Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Quemado

(1,262 posts)
Tue Jun 2, 2020, 12:24 PM Jun 2020

The Legacy of the 1968 Riots

I don't know how practical this is, but someone needs to communicate to the bad actors that they are providing re-election material to Trump and the Republicans, and they need to stop the looting and the vandalism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/apr/04/thelegacyofthe1968riots

"The riots thus provided an entrée for conservatives to finally, fully assert law and order as a national political issue. Something that had been brewing for decades at the local level, and which had played a role in the GOP victories of 1966, became after April 1968 the single The riots thus provided an entrée for conservatives to finally, fully assert law and order as a national political issue. Something that had been brewing for decades at the local level, and which had played a role in the GOP victories of 1966, became after April 1968 the single most important domestic concern in the 1968 presidential race. Polls repeatedly put it at par with, and even above, the Vietnam war. Richard Nixon, who had largely avoided talking about riots and civil rights before April, now made law and order - and the revulsion of white suburbia against the violent images of rioters reacting to King's death - a central theme in his campaign.

"The riots also vaulted Nixon's eventual running mate, the obscure Maryland governor Spiro Agnew, to national prominence. In the wake of the violence in Baltimore, Agnew had called local civil rights leaders to a meeting and then ambushed them with accusations that they had facilitated the racial militancy that he - and much of white America - believed to be the cause of the riots. Nixon aide Patrick Buchanan clipped a news story about the speech and handed it to his boss. And while Nixon toyed with other running mates, he ultimately chose Agnew based on his newfound fame as the standard-bearer of the "silent majority". Agnew was consistently marked for his boorishness by the press corps, but, as an astute Time magazine columnist wrote: "What Agnew has got is a reflexive feel for how millions of fellow Americans view the world - many of them through suburban windows."most important domestic concern in the 1968 presidential race. Polls repeatedly put it at par with, and even above, the Vietnam war. Richard Nixon, who had largely avoided talking about riots and civil rights before April, now made law and order - and the revulsion of white suburbia against the violent images of rioters reacting to King's death - a central theme in his campaign.

"Whether or not Agnew made the difference that November, his selection defined the new White House as a decided turn in American politics, one that pivoted heavily on the riots. Along with the growing appeal of law and order as a political attitude came a rejection of the liberal state and its ameliorationist, integrationist attitude toward the inner-city poor. Conservatives drew a direct line connecting ghetto unrest and liberal social policy, an accusation that also appealed to the pocketbooks of a new generation of middle-class, suburban whites."

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Legacy of the 1968 Riots (Original Post) Quemado Jun 2020 OP
I assume many of the bad actors are doing it on purpose hoping to help Trump. NT enough Jun 2020 #1
The key difference is that Nixon was not an incumbent in '68. Music Man Jun 2020 #2
Some have pointed out that Nixon was re-elected in 1972, Music Man Jun 2020 #3
Also... Alacritous Crier Jun 2020 #4
Let's not forget customerserviceguy Jun 2020 #5
Thought provoking post. nt crickets Jun 2020 #7
Thank you customerserviceguy Jun 2020 #8
There isn't that much violence JonLP24 Jun 2020 #10
There's probably customerserviceguy Jun 2020 #11
The "bad actors" don't care about who wins the election... brooklynite Jun 2020 #6
I think we are living too far in the past JonLP24 Jun 2020 #9
This is very interesting and insightful. But I think the conclusion is a little too simplistic StarfishSaver Jun 2020 #12

Music Man

(1,184 posts)
2. The key difference is that Nixon was not an incumbent in '68.
Tue Jun 2, 2020, 12:29 PM
Jun 2020

He was in the challenging party. Voters were receptive to his "law and order" rhetoric.

Trump now has a presidential record to run on, and it's not like he's about to choose a new vice president to shift the narrative. He's a known quantity, with fixed strengths and weaknesses, and from Covid to George Floyd, he has demonstrated that he merely makes things worse.

Music Man

(1,184 posts)
3. Some have pointed out that Nixon was re-elected in 1972,
Tue Jun 2, 2020, 12:31 PM
Jun 2020

And that is fair. But 1968 is not an exact one-to-one comparison to our current circumstances. Also, McGovern had a flawed, disorganized campaign in '72.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
5. Let's not forget
Tue Jun 2, 2020, 03:23 PM
Jun 2020

the economic effects of that era, especially on the biggest cities in the United States.

While "white flight" was already underway before the civil rights protests of 1965 which developed into what the media labeled "race riots", the late Sixties were a time when such flight accelerated greatly. Also, while people from the suburbs often went to the big city to experience culinary, shopping, and cultural events often in 1960, by 1970, this had slowed down as well. Big cities were crumbling, often to the point where the Rudy Giuliani's could get elected (and re-elected) by promising to reverse the deterioration.

I have read that "things can be replaced". While that is possible, will things be replaced? Will a chain of stores go back to the inner city to rebuild and set themselves up for the next situation where a white cop kills a black man? And corporate America has just freshly found that it can still do a lot of business without having employees come to a large edifice in the middle of a major city. Will they be all that eager to coax their workers back to a situation that could turn dangerous?

If that happens, what happens to all of the small businesses in a city that depended on a five-day-a-week flow of financially secure customers from the suburbs who came to work? Everybody who has been troubled by what they pejoratively call "gentrification" will see the opposite of that happening. And in another thirty or forty years, young Baron Trump can profit from tearing down the slums of the mid-21st Century to build his generation's Trump Towers on land purchased cheaply.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
8. Thank you
Tue Jun 2, 2020, 03:33 PM
Jun 2020

And Trump would love it if people in the blue cities were afraid to go out to vote. The violence is playing right into his hands.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
10. There isn't that much violence
Tue Jun 2, 2020, 03:37 PM
Jun 2020

All day I have been watching cable news showcasing peaceful protests but DUers are spending the day complaining about looters.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
11. There's probably
Tue Jun 2, 2020, 03:49 PM
Jun 2020

more fear of violence than there is actual violence. But it has the same effect that Trump is looking for.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
9. I think we are living too far in the past
Tue Jun 2, 2020, 03:34 PM
Jun 2020

America is a much more diverse country and more likely to side with the protestors than Trump. Trump looks really bad the way he is handling this in contrast to RW protestors protesting policies designed to keep us safe.

I wouldn't forfeit the argument to the right wing. The vast majority of these protests are peaceful.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
12. This is very interesting and insightful. But I think the conclusion is a little too simplistic
Tue Jun 2, 2020, 04:26 PM
Jun 2020

Nixon's election was the result of many factors of which the riots were only one. We seem to be forgetting many other factors at play, including desegregation, the Great Society, Vietnam, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act, 1968 Fair Housing Act, Johnson's immense unpopularity, etc. All of these things, and more, contributed to voters choosing a non-incumbent who promised to come in a fix what the current government had screwed up

And I'm really puzzled and somewhat dismayed at how little the anti-Vietnam War protests are mentioned when talking about the effect unrest had on the election. It seems people are focused on blaming the "race riots" while completely ignoring the anti-war protests, which we were often violent and disruptive and surely frightened a lot of people into voting for Nixon - perhaps more so than the urban uprisings.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Legacy of the 1968 Ri...