What happened in 1968 in Chicago at the DNC?

[Fuzz]

I was only 1, but wasn't it 'liberals' protesting 'Democrats' for not being principled enough?

[elleng]

1. Was mayor daley beating up on people, including anti-war Dems.

[aquart]

35. Especially, not including. Yes.

But Daley's thugs did knock Dan Rather to the ground, and those of us watching gavel to gavel got to hear Walter Cronkite's commentary on the thuggery early in the am.

[DeSwiss]

2. That's the way I remember it. - K&R n/t

[Timbuk3]

3. K&R

I'm a lot older than you, but I had to "wikipedia it".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_7

One big difference.

The Chicago 7 wrote books, teabaggers burn books.

[elleng]

24. It was about: Vietnam.

'rallies, demonstrations, marches, and attempted marches took place on the streets and in the lakefront parks, about five miles away from the convention site. These activities were primarily in protest of President Lyndon B. Johnson's policies for the Vietnam War, policies which were vigorously contested during the presidential primary campaign and inside the convention.

Anti-war groups had petitioned the city of Chicago for permits to march the five miles from the central business district (the Loop) to within sight of the convention site, to hold a number of rallies in the lakefront parks and also near the convention, and to camp in Lincoln Park. The city denied all permits, except for one afternoon rally at the old bandshell at the south end of Grant Park. The city also enforced an 11:00 PM curfew in Lincoln Park. Confrontations with protesters ensued as the police enforced the curfew, stopped attempts to march to the International Amphitheatre, and cleared crowds from the streets.

The Grant Park rally on Wednesday, August 28, 1968, was attended by about 15,000 protesters, while other actions involved hundreds or thousands.'

[The Magistrate]

4. Radicals, Sir, Complaining About Liberals....

[Fuzz]

5. Wow, I'm a radical.

Who would have thunk it?

[The Magistrate]

8. Be Assured, Sir, If You Called The People In The Streets That Week Liberals

The results would have ranged from pitying laughter to a quick punch in the face.

[chollybocker]

22. Really? 'Liberal' was a dirty word among protesters?

You have piqued my interest, good Sir. To spare me from needless inner-tubing, can you expound on this? This intrigues me greatly, lexiconically speaking. :)

[elleng]

26. Not true. It was anti-Vietnam war.

No concern about names like 'liberal,' only bad names: Lyndon Johnson and Richard Daley.

[The Magistrate]

28. The Question, Ma'am, Is How The People In The Crowds Regarded The Matter

Let me be blunt, Ma'am: we did not like 'liberals'....

[elleng]

31. You were there? Missed you; sorry.

'We' were 'liberals.'

[The Magistrate]

32. Stuck With It, Ma'am, And Helped Carry The Piggy Bank Through The Loop At The Trial

Fancied ourselves revolutionists, every one....

[elleng]

36. Helped get folks out of the Cook County Jail.

Revolutionaries? Some, maybe. Most: Anti-war protesters.

[Fuzz]

38. Both of you should be proud and consider each other family.

[The Magistrate]

40. Doubtless We Could Trade Stories All Night, Ma'am

It was a large crowd....

[WilliamPitt]

87. "It was a large crowd...."

(snap)

[The Magistrate]

27. Here Is A Piece From The Period That Captures The Attitude, Sir

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

We used 'liberal' about like people here use 'DLC' nowadays....

[chollybocker]

I love Phil Ochs as much as the next leftist,

but even in his prime, he was never *the voice* of liberalism - and surely not anti-liberalism!

As another mentioned, the focal point of the protesters, the Viet Nam War, would never have included 'liberalism' on the enemy's list. (Maybe only because DU didn't exist at the time. :) )

[The Magistrate]

55. We Seem, Sir, To Be In Beatles Fans v. Stones Fans Situation

Not worth pursuing further. Hubert Humphrey was a liberal; most people viewed Lyndon Johnson as a liberal. In fact, most people who considered themselves liberals supported the war, through the mid-sixties, because liberals were anti-Communist, a thing which dated back even to Roosevelt and Truman. In my circle, we did not consider 'liberal' a good thing; we were radicals, not liberals.

[chollybocker]

62. That's what I'm driving at, essentially.

(Pardon my late-night parsing of semantics.)

The word "liberal," and what it means/meant to the mind-set of America. It obviously has different meanings to different generations in the U.K., Canada and other parliamentary governments, but I'm still not convinced that the word "liberal" in the U.S. was ever construed as anything but left-wing/anti-war. Perhaps your experience was part of a more extreme, fragmented subset of, what, Democrats, but I'm talking linguistic generalities here.

To this day, in the U.S., the word "liberal" is used as a clichéd perjorative by modern pundits, both left and right, as such: Liberal = Sixties hippies = Radical change = Avoid at all costs or hold onto your seats.

I was wondering how the word "liberal" attained its present negative connotation, and you have opened my eyes to a new perspective, Good Sir. :)

[The Magistrate]

63. There Is A Joke Dating From The Thirties At Least, Sir

Quite current in my day still:

"A liberal is a man who won't even take his own side in a fight."

[aquart]

59. Phil Ochs? Good grief.

He had some good songs. Don't think I ever listened to a whole album, though.

[The Magistrate]

64. Your Loss, Sir: He was Quite Good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnD_ZdALLdY

[hootinholler]

70. "We used 'liberal' about like people here use 'DLC' nowadays...."

That Sir, is a most intriguing observation on the rightward shift of our national discourse.

Being 7 at the time, I was mostly enamored with my Huffy bicycle. I do remember watching the National Guard holding a riot drill in the idyllic hamlet in which we lived.

-Hoot

[elleng]

73. Good one, Hoot!

:hi:

[hootinholler]

80. I had no idea you were there

:D :hi:

-Hoot

[elleng]

81. Yup, big part of my life, went to Chicago after college,

worked for legal aid service in Cook County Jail, and after went to law school. All this while you were riding your Huffy!!!

[aquart]

41. No. It just wasn't a word we were using.

Understand, from Kennedy, then Johnson...after the assassination Congress passed Johnson's Great Society. EXCEPT FOR THE WAR, liberal was the norm of the day. I don't think I ever heard the word used. There was a liberal party but it was so fringe sometimes you voted for the Dem on the Liberal line just to keep them alive.

We were anti-VietNam War. We were PEACE PROTESTERS.

[The Magistrate]

44. Let Me Guess, Sir: New York?

[aquart]

57. A major and influential state. Yes, ma'am.

[elleng]

74. with an actual 'Liberal' Party!

[oldhippydude]

49. yes

Hubert Humphrey was the Liberal...

[Timbuk3]

9. Another difference

...between teabaggers and the Chicago 7.

Age.

Youth protesting being sent to war to benefit "the establishment" doesn't, in any way, equate to old fuckers riding their medicare-paid hoverrounds to a Glenn Beckkk rally on MLK day.

[The Magistrate]

12. It Started Out As Eight, Sir

Mr. Seal was separated from the case in course of the trial. Nor was everyone on trial young; Mr. Dellenger had been a conscientious objector in World War Two and done time for it.

[Timbuk3]

15. How many

...were riding medicare-paid hoverrounds?

I rest my case.

[The Magistrate]

19. None, Sir, But All Were Past Draft Age

Mr. Hoffman was 32, Mr. Rubin 30, for example.

The crowds ran a good deal younger, of course....

[freshwest]

20. Oh, so true. I watched the protestors being dragged and beaten on TV. The teabaggers...

that are able bodied would be the ones doing the beating today. Like the head stomper in Kentucky and the mob in Ohio screaming at the man with Parkinson's. Huge difference.

[WilliamPitt]

86. Late to this party

but +1 all down the line.

[leftstreet]

6. 10k demonstrators and 20k cops/guards. What could possibly go wrong?

:grr:

[The Magistrate]

10. Deleted: Bug Put It In The Wrong Place

[spanone]

7. ....

n 1967, the Yippie movement had already begun planning a youth festival in Chicago to coincide with the Democratic National Convention. They were not alone; other groups, such as Students For a Democratic Society and the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, also made their presence known.<10> When asked about anti-war demonstrators, Daley kept repeating to reporters that “No thousands will come to our city and take over our streets, or city, our convention.”<11> In the end, 10,000 demonstrators gathered in Chicago for the convention where they were met by 23,000 police and National Guardsmen.<12> Daley also thought that one way to prevent demonstrators from coming to Chicago was to refuse to grant permits which would allow for people to protest legally.<13>

After the violence which took place at the Chicago convention, Daley claimed his primary reason for calling in so many Guardsmen and police was reports he received indicating the existence of plots to assassinate many of the leaders, including himself.<14>

While several protests had taken place before serious violence occurred, the events headed by the Yippies were not without comedy. Surrounded by reporters on August 23, 1968, Jerry Rubin, a Yippie leader, folk singer Phil Ochs, and other activists held their own presidential nominating convention with their candidate Pigasus, an actual pig. When the Yippies paraded Pigasus at the Civic Center, ten policemen arrested Rubin, Pigasus, and six others. This resulted in Pigasus becoming a media hit.<15>

August 28, 1968 came to be known as the day a “police riot” took place. The title of “police riot” came out of the Walker Report, which amassed a great deal of information and eyewitness accounts to determine what happened in Chicago.<13> At approximately 3:30 p.m., a young boy lowered the American flag at a legal rally taking place at Grant Park. The demonstration was made up of 10,000 protestors.<16> The police broke through the crowd and began beating the boy, while the crowd pelted the police with food, rocks, bags of urine, and chunks of concrete.<17> The biggest clash in Chicago took place that day. Police fought with the protestors and vice versa. The chants of the protestors shifted from “Hell no, we won’t go” to “Pigs are whores.”<18> Tom Hayden, one of the leaders of Students for a Democratic Society, encouraged protestors to move out of the park to ensure that if they were to be tear gassed, the whole city would be tear gassed, and made sure that if blood were spilled in Chicago it would happen throughout the city.<19> The amount of tear gas used to suppress the protestors was so great that it eventually made its way to the Hilton Hotel, where it disturbed Hubert Humphrey while in his shower.<18> The police were taunted by the protestors with chants of “Kill, kill, kill.” They sprayed demonstrators and bystanders indiscriminately with Mace.<20> The police assault in front of the Hilton Hotel became the most famous image of the Chicago demonstrations of 1968. The entire event took place live under the T.V. lights for seventeen minutes with the crowd shouting, “The whole world is watching.”<18>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention

[GReedDiamond]

11. Even though I'm pretty old...

...I'm still a Yippie.

It was right to protest at the Democratic National Convention in 1968.

Johnson was good and correct on Civil Rights and Medicare, but he was dead wrong on Viet Nam.

Edited to change "may have been good and correct" to "was good and correct" because there is no doubt about that.

[DonCoquixote]

13. And Nixon

was grateful

[Art_from_Ark]

17. Nixon was grateful that he didn't have to run against Bobby Kennedy

and that George Wallace was siphoning off Democratic votes in Southern states.

[apocalypsehow]

65. This is a myth, at least as regards the Nixon Vs. Kennedy part. Every reliable poll in the spring of

1968 pointed to huge problems for the Democrats no matter who was the candidate on that ticket in November.

Further, Nixon, though he spoke of "terrible forces" being unleashed by a potential RFK candidacy, knew better than that in two senses:

1. He knew that no matter how many "primaries" Senator Kennedy won, Johnson would simply deny him the nomination at Chicago if it ever got close. The primary system in 1968 didn't work like it does today for us: most primary votes were considered more "suggestions" than binding in any legal, formal sense, and counted for less than a third of the total slate needed even in the rare instances where they were considered absolutely binding. The majority of nominating votes were decided by other mechanisms, as none other than Robert Kennedy himself can verify for you if you watch his last televised event:

"So now it's on to Chicago," he said, "and let's win there."

Kennedy knew that he was no where close to clinching the nomination, without a serious effort in Chicago to undermine LBJ's lock on the delegates already committed to his preferred candidate, Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

Nixon was aware of the same, of course, and thought it was unlikely he'd have to face the younger Kennedy in any event.

2. Nixon's campaign apparatus - including a young Roger Ailes - was eager, indeed relished, the opportunity to face off again against a Kennedy. 1968 was not 1960 for one thing: the placid Eisenhower peace and prosperity of the late 1950s had prevailed in the latter, giving JFK a receptive audience for his message of a "New Frontier," while the violence-torn America of riots and demonstrations and general angry unrest that raged during the former were comparisons and contrasts unlikely to favor any Democrat running for president, due to the incumbency factor more than anything else. For another, they never dreamed Wallace would do as well as he eventually did in the final tally: but that was the Humphrey effect - his perceived moderation - and not one that would have likely prevailed had RFK been the candidate in 1968.

History is rarely as simple as it appears on the subject lines of blog posts.

[Art_from_Ark]

67. Who's talking about subject lines of blog posts?

I don't need a blog to tell me what I experienced in those days.

Nixon had every reason to fear a Kennedy candidacy. In May 1968, for example, it was "Bobby fever" at my school. Just about everyone I knew was getting excited about Kennedy. But in September 1968, a lot of those "Bobby backers" (that is, their parents) were now for-- ugh-- Wallace. Others were supporting Humphrey, but it was only lukewarm support at best. My state, and 4 other other Southern states, ended up going for Wallace. I have every reason to believe that Kennedy would have carried most if not all of those states, plus other states that Humphrey barely lost. Kennedy had the ability to attract and excite voters-- Humphrey (who wasn't even in the primaries) did not.

And while Johnson may have had the clout to wrest the nomination away from Eugene McCarthy, I seriously doubt he would have had the ability to take on Kennedy's people.

[Kingofalldems]

68. Cite sources please

[GReedDiamond]

21. Johnson was wrong on Viet Nam...

...the Yippies and everyone else were correct and justified in holding Johnson accountable for his disastrously wrong Viet Nam war policies.

Sorry if that historical fact disagrees with your apparent "Democrats are always right" view.

And don't confuse the 1968 anti-war movement/me/yippies/sds/et al as being Nixon supporters/enablers, that's pure bullshit.

It also did not help things any that Robert Kennedy was assassinated under extremely questionable circumstances before the convention.

I am convinced that history would have gone in a radically different direction if not for the assassination of Robert Kennedy.

[coalition_unwilling]

48. Not sure it would have gone in a 'radically' different direction, but

RFK would have had U.S. combat troops out of Vietnam in very short order after his inauguration in January, 1969. Contrast with Nixon's 'secret plan' to end the war, which basically was to expand the war into Cambodia and Laos, while committing fraud against the U.S. by deceiving Congress and the American people about said expansion.

[existentialist]

18. Yes, and as the Pentagon Papers demonstrated beyond doubt

Johnson and his top advisers knew they were wrong on Vietnam, but wouldn't publicly admit it.

Thus the united States kept fighting a war that the top policy makers had known was lost from at least 1966 into 1975 because no one was wiling to publicly admit that they knew they were making a mistake in fighting the war in the first place.

[oldhippydude]

25. 68 was the first election i was old enough to vote in

I worked for Gene Mc Carthy that year in oregon..i remember it well... but i still think the guy with Viet cong flag, on the statue, in the park was an agent provocateur

[chollybocker]

54. "agent provocateurs"

In 'merica, they're now called "paid trolls." :)

Plus ça change...

[aquart]

45. Destroyed a great legacy to measure his dick.

A genuine American tragedy. (Not that he would meet anyone's standard of "hero." Or messiah.)

[apocalypsehow]

14. Richard Milhous Nixon was guaranteed election as the 37th President of the United States. n/t.

[Fuzz]

16. And he was still more to the left of Obama.

[apocalypsehow]

43. I can't say as I really see it that way, of course, but I do appreciate the OP. I think those times

are important to study, and anything that might encourage people to go back and do so, especially in depth, should always be applauded.

Thank you for the OP. :thumbsup:

[Peace Patriot]

23. What happened in Chicago in '68 was that Robert Kennedy had been assassinated in June.

He had pledged to end the Vietnam War, put those resources to ending poverty, finish the civil rights movement (which had only just begun) and changed the rancid U.S. policy in Latin America, among other things. He had just won the California Democratic Primary and was a sure bet to win the nomination at the Chicago Convention.

Instead, the LBJ war administration took advantage of RFK's assassination to force its candidate, Hubert Humphrey--LBJ's VP, who supported the war--upon the Democratic Party. RFK's assassination was catastrophic, not only to the Democratic Party but to the nation. He was a very charismatic leader and likely the only one capable of fulfilling his brother's dream of world peace*. Our hopes for a better world ended that day, not in Chicage, but some months earlier, in Los Angeles. The protestors were in despair.

--------------------------

*See "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters," by James Douglass--fabulous book on JFK's assassination, containing the definitive case for the the CIA as the perps, and WHY they did it--all very well documented--JFK's backchannels to Krushchev and Castro and intent to present a platform of world peace to the American people in the 1964 election. The American people then voted overwhelmingly--one of the biggest landslides in history--for JFK's VP, LBJ, who LIED that he was the "peace candidate" while planning his escalation of the War on Vietnam. (That was my first vote for president and I remember it well. I voted for peace--for LBJ--and got 2 million slaughtered Southeast Asians and over 55,000 dead U.S. soldiers for that vote.) The thing Douglass establishes so well is that JFK wouldn't have been lying--and, as we know, peace would have won, hands down. The "military-industrial complex" wouldn't abide that result. Brilliant book. His next book is going to be about RFK's assassination.

I just re-heard Martin Luther King's Riverside Church speech--the one in which he came out publicly against the War on Vietnam, delivered in 1967, a year before his assassination in March 1968, with RFK's assassination--RFK also having publicly turned against the war--3 months later. MLK's "I Have A Dream" speech was touted by the media. His Anti-Vietnam War speech was not, but is arguably more brilliant and certainly more penetrating and more fundamental about "U.S. militarism, extreme materialism and racism" (his words). With JFK's assassination (5 years before), these events ended all hope that the U.S. would turn away from war and embrace social justice.

I don't care who our "military-industrial complex" establishment SAYS killed these leaders. I don't believe them. Three anti-war leaders within the space of 5 years? Three of our BEST leaders? They've tried to smear JFK as a militarist, and he was, indeed, a typical "Cold Warrior," in the beginning. But he CHANGED. The Cuban Missile Crisis--staring nuclear armageddon in the face--changed him utterly--then MLK (who came out against the war against all advice), then RFK, who was leading an anti-war presidential campaign when he was shot and killed.

This was the context for the Democratic Convention of 1968--shattered hopes for a better country and a better world.

[Zorra]

37. Yes, this is the real essence. I cried my eyes out that day.

I have tears in my eyes right now.

RFK's assassination was truly catastrophic. I was in despair.

Great post, you relayed it perfectly.

[apocalypsehow]

39. Actually, false. RFK spent the spring of 1968 running as far to the Right as he could get in the

Democratic primaries, especially after his shocking (to him: Kennedy's weren't supposed to lose elections) defeat in Oregon.

Indeed, just before the primaries commenced RFK appeared jointly on a television program with none other than Governor Ronald Reagan taking questions from a panel of hostile students about American foreign policy in general and the Vietnam war in particular.

Though Senator Kennedy conceded "mistakes," he repeatedly defended American involvement not only in Vietnam but around the world, attacked by name the North Vietnamese government, chided the students on what he saw as a double standard in the way they held the Saigon government to a much higher one than the one in Hanoi, and made it a point several different times during the program to emphasize his "agreement" with the Governor of California - again, one Ronald Wilson Reagan.

So your post here, factually, is kinda of a no-go. Sorry. :-(

[Zorra]

61. Here are some facts:

To begin, here is a quote from RFKs last speech to the Senate:

Kennedy became vocal about ending the Vietnam War. He exhorted President Johnson to stop bombing North Vietnam. "Are we like the God of the Old Testament," he asked in his last speech on Vietnam to the U.S. Senate, "that we can decide, in Washington, D.C., what cities, what towns, what hamlets are going to be destroyed? Do we have to accept that? I do not think we have to. I think we can do something about it."

At the bottom of this page is a link with a compendium of RFK speeches regarding Vietnam; they are clearly not in support of the war.

Edited for copyright reasons (so very sorry, mods, thanks for your great work and your time)

It is apparent from your post that you did not like RFK "(to him: Kennedy's weren't supposed to lose elections)". Was he too liberal for you?

Also, your assessment of the Reagan-Kennedy debate sounds (and looks, from my research) like it came straight from somewhere like freerepublic or the national review. Reagan was an actor, and a grandiose liar. It was not a good debate for RFK. But it certainly in no way supports your post inferring that Kennedy was then supporting the war. Kennedy reportedly remarked, "Who the fuck got me into this?" after the debate.

RFK was killed 4 months after he made this speech below. He was against the war right up until his murder.

Robert F. Kennedy: Unwinnable War speech (1968)

http://www.historyandtheheadlines.abc-clio.com/ContentPages/ContentPage.aspx?entryId=1194576¤tSection=1194544&productid=10

I think that what we are doing in South Vietnam is a mistake. I think the course that we are following is in error. But, I am saying that as a United States Senator and want to have what I say analized on tht basis. I've always said unless it is clear that its their war and we are over there to help them that we can't win.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/kennedy2/vietnam.html

Also, see this page:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GFRC_enUS220&q=robert+kennedy+vietnam#q=robert+kennedy+vietnam&hl=en&rlz=1T4GFRC_enUS220&prmd=ivnso&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=Z1yVTY3RIZG8sAP6orTXBQ&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CG0Q5wIwCg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=a9acdcd2312857c2

[apocalypsehow]

66. Sorry, dude, but my post is some serious historical truth - and it stands un-refuted.

Please try again.

Before you do, I'd suggest you patronize your local public library, and browse the "K" section under biography, for starters. Then move on to the bigger stuff in the "American History" sub-section. :thumbsup:

[Zorra]

76. Why don't you just post some links to support what you wrote?

If RFK swung way to the right, and began to support the Vietnam War, surely there is some evidence of this somewhere on the web?
:shrug:?

Browse "K"? Why are you not being specific by telling me exactly what to look for instead of telling me I should me waste my time browsing an enormous section of the library with only a possibly erroneous inkling of what I am looking for.

Anyone can write a biography, and there is no law that says the biography has to be true or accurate. RWers do this all the time in order to try to revise history to any extent that they can.

I will acknowledge my error if I can be shown or find that I am mistaken.

In the meantime, should I believe what I see, or what you tell me?

(BTW, it's not "dude")

(Also, BTW, I have a BA in History. Got it during the Vietnam War)

One more thing: I wanted McCarthy for Prez. But Kennedy was totally a sure thing. We needed a sure thing. When he was killed, we were toast. We got Hubert Humphrey. Which is exactly why

We got Richard fucking Nixon.

Peace

[Kingofalldems]

72. As someone who was a voter during that time I recall

Robert Kennedy calling for a negotiated settlement of the war, including the North Vietnamese in the talks. Cut it out.

[Kingofalldems]

79. That is an absolute falsehood.

[Kingofalldems]

84. Oh I get it. Post lies and then declare victory.

[aquart]

47. What a fucking fantasy.

That piece of work let the McCarthy supporters do all the work, then he walked as conquering hero to take it all. Bastard.

[apocalypsehow]

52. Speaking of McCarthy's...guess who was the most prominent member of the Kennedy family to show up at

the "other" McCarthy's funeral in 1957?

This is a rhetorical question, of course - I'm sure you already know.

I'm not here to bash Bobby Kennedy, but the unfortunate historical fact you highlight above kinda jogged my memory about that "other" McCarthy - and RFK's longtime affiliation with him a decade earlier. He's not the pure, clean, uncomplicated liberal/progressive hero many here seem to wish him to have been, at least not factually, historically.

[elleng]

53. Bobby Kennedy or Roy Cohn?

[apocalypsehow]

58. Both were lawyers on Tailgunner Joe's Senate sub-committee, of course, but only one had the surname

"Kennedy." It was an actual Kennedy family member who put in an official appearance at Senator McCarthy's funeral.

And since Roy Cohn never worked for the Kennedy's in any event, that kinda narrows it down. ;-)

[aquart]

60. Yep. My mom never forgave him for being with McCarthy at those hearings.

Too much like being a chip off his daddy's block. But she was devastated when she woke me up to tell me he'd been shot. I didn't wear my McCarthy button into work that day. Carried a radio instead.

[Peace Patriot]

75. To the several critics of my comment above, I was an anti-war activist and voted for Eugene McCarthy

in the California primary in 1968. So I am speaking from neutral ground when I say that Robert Kennedy CHANGED, as did his brother, on "Cold War" issues and on Vietnam. I voted for McCarthy in the primary because he was the first Democrat to break from LBJ in a full challenge of LBJ's presidency (Senator Wm Fulbright voted against the war but didn't run against LBJ), but I knew that McCarthy couldn't win the presidential election, and I don't think (and didn't think at the time) that he even wanted to. His challenge of LBJ in New Hampshire (which he actually lost but did so well that it drove LBJ, the sitting president, out of the race) was, I believe, INTENDED to set the stage for an anti-war candidate with wider appeal, more stamina, and, as it turned out, the Kennedy name, to win the nomination and the presidency for peace.

And that is exactly what RFK would have done. I KNEW that RFK would win the California primary despite my vote. I voted as a "purist" on the war, so to speak. It was a one-issue vote. And McCarthy was a one-issue candidate. But CLEARLY what was needed to win the White House and to stop the war--and to fundamentally re-direct U.S. foreign policy, so that the president would never again be trapped into an armageddon decision (as JFK was)--was someone with more oomph and with broader appeal. RFK was the oomph-candidate of all time. He was tremendously energetic and positive. He for sure would have won the White House and for sure would have ended the war, and changed this country, fundamentally--away from its militaristic posture in the world.

I knew all this about Robert Kennedy way back in the 1968, without the benefit of James Douglass' research in "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters." This book chronicles, among other things, the Cuban Missile Crisis, during which JFK had ONLY ONE ALLY in refusing the advice of the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, to nuke Russia--and that ally was his brother, Robert Kennedy. The ONLY ONE.

That crisis CHANGED THEM BOTH--fundamentally and totally. But you've really got to remember (or understand, if you weren't alive or were too young at the time) what the tenor of the times was in "the establishment" (i.e., anti-communism and war profiteering) and we all need to understand, now, what the situation was for someone whose brother had been murdered by the CIA. RFK could not take the same position that his brother had, inside the "military-industrial complex" establishment--that is, peace with Russia. He could not do it openly. But he clearly thought that, with the wave of anti-Vietnam sentiment that was sweeping the country, he could end the Vietnam War and start bending U.S. foreign policy toward peace--his brother's vision.

I was intolerant of REALISM in 1968, so opposed was I to that war, as a young person. I could vote for McCarthy on a "purist" position. But someone GENUINELY running for president, who intended to WIN, could not be a "purist"--a Gandhi, a Martin Luther King, or a Quixotic candidate (as McCarthy was). And this is especially true since Robert Kennedy more than likely knew who had killed his brother and why.

I also voted for McCarthy partly because of my doubt. I want to reinforce Robert Kennedy's change of heart and mind on Vietnam, as to the seriousness of the peace challenge to the U.S. "military industrial complex." I did it, partly, to bolster his "better angels." Yes, he came to his anti-war position later than some of us--and my vote for McCarthy had something to do with that. But the man was genuine. He really was. I knew that then. I could FEEL it. He had a passion about him that was unmistakable. He was a man on a mission for good. I know it even more securely now. And, if nothing else, his assassination confirmed what he a serious threat he was to the war profiteers.

A word about his participation in the Joseph McCarthy anti-communist committee hearings in the 1950s. I was raised, just like the Kennedys were, in an atmosphere of virulent Irish Catholic anti-communism. But I changed. So did they. So did a lot of Americans. In particular, Catholics changed as a result of Vatican II--a profound event resulting from a process of re-thinking every fundamental tenet of the religion--a process that, among other things, resulted in "Liberation Theology" (the obligation of Christians to side with the poor in social/political struggles). This is another aspect of JFK's and RFK's change that James Douglass describes and documents. Ethel Kennedy (Robert's wife), for instance, was in constant correspondence with Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk who had publicly come out against nuclear weapons (and got silenced by his Order). The times they were a-changin' (as Bob Dylan wrote). These changes were affecting the Kennedys. They were re-thinking U.S. foreign policy on this basis--ethics, morality, religious values.

So I understand "anti-communism." I was born to it. I was raised in it. It pervaded by childhood. And I rejected it, when I grew up. The Kennedys--more privileged than I was, and more ambitious politically--were slower to change; and didn't change until they were adults, and already in power. But they DID change. And to hold them to the idiocies of the times--the 1950s--is myopic. The WHOLE COUNTRY was changing. They changed--and in such a way that put them ahead of the curve and in very grave danger.

[Zorra]

77. Wow. That was really well explained, from the heart.

A lot of that is how I experienced that time also.

I almost could have written your post word for word, except that I had planned on voting for Kennedy although I also wanted McCarthy.
:hi:
Peace

[Le Taz Hot]

85. Yes!

"Three anti-war leaders within the space of 5 years? Three of our BEST leaders? "

That's no coincidence.

[coalition_unwilling]

29. It was a police riot. I was a little boy of about 9 years old and was

at my grandparents in St. Louis that summer. I remember seeing it happening live on TV. The Chicago cops physically attacked demonstrators and also innocent bystanders and journalists.

The police were simply out of control, an undisciplined mob. Daley may not have intended it but, for a few hours and days in that long, hot summer, he and his police brought the war home to America.

[aquart]

46. McCarthy posters weren't allowed in the hall.

They had to be folded up and carried under shirts and skirts. When they held them up, you could see the folds. There were no folds in Daley signs.

[coalition_unwilling]

50. That is an incredible detail. I remembered Daley being a real pig

and a thug and uttering an anti-semitic slur against Abraham Ribicoff. But I was not aware of the anti-McCarthy bias.

[aquart]

56. My neighborhood elected our McCarthy slate.

So our people were at the convention. My mom and I sat on the sofa hour after hour watching every single televised minute of that convention.

Years later, I worked at the Sherman Grinberg film library. They had me doing some kind of work with the civil unrest footage. I don't think there was a city in America without something burned after King was murdered. The file cards seemed to go on for miles. But it was there I saw some footage of McCarthy running into the hall of his hotel screaming for help because there were injured people in his campaign suite. That was in the middle of the police riot.

Something else about hiding the McCarthy posters. They had to stand in long lines manned by Daley people to get into the convention. The joke was that they were going to be handed soap. That's how it felt.

[coalition_unwilling]

82. I think the sole major city to escape burning after King's murder may have been

Indianapolis, because RFK was there that night and his presence and speech there cooled passions down.

That is one hell of a joke, more funny because. knowing what Daley was capable of, so darkly true.

Although I was only a little boy when Chicago '68 took place, my parents (both staunch liberals and anti-war) were appalled at the police riot and their attitude and visceral reaction to it made me remember it to this day. My grandparents, more authoritarian and against the counterculture, spoke approvingly of Daley's police and their actions. It was an interesting tableau for a little boy to witness.

[WheelWalker]

30. It was a Police riot. nt

[The Magistrate]

34. That It Was, Sir

[mopinko]

71. yup. that is exactly true. np

[aquart]

33. Sigh. WE WERE ALL DEMOCRATS.

Some of us were corrupt sons of bitches with a god complex and some of us weren't. Jeez, wtf have you been reading?

[Fuzz]

42. DU the last few weeks. You?

[Journeyman]

51. Check out the movie "Medium Cool". . .

its a fictional flick filmed during the run-up to the '68 Democratic Convention that intermingles its actors in character interacting with the rioters and protestors in the streets of Chicago. A fully improvised performance, the action is riveting because it is real.

[lunatica]

69. The police started breaking heads during a peaceful demonstration

to make it look like the demonstrators were rioting. It was caught on tape so everyone was able to see the brutality of it. In those days the news media actually did their jobs.

[xchrom]

78. Recommend

[Mz Pip]

83. I still have my button.

I wasn't old enough to vote because the voting age was 21 back then. I remember being in the park during the day. It was like a big festival with music and poetry. It all changed when people had to leave at 10pm. 50,000 people in the park were flooding the streets. Then the National Guard showed up.

I often think that it was amazing that no one was killed that night.