Echoes of 1968 Return To Haunt The Divided Democrats
Forty years ago, John Froines was a Sixties radical leading anti-war hippie protests to the Chicago Democratic Convention. After the 1968 convention descended into riots and more than 25,000 troops and police were deployed on the streets, Froines became one of the famed ‘Chicago Eight’. He was put on trial for inciting the disturbances in one of the most controversial cases in American history.
Now, as a distinguished chemistry professor in California, Froines sees a country again mired in a seemingly endless foreign war. Once more the Democrats are headed for a bitterly divided political convention. Yet Froines thinks the world is now in even worse shape than it was in 1968. ‘We are in a much more serious time,’ he told The Observer. ‘Our problems are much more intractable.’
Perhaps that is why the 40th anniversary of the Chicago convention, the riots that surrounded it and the resulting trial are being examined as never before. Not only were the events of 1968 pivotal, but they have never seemed more relevant to the shape of American politics. If you substitute Vietnam for Iraq and Chicago 1968 for Denver 2008, the parallels can become eerie.
Paving the way is a new documentary on the trial of Froines and his fellow protesters. Called Chicago 10 (because the director, Brett Morgen, included the defendants’ two lawyers), the film is a powerful portrayal of the case and the riots themselves. It features a mix of documentary footage with an animated version of the trial starring voiceovers from Nick Nolte, Mark Ruffalo and Roy Scheider. The film was a hit at the Sundance festival in January and has drawn some rave reviews.
It powerfully mixes the story of the riots with the resulting ‘conspiracy trial’ in which eight activists were charged with plotting unrest. But Morgen’s documentary is not alone in re-examining the subject. Another non-fiction film, The Great Chicago Conspiracy Circus, has also been released this year. At the same time, famed scriptwriter Aaron Sorkin - creator of The West Wing - is working on a project about it with director Steven Spielberg. British actor Sacha Baron Cohen is set to play Abbie Hoffman, a leading demonstrator who specialised in jokey pranks as a form of protest.
It is easy to see why there is such interest. The Chicago convention was held under the shadow of Vietnam and after the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Dr Martin Luther King. President Lyndon Johnson had already declared he would not seek re-election, and the Democrats were utterly divided about choosing a successor. In the middle of all this marched thousands of anti-war protesters and so-called yippies - militant hippie activists - determined to invade both Chicago and the convention centre. ‘This was really the penetration of street protest and the anti-war movement right into mainstream politics,’ said Howard Brick, a history professor at Washington University in St Louis.
For Chicago’s hardline Mayor Richard Daley, it seemed as if a revolution was in the air. Three days of police brutality followed, with razor wire in the streets and running battles downtown. Its culmination was the trial of the Chicago Eight, which descended into farce and even saw one defendant, Bobby Seale, chained to his chair and gagged in court. For many, the riots and trial represented both the culmination of Sixties’ radicalism and its death knell.
In particular, some of the footage of the final protests has become iconic in the symbolism of anti-war movements. One scene shows a woman being forcefully herded into the back of a police van as she sings ‘We Shall Overcome’. ‘They knew they were marching into trouble, but refused to be silent,’ Morgen said.
But the core of Morgen’s film is not so much in what it says about events of 40 years ago but about what is going on today. He used a modern musical score in the film, not a Sixties soundtrack. Indeed, the parallels between 1968 and 2008 are legion. The war in Iraq has filled American TV screens for five years and spawned a second anti-war movement. Often, it too is made up of returning veterans, just like Vietnam. The war has also laid waste to a presidency, bringing George W Bush down to historical lows in popularity, the way Vietnam wiped out Johnson’s political future.
As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appear set to go to Denver to fight out a bitter nomination battle, so the Democrats approached Chicago without a nominee but with two strong candidates splitting the delegate count almost down the middle. Even some of the militancy of the Sixties anti-war movement has been reborn. A homemade bomb was recently thrown at a military recruiting station in New York. One newspaper reprinted a list of similar attacks across the US under the headline: ‘Peacenik thugs’.
But those longing for - or fearing - a re-run of the Sixties should relax. The differences between 1968 and 2008 are as profound as the similarities. The current anti-war movement does not have anywhere like the political power or media visibility of its Vietnam era counterpart. Marches are smaller and less frequent and no groups, such as the yippies, or leading protesters, such as Hoffman, have emerged to national prominence.
At the same time, police have learnt the lessons of Chicago. In 1968 the protesters were allowed to march right up to the barricades. Now they are often herded far away from the events they are demonstrating against or, as happened at the 2004 Republican convention in New York, arrested in large numbers before trouble breaks out.
Another key difference is the absence of the draft. Thousands were conscripted into the Vietnam war, outraging them and their families. Iraq is being fought by a volunteer army, perhaps explaining why it has not registered as a defining issue in the 2008 election campaign.
Protesters are also different. The landscape of the 2000s includes globalisation, environmentalism and the rise of Islamic radicalism. It is also a post-9/11 era, in which protest, and especially direct action, is frowned on and seen in the same light as terrorism. Some experts think modern culture, with its emphasis on consumerism and individuality, is also less open to mass protest. ‘Our culture now is so dominated by diversions and individual distractions,’ said Professor Edward Morgan of Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, an expert on the Sixties political protests.
Sixties protesters accept the world has changed. For Froines, it is a more troubled and complex place. ‘I worry very much about the nostalgia for the Sixties. This is a very different time and people should not wallow in that nostalgia,’ he said.
Indeed Froines now worries as much as any other ageing baby boomer about the rise of China and Islamic terrorism: ‘Those are some of the real problems we face, not just Iraq.’ But he believes one lesson from Chicago is still universal: the power of individuals to get together and change things: ‘I have not changed that view in 40 years. It is still essential.’
© 2008 The Guardian
‘I worry very much about the nostalgia for the Sixties. This is a very different time and people should not wallow in that nostalgia,’
This is so right.
Certain lessons learned back then are useful today. And certain symbols and tactics are useful, but getting hung up on the atmospherics can hamper dealing with an analogous, but not identical situation.
Exactly what “nostaglia” does Mr. Froines mean? Sex, drugs, and rock and roll? Tie-dyed tee-shirts? Bell bottoms? Politics as street theater? The rising up of people, directly threatened by the actions of empire, trying to speak (or shout!) truth to power?
Personally, I am nostalgic for all of it. But for sure, if there is any hope for our putative democracy, we must have the rising up of people, directly threatened by the actions of empire, trying to speak (or shout!) truth to power. And even more. After all, actions speak louder than words.
LONG LIVE YIPPIE!!
As always, “i am constantly awaiting a rebirth of wonder…”
I remember those times. Activists were being trained to curl up and protect their heads with their arms from police nightsticks. Of course now we have tasers - no protection possible from that - so far. And those mob control microwave machines mounted on trucks. Yes, times are changing.
Obama is waking people - especially our young people - from a long apathetic sleep. If the DNC super delegates overturn the will of the voters, I don’t know what will ensue. Considering how many people have a negative view of Hillary, which in my opinion she has earned, not good. And her behavior in this campaign does not bode well for our country.
kathyodat
kathyodat
According to Peter Dale Scott in his book ‘THE ROAD TO 9/11′, http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9959.php ,
this type of event and chaos spawned served to trigger
“the creation of a special army directorate with plans to coordinate with local police in survellance and control of left-wing protesters. This led to defacto use of right-wing gangs in surveillance and control, one of many factors that signaled a shift of the country to the right.” (p21)
“this counterrevolution arose from the fear, approaching panic, at the spread of chaos, violence and the revolutionary rhetoric in the United States during this period.”
This had the net effect of right-wing old money setting up right-wing starting with the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the Council for National Policy. This also enabled the richest 1% of the population to begin controlling ever greater %s of the nation’s wealth.
In the 80’s the share held by the 1% went from 22% to 39% and by 1996 reached 50%. Statistics also show that 90% of the nation’s wealth, in 1996, was held by 10% of the population. ( could not find later figures, but I’m sure the trend continues.)
This money also helped facilitate the change in policies that enabled such right-wing oriented individuals such as Murdoch and Black to begin controlling the press.
Quite a “intellectual counterrevolution” as neocon founder Irving Kristol called it.
And this is only the economic side.
remember COINTELPRO and programs such as the ‘War on Drugs’.
I strongly suggest the above mentioned Book for more on these topics.
“A homemade bomb was recently thrown at a military recruiting station in New York. One newspaper reprinted a list of similar attacks across the US under the headline: ‘Peacenik thugs’.”
Or, real and imagined bombs were planted so that headlines could read: ‘Peacenik thugs’.
The thing is, no matter how organized the Left is (and it isn’t), the government will always be better organized. Hell, they’ve had 40 years to perfect infiltration and crowd control techniques. They don’t need COINTELPRO now, they have new and improved ways of gathering information and subduing us, thanks to 9/11 and Homeland (In)Security.
There is one foolproof way for Americans to dissent and have a great impact, IMO: We withdraw our support in whatever way possible from the economy and we let people know about it. That, coupled with tax resistance (take that, Al Haig!), will get the Man’s attention in a more meaningful way than protests and street theater.
Withdrawing support is not a one-off deal or an easy process. It requires life changes and mindfulness of what role we play in the scheme of things. The less we play, the less control they have. The best thing about non-violent economic dissent is that is so Gandhi!
kathyodat,
I agree with you about Obama. I’m cautiously optimistic that young people will answer the call. It’s their turn.
Hillary and Bill Clinton have made the deceit of triangulation into a political philosophy. Hillary didn’t just vote to illegally attack Iraq, she promoted those crimes with speeches and votes against Democratic amendments to require UN authorization.
She also voted for Kyl-Lieberman, a bill to promote war with Iran. Military expert Col. Sam Gardiner told us that all military options with Iran lead to disaster. Now her campaign lies about Iraq are similar to Obama’s truthful positions, but we should not be confused.
There are good reasons why Republicans desperately want Hillary to be our nominee. I have no idea why we would want to attempt to drag her baggage to the White House, especially since even if we succeeded she would begin betraying us on day one.
In this sense we are in a very similar situation to 1968, where establishment interests successfully subverted the democratic wishes of the people and the party. The war is going great for the war profiteers and their favorite candidate is Hillary Clinton.
What more do we need to know? We should look back at the tragedy of Chicago in 68 and work to insure that it doesn’t happen again. Froines is right. The stakes are higher today.
Pressure Hillary to get out. Encourage your super delegate reps to vote Obama. Great Article.
Had the Patriot Act and the Reagan-era Bail Reform Act been on the books in 1968, along with the detention center bedspace recently contracted out by the Bush administration for construction by Halliburton, the Vietnam era peace movement that eventually grew into full majoritarian status might have been crushed by Nixon in its early stages.
With military conscription today creating no existential dilemma for college aged citizens, and an alternative deep, genuine counter-culture overtly critical of US militarism like there was in the 1960’s nowhere to be seen, it is perhaps understandable that antiwar folks are more inclined now to first exhaust the electoral process before lining up to take their lumps with civil disobedience.
Bill from Saginaw
There is a crucial difference between now and the sixties not remarked upon in this article. In the sixties, a large chunk of the working class was on board with the war, and since, to some degree, their American dreams were coming true, this segment was baffled and angered by student protesters. That chunk has disappeared along with stable, well-paying union jobs. The situation in the US is actually far riper for broad change than was the case in the sixties, if the left can figure out how to intervene effectively.
Also note that if we count Wallace as right wing votes (and let’s face it, that’s where his voters were heading), the right wing candidates got about 57% of the vote in 1968. This is practically inconceivable today.
Communities Isolated, Conflict Contained
What makes the 60s iconically dynamic was how so many political, economic, cultural, legal, institutional, and military currents–old and new–were mixing and clashing in the flesh, almost simultaneously. This social turbulence and confluence provided chances to mount and publicize political mobilizations and actions among a large assertive, multi-racial generation comming of age to war in US streets and Southeast Asian rice paddies. In contrast, as other commenters have suggested, most social change today, reenforced by increasingly sophisticated technical and legal means of surveillance and suppression, helps atomize dissent, while undermining the confidence or need to resist foreign war. In particular, combining no draft with few jobs, flat wages, shredded safety net, rising insecurity and inequality, pricey universites, a lot of workers w/o rights or (much) English, conservative religious power, and the internet, all enable our withdrawal to separate classes, families, and laptops. It is because the country is divided into small groups of the (often) unsaved that both Facebook and Obama’s offers of connection seem so welcome. However, I doubt that either episodic elections or loose networks can spur or substitute for the face-to-face solidarity needed to challenge an empire running two counterinsurgencies and more than 750 worldwide bases–but not in my backyard.
Because my wife and I make so little money, we have a way to keep from paying taxes that could be used to support war. If we give to the church and itemize our deductions, we don’t have to pay taxes. Of course it helps to have to make big interest payments on a mortgage. If you don’t want to give to a church you could give to a charity. I know that this might not work for many peopole, but you could see if it would work for you.
threehegemons and Sholom B, you nailed it. Back in 1968 there was a conservative backlash against youthful defiance. Working class wages were rising, jobs were good and so were benefits. It was don’t rock the boat time. But starting in 1975, it all flattened out and then started sinking and now everyone but the well-to-do are losing ground and disgruntled, feeling like they’re being had. It’s true the war isn’t getting much attention because our taxes aren’t paying for it - yet - and our kids aren’t getting drafted - yet. That could change; the military is being broken down by Bush.
What I find reprehensible, second to what we are doing to the Iraqis, is the hundreds of thousands of young people coming home traumatized and without support, with skyrocketing suicide and homelessness rates and being ignored by all. We’ve used them up and thrown them away. And all these ignorant jerks with their meaningless feel-good “Support Our Troops” magnets on their gas hogs who do absolutely nothing to support our troops are running around overtly hostile to those of us trying to stop this carnage.
Greg Palast had it right when he referred to the US as an “Armed Madhouse” in the title of his book.
kathyodat
Now that the children playing “presidential candidacy” have given the Republicans more than enough fuel to guarantee a continuance of Bush policies in the future, perhaps we should forego the formalities of an election and simply name McCain via a super-delegate caucus. The money saved could be given to the rich to help them pay for health care. I thought for a while I might vote for a democrat, but the yahoos who actually think themselves worthy and able to perform in an executive position have made it clear that their party is worthless. Nancy what-s-her-name’s ridiculous positions have added to the thought. These people verify that the Sixties were a bad joke.
Division, of the kind expressed in ‘68, is outmoded in the Aquarian Age.
Who will be the first to give up the false power of Division?
The Reactionaries or the Revolutionaries?
The good news is that the answer to this question is inconsequential, the terms of the Piscean Age are as irrelevant as the graying children who continue to spout them.
Wise Elders are the rarest commodity currently available for consumption by the People in the U.S..
As those who are still relevant age, I imagine we will find our disconnect with preceding generations both a hinderance and a boon.
A hinderance for the obvious reason that we will be bereft of the knowledge accumulated by our preceeders.
A boon, because so many of those who have recently gone before us are such useless, whiny bastards, and the accounts and experiences of more fully Human People of more distant generations have been so precisely recorded in writing and speech.
A new time is coming, be out of the way, boomers.
-matti
Peace.