Newspaper Page Text
CUEST EDITORIAL
GHOST OF 1968 HAUNTS DNC
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 con
vention. 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 compassion.
If this scenario feels like a recurring dream,
tnat's because we lived through it once before,
in the tumultuous election year of 1968. Tc
Democrats, it may be more like a nightmare; if
history repeats itself, the GOP will reinhabit the
White House. There is one significant differ
ence 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 fer
vently to its policy of corporate-oriented
trade—and the campaign funding it brings in—
that it seems to be almost deliberately damp
ening the enthusiasm of core activists aRiecP
with the pirty. .i h * - , # • •
Like the World Trade Organization official^
who were blindsided by protests that disrupted
their meeting in Seattle last fall, Vice President
Al Gore is underestimating the depth o£ resent
ment caused by the
administration's trade
policies. Seattle-
inspired protesters—-
who see those policies
as protecting corpo
rate profits at the
expense of workers,
human rights and the
environment—
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 con
tributed 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 differ
ences, which may make prospects worse for
Gore—but, paradoxically, more favorable for
the future of progressive politics:
In 1968, the only peace-oriented alterna
tives 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 capi
talizing on the dissatisfaction with Gore, tap-
CITY
PAGES
Although there are
uncanny parallels
between 1968 and
2000, there are also
differences...
ping 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 pri
marily 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 main
stream issues from economic fairness to envi
ronmentalism.
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 wiL 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 ^alpction 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 per
cent. Although Nader is indeed popular w,ch
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 disaf
fected or unengaged Americans who otherwise
would not bother
casting a ballot, espe
cially newly eligible
voters on college cam
puses. For progres
sives, this mass of new
voters may hold the
key to November.
Most voters regis
tered and brought to
the polls by the Fader
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 ./horn 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 any
thing but a nightmare. If, however, the Nader
upsurge leads to a permanent, emboldened pro
gressive electoral force—whether inside or out
side the Democratic party—it would widely be
deemed a success, even if a new Bush is tem
porarily in the White House.
Jeff Cohen
Jeff Cohen (jeffco@ulster.net) is co-author of
"Wizards of Media Uz" and is a weekly panelist
on Fox News Channel’s "News Watch." He wrote
this article for Perspective.
Sbowtimes
10pm & 11pm
Followed by
Technicolor
Dance with
DJ Isaac
presents
the Underground Divas
WHO SAYS THERE’S NOTHING TO DO ON
\ c ~/x I ^ /x I ; I ~
the Underground Divas
\ \ Where »!:e Men are Men and
V ^ Some of the Women are Too.
Showtimes 10pm & Midnight NO COVER!
and Friends
ST KAW» U ”
Circuit Noise wnth DJ KeRie(Bsckhead’sil DJ)
ybutante’s
to School Party
Show at
Midnight
433 HANCOCK AVENUE • EVENTS LINE: 706-543-1555
AUGUST 23, 2000 FLAGPOLE B