Democrats, 1968: Debating An Analogy

The Democratic primary race between Clinton and Obama has gotten so heated that it's got a lot of people worried-- including myself at times, admittedly-- that the party will tear itself by the convention and the Republican hold on the White House will remain. In a sentiment shared by many, a commenter at Paul Krugman's blog says: "I know of no better way to ensure these [new voters] walk away from the Democratic party for a lifetime then to make sure the Democratic party overlooks their vote in some sort of backroom deal."

That has all the pundits-- like '60s fetishist Tom Brokaw-- reminiscing about 1968, the year that Richard Nixon won the presidency amidst a divided and bitter Democratic party base. This analogy only goes so far, though.

Kevin Drum has a good reality check on all the 1968 analogies-

"The Democratic incumbent president was forced to withdraw after a primary debacle in New Hampshire. The Vietnam War had split liberals into warring factions and urban riots had shattered the LBJ's Great Society legacy. A frenzied primary season reached all the way to California in June, culminating in the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. The Democratic Convention in Chicago was a nationally televised battle zone. Hubert Humphrey, the party's eventual nominee, had never won a primary and was loathed by a significant chunk of the liberal community. New Left radicals hated mainstream Democrats more than they hated Republicans.

In other words, this was the mother of all ugly, party-destroying campaigns. No other primary campaign in recent memory from either party has come within a million light years of being as fratricidal and ruinous. But what happened? In the end, Humphrey lost the popular vote to Nixon by less than 1%. A swing of about a hundred thousand votes in California would have thrown the election into the House of Representatives.

If long, bitter, primary campaigns really destroy parties, then Humphrey should have lost the 1968 election by about 50 points. "Bitter" isn't even within an order of magnitude of describing what happened that year. And yet, even against that blood-soaked background, Humphrey barely lost. This suggests that if primary divisiveness has any effect at all, it must be pretty small."

Bingo. As an article in Slate reminds us, long primary battles are the norm in recent American history. 2004 was an anomaly that made us forget that. So unless angry Obama or Clinton supporters end up having a bloody battle with the Denver police outside the convention, these fears are just signs of primary fatigue.

I would also add several points that make 2008 very unlike 1968... a) the economy was in a generally strong state at that point (the post-war boom wouldn't really collapse until the mid-70s) with the GOP not yet joining the Goldwater brigade in opposing the New Deal legacy, and thus wasn't an issue, and b) Nixon ran-- falsely, in hindsight-- as the "peace" candidate, pledging to bring an end to the Democrats' reckless Vietnam policy (and that was at a time when the war was still relatively popular). This time around, we have an economy that's in the worst state it's been in decades, with the Republican candidate pledging to continue the economic policies that got us here. And said Republican is also running as a war candidate, a man who seeks to escalate our reckless-- and largely unpopular-- Iraq policy. Big difference, no?

(There's also the wild card affect George Wallace's candidacy had on both parties that year.)

Some caveats, of course. The Democrats were the dominant political party of that post-war era (the New Deal and WWII brought several decades of goodwill), having won the previous presidential election by the largest margins in recorded history to date. So to lose, however slightly, was still a crushing blow to the party. They went into that election with the advantage.

Today, the Republicans are the dominant, status-quo party, having won 5 of the 7 presidential elections in the past 30 years (I know, I know, 2000 gets an asterick there). And the Republican candidate has managed to convince many, many independent voters (falsely) that he is a harmless, amiable centrist. So the Democrats only come into this election with... the advantage of having popular candidates, and an incumbent opposition party that has reigned over some of the biggest domestic and foreign failures in American history.

In conclusion, while it is deeply upsetting to be having such a divisive primary battle in a year seemingly gift-wrapped for Democrats-- and my differing feelings on our two candidates are clear-- I don't believe the doom-and-gloom scenarios being feared for the general election. I believe that our party still goes into this election strong. We shall see by the convention whether or not I am wrong.