June 14, 2004
THE TIME OF CHOOSING (via Tom Morin):
Democratic Debacle: The Republican party ensured a landslide defeat when it nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964, but the Democrats did far more lasting damage to themselves at their convention that year. In fact, they still haven’t recovered. (Joshua Zeitz, June/July 2004, American Heritage)
For 70 years Republicans were effectively shut out of the “solid South,” a result of their having been the party of Lincoln, abolition, and Reconstruction. But over time, as the Democratic party emerged as a champion of black civil rights and then embraced the rights revolutions of other groups—women, gays, lesbians—white Southern voters shifted their support to the GOP.Jimmy Carter gained the Presidency in 1976, but no other Democratic presidential candidate has won more than four Southern states; in 1972, 1984, 1988, and 2000 the Democrats lost the entire South. At the heart of this defection was not just a white backlash against civil rights but a sense that the party had embraced the social excesses of the late 1960s.
Many writers trace this rift to the disaster of 1968, when at its convention in Chicago the Democratic party simply imploded. That famously explosive week saw party regulars and antiwar insurgents trade vicious barbs while Mayor Richard Daley’s riot police—12,000 strong, augmented by 11,000 federal and National Guard troops—fought in the streets with upward of 10,000 protesters. The Democratic party entered the 1968 fall campaign badly divided and dispirited, and when Hubert Humphrey lost the November election to Richard Nixon, it was the start of a long decline. Since 1968 Democrats have lost six out of nine presidential elections.
Yet the woes of the Democratic party didn’t originate in Chicago, or even in 1968. They can be traced back to another convention, in another city, in another year. Forty years ago this summer, the Democratic party met in Atlantic City to nominate the incumbent President, Lyndon Johnson, for another term. Nobody knew it then, but that 1964 Democratic National Convention would be a turning point for the party. It was Atlantic City that sowed the seeds of the internecine wars that tore apart the Democratic coalition four years later in Chicago and that have left it wounded ever since. [...]
Even if the MFDP delegates has been seated at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, the student coalition might still have fractured and moved sharply to the left. The civil rights movement and the war in Vietnam were bound to create enormous strains. But the liberal leaders of the Democratic party hardly helped matters. They left the Mississippi activists with nowhere else to go. Many of the young men and women who attended the 1964 Democratic National Convention determined to work for the party and within the political process came back four years later to burn down the house that Franklin Roosevelt had built. They didn’t succeed, but they came awfully close.
The party is still struggling, all these years later, to wrestle down the demons it unleashed at its convention in 1964.
White Southerners, on the other hand, bolted the Democratic party after the 1964 convention, and they’ve hardly looked back since. And though the Democratic party ultimately wooed back the dissidents of 1968, it did so at a steep price. By embracing such controversial ideas as environmentalism, reproductive rights, gay rights, opposition to the Vietnam War, and gun control, the Democrats opened themselves to criticism that their party was aggressively secular and culturally extreme—a charge that still bedevils them.
Some political commentators believe that as the South continues to attract service-sector and information-technology jobs, and as its metropolitan areas swell with university graduates and white-collar professionals, Democrats will have a new opening in Dixie. Others argue that it’s not the South that needs to change, but the Democrats, that until the party talks less about rights and more about values, it is doomed to keep losing these states. At the same time that Democrats are eager to take back the Presidency, this debate still divides them.
One of the biggest problems for the Democrats has been that they've been able to sit back and self-righteously blame all their difficulties since on racism and not examine how the civil rights struggle is merely an aspect of that "rights vs. values" divide. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 14, 2004 1:53 PM
I think the guy over at Eject! Eject! Eject has referred to 1968 as "the year Sauron got the Ring"...
Posted by: Ken at June 14, 2004 5:16 PMI read the whole article - very interesting - but I think the author's premise is flawed. The Dems rebuffed the MFDP in 1964 to stay alive politically, quite understandably; yet they get blamed for the later splintering of the voting drive groups (who wanted to "help" states like Mississippi from liberal bastions like NYC and Boston) into radical groups like the Black Panthers and the SDS?
My own conclusions:
1) The Black Panthers and the SDS were inevitable no matter what happened at Atlantic City; there is no credible scenario where they could have been appeased by being granted powers in the Democratic Party in 1964 - just not gonna happen.
2) If there is any blame to be handed out for pushing the Dems too far left re: civil rights, it belongs to Johnson and to a lesser extent Humphrey (which the article even explains in great detail) who went to the mat on the "rights" side of the "rights vs. values divide". Maybe that too was inevitable - the Jim Crow did last way too long and was way too oppressive.
Still, an interesting read.
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at June 14, 2004 6:15 PM... or, for those who can't see words that aren't there, "the Jim Crow era" ... DUH
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at June 14, 2004 6:17 PMThe conventional wisdom is that the watershed was the 1972 convention.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 14, 2004 10:14 PMThe Democrats first priority, if they are to have any chance at future revelance, is to get over Vietnam, purge itself of anti-military peaceniks, and show that it has the backbone to defend America. Nothing else will matter if they cannot do this. They cannot just be a domestically focused party. Patriotism is a core value and basic requirement for participation in the political process, not a debatable policy point.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at June 16, 2004 4:35 PMThe Democrats first priority, if they are to have any chance at future revelance, is to get over Vietnam, purge itself of anti-military peaceniks, and show that it has the backbone to defend America. Nothing else will matter if they cannot do this. They cannot just be a domestically focused party. Patriotism is a core value and basic requirement for participation in the political process, not a debatable policy point.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at June 16, 2004 4:36 PM