Commentary: Anti-War March, But Where Were the People?
August 25th, 2008 Tony Robinson
For the anti-war demonstrators, it was a bad portent. On Saturday, I asked a superdelegate from Wisconsin, chairman of the DNC youth council, about his thoughts on demonstrations by groups such as Recreate 68, and he answered bluntly: “never heard of them.”
Here in Denver we’ve heard plenty about such groups, and their plans to disrupt the convention. Some of the demonstration leaders estimated 50,000 people would show up for Sunday’s anti-war march. The local dailies predicted 10,000 would show.
But come Sunday morning of the march, the anti-war crowd simply didn’t show. Only about 1000 showed—at least 10 times smaller than predicted. I wandered through the crowd, and everyone reflected on the dismal turnout, with a sad resignation. The anti-war demonstrators called for the voice of the people, but only found the voice of a few friends.
What can account for such a result? Where were the people?
Throughout the crowd of demonstrators, the answer was almost always the same—it was the paranoid fear-mongering of Denver city officials, and overblown police presence; the officials made people scared to come downtown. Others suggested that the low turnout reflected the fact that the Iraq War has lost its urgency. Both parties now talk about timelines for withdrawal, fatalities are down, and domestic economic crisis has trumped other concerns. People just aren’t paying attention to the war.
Both of these reasons play a part in accounting for Sunday’s surprisingly low turnout—but the most important reason why demonstrators did not “Recreate 68”— is simply because it is NOT any longer 1968.
In 1968, the Democratic nomination was entirely decided by superdelegates—the popular vote in the primary was meaningless—and when the anti-war votes of millions in the primary were ignored by insider Democrats committed to the Humphrey, the war candidate—you can bet it catalyzed a street anger that can’t be matched today, when the popular vote is decisive in choosing the Democratic nominee.
In 1968, 18 to 20-year-olds couldn’t even vote, though they were being drafted to fight and die in Vietnam. A lot of those young people showed up in Chicago—and registered their discontent in the streets, as the ballot-box was off limits.
In 2008, 18-year-olds can vote, and they turned out in record numbers during the primaries—voting for Obama 4-to-1 over Clinton. Now that he’s the nominee, on the strength of the youth vote, it’s no surprise that young energy has been diverted from the streets, into the party.
And speaking of the draft. In 1968 they had one; in 2008 we don’t.
In 1968, King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated and the party fell apart while the street exploded. In 2008, the Kennedy of our day is leading the party, while the street seeks direction.
In fact, 2008 looks more like the hopeful 1960 than like the angry 1968. In 1960 as in 2008, the progressive hopes and youthful energy of a nation centered on the Democratic Party and its charismatic leader, and the party had not yet proved bankrupt.
Barack will likely win this election as Kennedy did, as the hopes of the left wrap themselves into the Democratic party rather than into the passion of the street. If Obama wins, he and his party will have their chance to respond to the national call for change. Will Obama fail? Will the party that captured the hopes of a record number of primary voters prove bankrupt? Will the hopeful “yes we can” of 2008 become the disastrous Democratic disintegration of 1968? Obama will likely win this election–And then we, and the street, will see.
KGNU’s national politics analyst, Tony Robinson, is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Colorado Denver. You can find more at http://mypoliticscampaignblog.wordpress.com/
