Below is a good article from counterpunch drawing out some similarities between
the 2004 victory of Bush to the 1968 Nixon election
victory.
November 4, 2004
These Elections Weren't Referendums on War
1968 and Today
By JONAH BIRCH
I think that an a useful comparison for leftists today
to use when talking to people about Bush is the
election of Richard Nixon in 1968. The election that
year took place in a context of growing social
polarization and anger around the Vietnam War. In the
spring of 1968, the Tet Offensive in Vietnam had
demonstrated the incredible unpopularity and weakness
of the U.S. occupation in that country.
Nixon of course was a right-wing Republican, who had
made his name as a vicious anti-Communist during the
1950s. His campaign was built around a deeply
reactionary platform that included support for the War
in Vietnam (though he did promise that he had a
"secret plan" to end the War), opposition to
court-ordered integration, a focus on "law-and-order,"
and strong defense of the status quo against the Black
Power and womens' rights movements.
His opponent was Hubert Humphrey, a "liberal" Democrat
and Lyndon Johnson's Vice-President. Humphrey
supported the Vietnam War as well, although he said at
the end of his campaign that he would like to bring
the troops home. He was a pure establishment figure,
as beholden as Nixon to the U.S. ruling-class, and was
certainly not a "movement" candidate in any sense.
Despite his support for the War, Humphrey had the
backing of much of the anti-war movement. Many of
those who had actively opposed the U.S.'s butchery in
Vietnam had been brought back into the Democratic
Party during the primaries by Eugene McCarthy, a
mixture of Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean. Like
Kucinich and Dean, when McCarthy lost the nomination
to Humphrey he handed all of his supporters over to
the pro-war Democrat.
In the end, Nixon defeated Humphrey by less than 1
million votes in one of the closest election in
American history. Many on the left were of course
devastated, believing that the election had
demonstrated a new rightward shift in American popular
consciousness.
They were totally wrong. The 1968 election, a contest
between two pro-war candidates, was never a referendum
on what the U.S. was doing in Vietnam. In fact, in the
period immediately following Nixon's election the
United States experienced one of the most intense
periods of mass radicalization ever. By 1969, 3
million people were calling themselves
revolutionaries. Opposition to the War continued to
grow, especially among working-class and poor
Americans. The continued resistance of the Vietnamese
and the revolt of GIs in Vietnam augmented the
expanding anti-war movement, creating the conditions
that eventually would force the U.S. out of Vietnam.
Moreover, despite Nixon's deeply reactionary personal
politics, the power of the social movements in this
country forced him to offer a series of other
concessions. Under Nixon, federal spending on social
services increased substantially, the first
affirmative action programs were created, abortion was
legalized, and the death penalty was (for four years)
declared unconstitutional.
The left right now needs to be real clear. We oppose
everything that George Bush stands for, everything
that he wants to do. But Bush's reelection, like
Nixon's election in 1968, doesn't mean that the game
is up; it doesn't mean that people in this country are
just right-wing and that's all there is to it. The
left needs to do what John Kerry and the Democratic
Party never could: offer people a genuine alternative
to what's going down right now. Polls consistently
show right now that people are feeling particularly
vulnerable and insecure about their lives and their
futures. People are looking for answers, for people to
blame. If the only solutions they're hearing are
reactionary solutions they're going to move in that
direction. But if the left can tap into the growing
anger about the Iraq War, about stagnating wages and
job losses, about unaffordable health care and racism,
we can build movements that can present people with
alternative, progressive solutions.
In this project we have some allies, most importantly
the resistance in Iraq and the growing disgust in the
army about the occupation. The U.S. ruling-class is
facing serious contradictions right now, and we cant't
forget that. The only way that Bush's reelection is
going to kill us is if we get so demoralized that we
give up on the movements.
the 2004 victory of Bush to the 1968 Nixon election
victory.
November 4, 2004
These Elections Weren't Referendums on War
1968 and Today
By JONAH BIRCH
I think that an a useful comparison for leftists today
to use when talking to people about Bush is the
election of Richard Nixon in 1968. The election that
year took place in a context of growing social
polarization and anger around the Vietnam War. In the
spring of 1968, the Tet Offensive in Vietnam had
demonstrated the incredible unpopularity and weakness
of the U.S. occupation in that country.
Nixon of course was a right-wing Republican, who had
made his name as a vicious anti-Communist during the
1950s. His campaign was built around a deeply
reactionary platform that included support for the War
in Vietnam (though he did promise that he had a
"secret plan" to end the War), opposition to
court-ordered integration, a focus on "law-and-order,"
and strong defense of the status quo against the Black
Power and womens' rights movements.
His opponent was Hubert Humphrey, a "liberal" Democrat
and Lyndon Johnson's Vice-President. Humphrey
supported the Vietnam War as well, although he said at
the end of his campaign that he would like to bring
the troops home. He was a pure establishment figure,
as beholden as Nixon to the U.S. ruling-class, and was
certainly not a "movement" candidate in any sense.
Despite his support for the War, Humphrey had the
backing of much of the anti-war movement. Many of
those who had actively opposed the U.S.'s butchery in
Vietnam had been brought back into the Democratic
Party during the primaries by Eugene McCarthy, a
mixture of Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean. Like
Kucinich and Dean, when McCarthy lost the nomination
to Humphrey he handed all of his supporters over to
the pro-war Democrat.
In the end, Nixon defeated Humphrey by less than 1
million votes in one of the closest election in
American history. Many on the left were of course
devastated, believing that the election had
demonstrated a new rightward shift in American popular
consciousness.
They were totally wrong. The 1968 election, a contest
between two pro-war candidates, was never a referendum
on what the U.S. was doing in Vietnam. In fact, in the
period immediately following Nixon's election the
United States experienced one of the most intense
periods of mass radicalization ever. By 1969, 3
million people were calling themselves
revolutionaries. Opposition to the War continued to
grow, especially among working-class and poor
Americans. The continued resistance of the Vietnamese
and the revolt of GIs in Vietnam augmented the
expanding anti-war movement, creating the conditions
that eventually would force the U.S. out of Vietnam.
Moreover, despite Nixon's deeply reactionary personal
politics, the power of the social movements in this
country forced him to offer a series of other
concessions. Under Nixon, federal spending on social
services increased substantially, the first
affirmative action programs were created, abortion was
legalized, and the death penalty was (for four years)
declared unconstitutional.
The left right now needs to be real clear. We oppose
everything that George Bush stands for, everything
that he wants to do. But Bush's reelection, like
Nixon's election in 1968, doesn't mean that the game
is up; it doesn't mean that people in this country are
just right-wing and that's all there is to it. The
left needs to do what John Kerry and the Democratic
Party never could: offer people a genuine alternative
to what's going down right now. Polls consistently
show right now that people are feeling particularly
vulnerable and insecure about their lives and their
futures. People are looking for answers, for people to
blame. If the only solutions they're hearing are
reactionary solutions they're going to move in that
direction. But if the left can tap into the growing
anger about the Iraq War, about stagnating wages and
job losses, about unaffordable health care and racism,
we can build movements that can present people with
alternative, progressive solutions.
In this project we have some allies, most importantly
the resistance in Iraq and the growing disgust in the
army about the occupation. The U.S. ruling-class is
facing serious contradictions right now, and we cant't
forget that. The only way that Bush's reelection is
going to kill us is if we get so demoralized that we
give up on the movements.
