Voters in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont may well decide on March 4 who will be the Democratic presidential nominee. But whatever the outcome, it won't come close to the historic impact of the 1968 New Hampshire primary, a catalytic event that changed the American political landscape and the way we elect our presidents.
It may seem like ancient history now, even for those of us who were there 40 years ago. But when the ballots were counted on March 12, 1968, Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota had won 42 percent of the vote, compared to 49 percent for President Lyndon Johnson. In fact, when Republican write-in votes were included, McCarthy had come within 230 votes of defeating a president of his own party.
McCarthy's candidacy, which harnessed the energy and idealism of young people all over the country -- read Barack Obama -- was dismissed by the so-called experts as a quixotic children's crusade. But his unexpectedly strong showing -- a classic example of exceeding expectations -- had an immediate and explosive effect.
It set in motion a series of events that soon forced President Johnson from office; drew Sen. Robert Kennedy of New York into the race (tragically leading to his assassination three months later); triggered violent anti-war protests that disrupted the Democratic National Convention in Chicago that fatally undermined the presidential campaign of McCarthy's fellow Minnesotan, Vice President Hubert Humphrey; put Richard Nixon in the White House; and set the stage for the eventual withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam.
It was the first primary I covered as a young Washington correspondent for Minnesota newspapers, but I could see that something special was happening in the snowy landscape of New Hampshire. Despite press criticism of his low-key, pedantic style and his refusal to attack Johnson, McCarthy deftly exploited a growing disenchantment with the escalating war.
McCarthy, who originally intended to bypass New Hampshire and concentrate on the Massachusetts primary a week later, didn't even go to New Hampshire until Jan. 25, just six weeks before the primary. A Gallup Poll showed he would get about 12 percent of the vote, some of it from people who confused him with the Red-baiting Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin.
The campaign was poorly organized and badly underfunded. The total McCarthy for President bankroll in New Hampshire was $400, $250 of which was donated by the uncle of a local organizer's wife. When McCarthy was asked how he intended to compete with Johnson's control of the party apparatus, he replied, "We'll live off the land." (When I asked him in late 1967 if he was committing political suicide by challenging Johnson, he said, "Wait until those coffins start coming home to the small towns in Minnesota and around the country, and you'll see the American people turn against this war.")
Then, in the early morning hours of Jan. 31, lightning struck for McCarthy as North Vietnamese troops launched the devastating Tet Offensive that stunned U.S. forces, shocked the American public and disproved the claims of Johnson and his military advisers that the North Vietnamese army and the Viet Cong were being defeated and, like the Bush administration's present claims about the war in Iraq, that we were winning. Suddenly, thousands of New Hampshire voters -- and millions of Americans -- were asking the same questions about the war that McCarthy was raising.
The Tet offensive, and reports that the Pentagon planned to send another 206,000 troops to Vietnam, sent thousands of college students who were willing to be "clean for Gene" flocking to New Hampshire. (One was a Wellesley student from Illinois named Hillary Rodham.) Aided by the goodwill they engendered with New Hampshire voters and heavy-handed tactics by Johnson supporters who questioned McCarthy's patriotism and experience - read Hillary Clinton - the campaign peaked at exactly the right time. When the polls closed, New Hampshire instantly transformed McCarthy from a hopeless underdog into a serious candidate for president.
On election night, a jubilant McCarthy paid tribute to the "New Politics" that he personified. In a midnight speech at the Sheraton Wayfarer in Bedford, N.H., he told his ecstatic supporters, "People have remarked that this campaign has brought young people back into the system. But it's the other way around. The young people have brought the country back into the system."
McCarthy, who died in 2005 at the age of 89, ran for president four more times, the last time in 1992 when he got less than one percent of the vote in the Granite State, where few people noticed, or even remembered, the man who made history by running against a war the American people had grown tired of.
Albert Eisele, author and Editor-at-Large of The Hill, has been involved in journalism, government, academia and business for nearly four decades.
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
10 Comments so far
Show AllRichM, on the few times you're right, you're right. I stand corrected.
I had heard a radio report in 1968 that McCarthy was dropping out of the race after RFK entered, a report that obviously was erroneous.
As I recall, McCarthy continued to make antiwar speeches after RFK was murdered and Humphrey was nominated, but did not run against Humphrey. By that time, the Vietnam War was so unpopular that Dem nominee Humphrey was was promising to end the war with dignity, a variation of Nixon's fraudulent 'peace with honor' theme.
One little known tale from that era is that Johnson and the North Vietnamese were very close to a deal to end the war in October of '68; had that happened, the GOP perceived that Humphrey would win the election, so an emmissary from Nixon's campaign secretly and illegally contacted the North Vietnamese and told them they could get a better deal under a President Nixon. The peace talks fell apart and Nixon was elected. Of course, keeping in character, Nixon reneged on that promise, and the war went on.
RSJ (6:10 pm) demands a source for my "claim" that McCarthy endorsed Reagan in 1980 (he thinks I made it up!).
Here you go:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5049072
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_mccarthy (topmost section, last sentence)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/obituaries/10cnd-mccarthy.html
(Googling shows thousands of similar references.)
RSJ also challenges my account of McCarthy's activities after March 1968, claiming that
"Actually, McCarthy dropped out after Robert F. Kennedy entered the race. RFK was against the war, as well, and a much more popular candidate. He was still a sitting Dem Senator at the time, so perhaps he thought he could do more good working within the party, especially since RFK seemed destined to be the Dem nominee.
Despite RSJ's amusing arrogance in challenging my account, he's quite wrong, again. After RFK entered the race on March 16, McCarthy continued to campaign, with particular vigor in the ill-starred California primary in June. For instance, the above-cited Wikipedia article states:
Quite a few of the people who had joined McCarthy's effort early on were Kennedy loyalists. Now that RFK was in the race, many jumped ship to his campaign, and they urged McCarthy to drop out and support Kennedy for the nomination. However, McCarthy resented the fact that Bobby had let him do the "dirty work" of challenging Johnson.... As a result, .... McCarthy now devoted himself to beating Kennedy (and Hubert Humphrey, who entered the race after LBJ removed himself) and gaining the nomination.
....McCarthy and Kennedy squared off in California, each knowing that the state would be the make or break for them. They both campaigned vigorously up and down the state, with many polls showing them neck-and-neck, and a few even predicting a McCarthy victory.....
Robert Kennedy was shot after his victory speech at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles,...just after learning of his victory. He died early on the morning of June 6. In response McCarthy refrained from political action for several days, but did not remove himself from the race.
Despite strong showings in several primaries, McCarthy garnered only 23 percent of the delegates at the 1968 Democratic National Convention...
-------------------
The speculation that McCarthy "thought he could do more good working within the party, especially since RFK seemed destined to be the Dem nominee" is not too satisfying. If he truly felt that ending the war was more important than party loyalty, he could have continued to actively campaign after Kennedy's death -- particularly since the pro-war Humphrey was clearly going to be the nominee by that time. There was almost 3 months between RFK's death & the Convention. He also could have considered running as an independent on an antiwar platform.
Those were the days, my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we'd choose
We'd fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way
(As long as we're in the Wayback Machine, might as well turn on the radio!)
BeForKids Said on March 4th, 2008 12:56 pm: "Whatever happened to Hillary?"
The same thing that happened to the vast majority of the boomers... they were corrupted with money and power... They were the ones that started snorting coke and ushered in the "Me" decade of the 80's. They are the corporate predators of today.
RichM wrote "- After the New Hampshire primary, he basically sat out the rest of the 1968 presidential campaign. He refused to campaign for the pro-war Humphrey, but also chose not to run as an antiwar independent. He stayed out of the fray. Then in 1970, he chose not to seek reelection to the Senate."
Actually, McCarthy dropped out after Robert F. Kennedy entered the race. RFK was against the war, as well, and a much more popular candidate. He was still a sitting Dem Senator at the time, so perhaps he thought he could do more good working within the party, especially since RFK seemed destined to be the Dem nominee.
RichM wrote: "In 1980, he endorsed Ronald Reagan for president, over Jimmy Carter."
What is your source for this claim? I have never read it anywhere.
RichM wrote: "In 2002, he told a reporter, "We're kind of in a governmental crisis. There's no real difference between the two parties, other than on irrelevant issues." He said the US badly needed a third party, pointing to the failure of the Dems to oppose the theft of the 2000 presidential election. He said, "This thing in Florida was scandalous, absolutely scandalous. And the Democrats didn't seem too upset with it. They just kind of let it pass."
McCarthy was right on both counts, but why didn't he enter the race or support a third party at the time?
BUT, THE YOUNG HAVE MORE AT STAKE THIS TIME BESIDE THE WAR ISSUES. This time the money that is being spent on the war should be diverted to the environment that will rob them of their future and their life.
The comments from people here are truly good. They come from people who have time or people who are in love with life rather than money. Bill Mckibbon who writes about the environment is looking for a movement to change the course of America. He is fine man and a noble thinker about human life, we were both sounding the alarm a long time a go. I did the first acid rain film in North America, which was squashed by big media and big business in Canada in 1978. That issue didn't go away it was superseded by climate change and fell off the curb back than to be choked by automobile exhausts but it never went away it morphed into the possibility of the extinction of the human species.
Through the eighties, McKibbon, and Hansen who I dialogue with, that we all got on the "stump" for global warming. The doors that slammed in all of our faces in those days are legend. In Canada they considered themselves pure, another sham, in the rest of the West we are now considered almost holy, those who still try for changes in Kyoto, another token concept to deal with climate change. The American Enterprise Institute espouses the words of heretics for the environmental changenicks . Obama now talks of Global Warming; Hillary espouses the new change words to make certain there is a chance of coronation. Even McCain speaks of the subject but not too loudly and in passing. When any one of them receives the kingship their commitment to do something about climate change will modified with bringing jobs to Ohio. This is the world of reality!
The truth is that the radical movement that Bill asks for founders on the shoals of mortgage foreclosure and automobile repossession. "it's the economy stupid!" Most politicians come from the wealthy classes. They of course adore free trade because it allows the wealthy corporations from which they receive their campaign donations to help be reelected. These fools allow the multinationals to become further enriched on the backs of the masses. They also enjoy the further enrichment that comes to their close friends, the bankers, the financiers, munitions makers, and wealthy of the world which is the condition of the people from Congress who truly decide the change of direction no matter how committed the president may prove to be. He will be instructed about reality when the inauguration is over and if he refuses to face it than assassination is an option as a result of their policies that will continue no matter who occupies the White House. We are dealing with power not intelligence or love for humanity. Or heaven forbid, concern for future generations.
A special rich club might survive and perhaps their children but that will be the end of it!!! Their children's children will survive to face the results of their actions. I do not celebrate that this beautiful world will perish, I do not celebrate that life is so cheap. For those here who have not seen Africa and felt the disease or smelled the rot, you exist in the never, never land of Jackson's estate now up for sale that exemplifies the opulence of stupidity that is so much America. For those of us who believe in the sanctity of life itself, we understand as the election unfolds we will not have what we want, an evolved human race that could have built heaven on Earth. We, who write here know intrinsically this could be a beautiful world for all to exist, and where thought and creativity could flourish but "the chickens will finally come home to roost"!!!!
We in the Western globalized world cannot understand, it is time for a two-tiered world economy that incorporates the best features of democratic capitalism for all players and allows for penalties for those largest players in the game for polluting the global environment! It is the last hope and perhaps the young people might get it but Hillary's constituency certainly does not! The people of this globe are used to the self-interest of the powerful. The latest BP energy ad, the Chevron propaganda are ads that point to the cynicism at play at its lowest level. The corporate power elite who is protecting the rear from attack using of the last drops of oil on this globe.
Let's forget about, the people owning the corporations, as it has been practiced over the last 50 years. We know this is deception. Humanity of this globe has played out their small striving lives for the benefits derived from the technology that is built to serve war as its first reason for existence; as it has been used throughout history. We cannot learn from history, we cannot learn from our mistakes. The entire condition of life on the planet is skewed. The need forever larger and more of everything is based on a conception of economics that is out of touch with survival strategies for the human population. We are going down the road to extinction along with the systems we have created that have put us out of touch with all life including our own.
Wall Street and its ideas are the values the west covets and the endless growth that cannot continue. There is no such thing as perpetual motion or growth. When we experience growth that is out of control in the human organism it is called cancer and we die. On that note since 1970 the incidence cancer has increased 100% in people over 60. the general age of the people who write here.
The idea of human valuation is based on money and thingness alone, is out of touch with human needs for survival. All systems are reaching critical mass. The giant human extinction process has begun. It may lead to the end of all life on this planet. Once there was a small window of opportunity in the development of humanity that could have led to a flowering of the human species. The great thinkers we revere have stated these concepts, but as always they fell to the desires of the masses inculcated with the rubbish politicians want them to hear, led by the petty evil ones that foisted the lowest of human ideals and passions as the way to enlightenment. "The crowd is the untruth!" stated by Dr. Stockman in Ibsen's, Enemy of the People. We are witnessing another McCarthy era but the old one's and the women will elect the old fools to power!!
We now reap the rewards of the Bush and Clinton legacy of this world based on greed, corruption, self-absorption and stupidity. We debate the petty and inconsequential issues facing the world to the last, while the real issues go wanting. We have people here nit-picking McKibbon's analysis and draw attention to his supposed inconsistencies, without looking at the basis of his writing and offering positive thoughts to his ideas.
The end to this era's politically conservative anti-human, greed directed agenda is coming back to power if Clinton gains this election, hopefully she will lose. This is not to say that Obama will be able to win the election but he certainly needs to try. However, he has garnered the youth and it is they who deserve a chance to put into action the ideas that McKibbon recommends. Are there people who still hope and believe in his environmental thoughts as the approach to life?
However, let those here not be fooled, unless Obama is elected there will be a defeat of the environmental agenda unless there is a congress that supports him. Change can not occur for the Democratic party in power without a congress to enact those changes that are asked by the young people of America. Nothing will change whoever is elected without that happening. This is the only hope people like McKibbon, may have who call for a new movement, who believe change is still possible. But it can only come from the movement taking place.
Those here who embrace the possibility of defeat of Obama support the continued assault to life of the globe in contrast to the health of global humanity. These are the people who support the old ways and who are afraid of change; the young people want a democracy that should start first with the right of each human being to a decent life and hope for his or her family. This will only be advanced in the near future with a radical departure from the politics of the past that Clinton represents. In the end Obama may not bring that but he is the only chance we have.
The war in Iraq will continue as will global conflict regardless of who attains the White House, the military are the final arbiters of this mess. The powerful nations will continue to block United Nations resolutions to end conflict and divert the resources to saving planet Earth and this must stop if we are to find the resources to affect change that will alter course. The rule of corporate hegemony will continue, the congress and the corporations everywhere, will support the business agenda rather than the necessary steps to save the Earth that would require that we redefine human meaning and values and change economic direction.
" We have lost the ability to for-see and for-stall we will end by destroying the Earth
Albert Schweitzer
Thanks, ClassAct. I guess Hillary hasn't changed all that much, she's still a liberal Republican. Talks a socially liberal line, a war hawk, and wants to keep the money in rich hands.
kathyodat
Ms. Kathyodat:
What happened to HRC was that she had supported Goldwater in 1964 and became more liberal in college, but then in the climate of political violence escalating in 1968, she turned to supporting Nelson Rockefeller, by reputation a liberal Republican. RMN expressed his approval of WJC, but not HRC, whom he called a "radical."
A bit more about McCarthy:
- After the New Hampshire primary, he basically sat out the rest of the 1968 presidential campaign. He refused to campaign for the pro-war Humphrey, but also chose not to run as an antiwar independent. He stayed out of the fray. Then in 1970, he chose not to seek reelection to the Senate.
- In 1980, he endorsed Ronald Reagan for president, over Jimmy Carter.
- In 2002, he told a reporter, "We're kind of in a governmental crisis. There's no real difference between the two parties, other than on irrelevant issues." He said the US badly needed a third party, pointing to the failure of the Dems to oppose the theft of the 2000 presidential election. He said, "This thing in Florida was scandalous, absolutely scandalous. And the Democrats didn't seem too upset with it. They just kind of let it pass."
Whatever happened to Hillary? How did she go down so far from there? I guess power and money got to her. I guess for most people the idealism of youth fades with age, and for others, it doesn't. But for those for whom it does, what is important is, what is replacing it? In her case, it's not a pretty sight, particularly as this campaign turns against her.
kathyodat