied to a serving V-P than to the wife of a former President who has seriously diminished his own reputation during the campaign -- and by Humphrey's long and honorable career as a "happy warrior" for progressive causes prior to his vice-presidency.

The superdelegates are very unlikely to cast their lot this year with the candidate who has not won more elected delegates. In Illinois, there is only one superdelegate hold-out: Rahm Emanuel. Even Lapinsky has cast his lot with Obama, having seen the improbable victory of Foster in Denny Hastert's old district with Obama's active support.

[mikey683]

History doesn't really repeat itself. but it often rhymes. Barak Obama = Jimmy Carter.

[DoninJoisey]

I heard Hillary say that even pledged delegates, not just superdelegates, are free agents and can vote for whomever they wish. So much for her "disenfranchising the voters" argument to get Florida and Michigan delegates counted - she will stop at nothing. Rules, the truth, the future of the democratic party - nothing better get in the way of her quest for power.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

I remember the 1968 convention well and will be in Denver for this one. The thought of history repeating itself is actually giving me nightmares at least once a week. This is not hyperbole, I'm serious.

[montemalone]

To continue the story,
McCain is elected, and follows in Tricky Dick's footsteps. Hopefully, the impeachment will result in prison for the whole lot.

[DeeLuzon]

an important difference... 18 year olds couldn't vote in 1968 (and we were pissed off about it).

[Gonefishing]

The whole world is watching, redux.