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

McCamy Taylor

(19,240 posts)
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 02:44 AM Mar 2015

1968/2016: Humphrey/Clinton

Here's a lesson that I learned in 1968. Back then, I knew people who loved Hubert Humphrey, LBJ's VP and the eventual Democratic nominee after the food fight on steroids in Chicago. The folks who loved him were often (but not always) Black. They loved him because of all the things that he had done for Civil Rights. As LBJ's VP, he had worked like a dog to gather the necessary vote to pass the Voting Rights Act and other legislation.

However, equal rights under the law were not the only issue on the table in 1968. The other big topic of concern was the draft. Young men were dying in Vietnam, in a war which LBJ could not win but from which he could not extricate the country, either. Realizing what a mess Vietnam was, LBJ decided not to run again, so that he could concentrate on ending the war. His man, Henry Kissinger, conspired with the GOP candidate Nixon to derail the peace talks and keep the war going, because the war was Hubert Humphrey's big weakness among Democratic voters.

You see, all those young men subject to the draft and their friends and family members hated LBJ as much as Blacks folks loved him. I remember, in the same week, going with my 3rd grade teacher (Black) to greet LBJ when he arrived in Austin and attending an anti-war rally where he was vilified by my mother's UT friends.

The hatred of LBJ rubbed off on Humphrey. Being LBJ's VP, he could not run against the war---it would have been disloyal. So, he was labeled a hawk. He was reviled. A man whose focus had always been on domestic equality under the law was suddenly transformed into some kind of war criminal. No one cared about the good he had done at home for underprivileged people. They looked at him and saw only WAR. They were convinced that his only reason for being in politics was to promote war.

Humphrey lost by the narrowest of margins. Nixon, who ran on a campaign of "Four years is enough to end a war" promptly escalated the war and illegally invaded Cambodia and Laos. He is responsible for many more deaths of young US men. No doubt, some of those men stayed home in 1968 as a "protest vote" against Humphrey the Hawk. Some of them probably voted for Eugene McCarthy. And their votes may well have cost them their lives.

What does this mean in 2016? Be very careful of labeling any Democratic a "hawk" and deciding that a protest third party vote or stay home vote is the best way to turn the party to the left. Those protest third party votes in 2000 did not turn us to the left. They gave us eight years of Dumbya and then a middle of the road Obama. Those protest third party votes in 1968 did not turn us to the left. They gave us the Killing Fields of Cambodia. The Washington Post (briefly) turned us to the left because Nixon/Mitchell threatened some of Katie Graham's media holdings and so she turned loose two of her reporters on Nixon in order to get even. That is not likely to happen again, not with our current MSM. If we buy another GOP Neo-con we will be at war in Iran. If the Dems keep the White House, we won't. It is as simple as that.

34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
1968/2016: Humphrey/Clinton (Original Post) McCamy Taylor Mar 2015 OP
K&R. nt tblue37 Mar 2015 #1
The 2016 general is a LONG way off RobertEarl Mar 2015 #2
Yeah, what was the Happy Warrior doing while Daley's cops were bludgeoning people out in Grant Park? Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #3
I'll agree and disagree with you. elleng Mar 2015 #5
I hear you, but I'm speaking more to the symbolism than actually calling off the cops. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #6
Agree. elleng Mar 2015 #7
RFK wasn't LBJ's VP--he had WAY more room to criticize than HHH had. MADem Mar 2015 #8
Besides, and many forget this, but LBJ was the master vote-counter. JDPriestly Mar 2015 #11
I can wait. MADem Mar 2015 #12
This. riqster Mar 2015 #16
You can believe it. It's an attractive but flawed logic HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #25
/\_/\_From this post_/\_/\ Scuba Mar 2015 #22
I agree it's a very different situation. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #13
One of Humphrey's problems was he had no charisma Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #17
I think it was deeper than that. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #18
Like I said, lack of charisma was *one* of his problems Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #21
It was the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and MLK that put Nixon in the White House leveymg Mar 2015 #4
True. And don't forget the assassination attempt that paralyzed George Wallace. hedda_foil Mar 2015 #27
Nixon was as corrupt and blood-stained as any Russian or Third World strongman. leveymg Mar 2015 #28
Hillary Clinton isn't the same because Hubert Humphrey was a rare breed JonLP24 Mar 2015 #9
The Killing Fields in Cambodia occurred during the Carter years not Nixon. former9thward Mar 2015 #10
The killing fields began in 1975 Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #19
No, the Khmer Rouge took over in 1975. former9thward Mar 2015 #26
The killing fields began as soon as the Khmer Rouge took over Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #32
No, the world knew what was going on and turned their heads away. former9thward Mar 2015 #34
How many votes were lost because the voting age was 21 ? olddots Mar 2015 #14
And yet, in the first election after the 26th Amendment was passed, Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #33
Vietnam... a war which LBJ could not win but from which he could not extricate the country, either delrem Mar 2015 #15
I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY WITH PRESIDENT WALKER Capt. Obvious Mar 2015 #30
Sarcasm?? delrem Mar 2015 #31
We should avoid the truth because it won't set us free? Sit down we're rocking the boat? Ford_Prefect Mar 2015 #20
I better start loving Hillary! Enthusiast Mar 2015 #23
1968/2002 Martin Eden Mar 2015 #24
'68 was my first presidential vote. I was, and am, a Democrat. I voted 3rd party. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #29
 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
2. The 2016 general is a LONG way off
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 02:52 AM
Mar 2015

What we have to do is to make sure we have a democrat in that election that can get Liberals to work hard to get out the vote with passion and enthusiasm.

I see no one candidate who is up to that, just yet.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
3. Yeah, what was the Happy Warrior doing while Daley's cops were bludgeoning people out in Grant Park?
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 02:55 AM
Mar 2015

I don't think HHH's perception as the establishment apologia candidate was totally unwarranted.

To say he couldn't run against the war- sure he could have. Bobby Kennedy generated a fuckton of enthusiasm being an anti-war candidate, before he was shot, at least. LBJ chose to bow out. Unspoken or no, he didn't want to run on his own war.

Humprhey would have shown himself to be his own man by taking a different tack, but of course the establishment people backing him would have lost their shit. Still, "disloyal"? No. By not running LBJ had removed himself from the conversation.

It's not always the voters fault, not entirely. Sometimes it's the leaders' fault for not leading.

elleng

(130,865 posts)
5. I'll agree and disagree with you.
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 03:21 AM
Mar 2015

I was in Chicago at the time, and having worked at a legal services office in the Cook County jail, I returned to help with those arrested by daley's thugs; helped get them medicines, advise their families, etc. Its pretty clear HHH wouldn't have had a chance to call them off, even if he had tried. Daley wouldn't have listened to him.

As to running against the war, I agree with you, he should have (like Gore should have recognized Clinton's success, and run WITH it.) I couldn't vote for HHH (and SORRY for what we got, of course.)

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
6. I hear you, but I'm speaking more to the symbolism than actually calling off the cops.
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 03:27 AM
Mar 2015

HHH was a classic example of someone missing several opportunities to rise to the occasion and do the right thing. i dont believe he was a bad man, not at all. But he didnt lead when he could have.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
8. RFK wasn't LBJ's VP--he had WAY more room to criticize than HHH had.
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 03:43 AM
Mar 2015

Also, LBJ was unwell, he'd had heart issues, and he was quitting ahead of schedule. It's not like he was young and vigorous, leaving after two elected terms on a high--he was a defeated old man with an albatross called Vietnam around his neck. The help LBJ could give HHH was quite constrained by these factors. Thus, HHH's situation is quite different from HRC's.

She is not the VP like Humphrey was, she has enough distance from her duty as SECSTATE to be able to comment, she's not going to play the "disloyal" card because people don't like that (and she doesn't want to alienate any help she can get from the BHO camp), but she can point out differences if that's what it takes.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
11. Besides, and many forget this, but LBJ was the master vote-counter.
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 04:47 AM
Mar 2015

He signed civil rights into law. The Southern Strategy of Nixon was lamentable but predictable. LBJ knew that there was more than one reason he could not be re-elected.

We will never know what the result might have been had RFK been the candidate in the national election.

We have a lot to go through before we pick our 2016 candidate. It isn't time yet to worry about admonishing Democrats to vote for the Democratic candidate. At this time, that is just a code for "Vote for Hillary." And I think a lot can happen between now and when we choose our candidate. A lot of stances on issues of the moment will be discussed.

May the best candidate for the Democratic Party win. We need a good primary that flushes out the worst candidates and allows the best candidate to rise and lead our party. May she or he be given the strength to put his or her hat in the ring.

Let's don't assume we know who that candidate will be. We don't.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
25. You can believe it. It's an attractive but flawed logic
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 08:24 AM
Mar 2015

It's been pushed as a litmus test for banning DUers for years

But that meme is a hack/exploit of usually good and decent loyalty based on shared values. Values, you know? The goodness associated to shared principles and beliefs. That meme is a tool available for use by politicians and groups of politicians who would exploit loyalty of the base, and yet be completely free of the values the solidarity is built around. Rahm Emmanuels uncontrolled cheekiness of calling the base fucking retards with no where else to go IS NOT an example of how our leaders are ALWAYS better than theirs. It's an example of a person who shares little value with the people he derides.

In the US vs THEM game it's a chauvinistic too the We are always argued to be better then the THEM.

If the PRINCIPLES involved were solid and fairly evaluated it might be argued that OUR principles _are_ better than theirs...say something like the better qualities of Keynesian economic management as opposed to unregulated lassieze faire free markets.

But you see principles are now derided and that's no accident. Pragmatic triangulation demands inevitably moves it's practicioners away from principles and toward the opponents position

For people who think at least some principles matter, it's possible to see such drift as potentially alienating. Said simply it's possible to see that unprincipled drift in positions can take a politician or an organized caucus/clique of politicans too far.

Triangulation -requires- that sort of unquestioning loyalty or it won't work.

Not surprisingly one side of DU spends a -lot- of time worrying about solidarity and arguing in strained descriptions of reality condemning those who would 'make what's good the enemy of perfection'.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
22. /\_/\_From this post_/\_/\
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 06:21 AM
Mar 2015
It isn't time yet to worry about admonishing Democrats to vote for the Democratic candidate. At this time, that is just a code for "Vote for Hillary."

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
13. I agree it's a very different situation.
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 05:17 AM
Mar 2015

And I'm INVARIABLY the one arguing to vote for the damn nominee, despite whatever misgivings people have, come the general.

...my point stands- blame can't always be laid at the foot of the voters. Sometimes it can, like people who voted for Nader knowing what it might do, when there WERE clear and obvious reasons to vote for Gore.

---that doesnt totally absolve leaders of the responsibility to lead, which I still view as a failure in humphrey's case.

But yes, 2016 isnt going to be 1968, or 1992, 2000 or 2008. So, there's that.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
17. One of Humphrey's problems was he had no charisma
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 05:59 AM
Mar 2015

RFK had an appeal that could overcome racist inclinations of voters in the South (certainly the racist voters I was around in those days), but Humphrey could not come close to that.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
18. I think it was deeper than that.
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 06:11 AM
Mar 2015

Although I admit I was too young to be paying attention at the actual time, as a student of history and politics I have to believe that Humphrey's stance on Vietnam cost him a lot of votes. Hell, maybe had he come out against the war it would have cost him other votes- maybe Nixon was a foregone conclusion either way, particularly after he and Kissinger sabotaged the peace accords*.


*speaking of the Logan Act.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
21. Like I said, lack of charisma was *one* of his problems
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 06:20 AM
Mar 2015

His stance on Vietnam probably didn't cost him votes in the South, though. As a whole, the South was more gung-ho for the war than other parts of the country. And Humphrey probably wouldn't have won California one way or the other, since that was Nixon's home turf. Humphrey would have needed 79 more electoral votes for a clean win.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
4. It was the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and MLK that put Nixon in the White House
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 03:07 AM
Mar 2015

I'll say it again. It was the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and MLK that put Nixon in the White House

There was no way that RFK and MLK Democrats would have voted in sufficient numbers to put Hubert in the White House, not while Humphrey supported that damned war. Wars started by Democrats always help the GOP. Those who do so, or seem most inclined toward starting another war, don't turn out the progressive vote. That's the lesson to take away from 1968.

That's why so many of us here can't embrace Hillary. Despite her belated statement today rejecting the Senate 47, she isn't a convincing champion of peace. It will be difficult for her to earn our trust after her continuous run of promoting and planning wars and threatening new ones.

hedda_foil

(16,372 posts)
27. True. And don't forget the assassination attempt that paralyzed George Wallace.
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 12:23 PM
Mar 2015

How interesting that Wallace, as an independent, could take millions of Southern white votes away from Nixon's southern strategy. Remember, that was the year of two dueling Mississippi Dem convention delegations (Wallace led segregation forever bunch vs integrated Freedoms Democrats). Wallace wouldn't compromise with the FDs as the credentials committee preferred, so he took his delegation and walked out.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
28. Nixon was as corrupt and blood-stained as any Russian or Third World strongman.
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 01:16 PM
Mar 2015

He started his career as a McCarthy henchman on the HUAC Committee, and ended it by dirty tricks against the Democrats. His Plumbers unit were a bunch of ex-CIA assassins and psychological warfare experts. In between, there are a lot of bodies.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
9. Hillary Clinton isn't the same because Hubert Humphrey was a rare breed
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 03:44 AM
Mar 2015

among liberal advocacy and Humbert Humphrey should have opposed the war, that was a mistake he made.

To the dismay of party members in the South, the convention adopted a civil rights platform supporting Truman's actions as President. When Minneapolis mayor Hubert Humphrey addressed the convention, he urged the Democratic Party to "get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Democratic_National_Convention

I would have loved to voted for Hubert Humphrey.

former9thward

(31,981 posts)
10. The Killing Fields in Cambodia occurred during the Carter years not Nixon.
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 03:53 AM
Mar 2015

It was U.S. foreign policy to support the Chinese supported Khmer Rouge against the Soviet supported Vietnamese.

former9thward

(31,981 posts)
26. No, the Khmer Rouge took over in 1975.
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 10:25 AM
Mar 2015

The massive killing came later. It was Carter policy to support the KR against the Vietnamese.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
32. The killing fields began as soon as the Khmer Rouge took over
Thu Mar 12, 2015, 05:00 AM
Mar 2015

When Vietnam invaded Cambodia, it was seen as a territory grab by Vietnam, which as North Vietnam had earlier violated the terms of the 1972 peace treaty by invading and annexing the South. World opinion, as voiced collectively at the UN (with a few exceptions like the USSR), and individually (such as byWestern European countries and Japan) was against Vietnam for that reason.

former9thward

(31,981 posts)
34. No, the world knew what was going on and turned their heads away.
Thu Mar 12, 2015, 10:40 AM
Mar 2015

Including the U.S. You seem to want to defend the U.S. position in this matter. It is indefensible whether it was Ford or Carter.

 

olddots

(10,237 posts)
14. How many votes were lost because the voting age was 21 ?
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 05:23 AM
Mar 2015

Nixon's win had much to do with the youth anti war vote being not old enough by 3 years to vote .
How many draft age people would vote for Hillary ? Things ate so much fifferent than 1968 , the middle class is gone along with leaders who weren't owned by banks and huge corporations .

delrem

(9,688 posts)
15. Vietnam... a war which LBJ could not win but from which he could not extricate the country, either
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 05:27 AM
Mar 2015

Are you joking?
Name one way that LBJ tried to extricate the USA from the Vietnam war.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/johnson_vietnam.htm

I might've been a kid from another country at the time, but I watched what you call "the food fight on steroids in Chicago" on TV, read about it in the papers, and THOSE kids (and they were mostly just kids) weren't playing out some Animal House game. It was deadly serious and THOSE kids had a point. They impressed me no end. I was totally impressed by US youth during those years. They made a lasting impression on my life, unlike shit movies like "Rambo: First Blood".

Nixon only continued what LBJ started.
Please recall Henry Kissinger's role. Yes, THAT Kissinger, the one who HRC bff'ed only recently.

Jeez, I may be spotty on history, but I'm not that spotty!


delrem

(9,688 posts)
31. Sarcasm??
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 01:51 PM
Mar 2015

That non-sequitur was sarcasm, right?

By the way, if you had actually read my post you'd know that I'm not a US citizen. Canadian. I'm very unhappy with Harper. In fact, this morning I woke to news about the first Canadians coming home in body bags from Harper's war in Iraq, and to discussions of Harper's defence minister's anti-muslim racist tweets. It isn't pretty. My priority is getting rid of Harper.

But please, tell me that your non-sequitur was sarcasm.

Ford_Prefect

(7,887 posts)
20. We should avoid the truth because it won't set us free? Sit down we're rocking the boat?
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 06:15 AM
Mar 2015

Hillary Clinton will have to walk a very long way left to match Humphrey's congressional voting record. She has enabled many issues which presently damage our lives. She is an author of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We cannot have worse from the party leadership at this point IMO.

I was one of those who saw the party and the events in Chicago in a different light. My parents were deeply involved in civil rights and peace movements. I was a future draftee with absolutely no desire to kill anyone for my country. Chicago was not a "food fight" but a violent battle for the soul of the party. Ask anyone who was refused permission to attend or bring issues to the platform debate. The entire liberal wing was shouted down during the convention as communist sympathizers. Does that sound familiar to you?

McCamy Taylor misrepresents the outcomes in both 1968 and 2000. In both elections the the republican party engaged in aggressive vote manipulation...Or had you forgotten those details?

I agree that labels don't help the political argument. Taylor's revisionist telling of party history does little to improve the terms of the debate.

I respect the desire for a unified party and acknowledge our need for a strong voter turnout. But we don't win elections by insisting everyone toes the Democratic party line. We win by giving people something to vote FOR.

Blaming Liberals for insisting on the truth is a cheap shot. We aren't rocking the boat we're in a hurricane! We need a captain who can see and respond to how bad the weather actually is.



Martin Eden

(12,863 posts)
24. 1968/2002
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 07:18 AM
Mar 2015

Humphrey may have felt obligated to be loyal to LBJ, but that has no parallel to HC's vote for the Iraq war in 2002.

I will vote for the Dem nominee in Nov 2016, but in the primary no candidate who voted for the IWR in Oct 2002 will get my support.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
29. '68 was my first presidential vote. I was, and am, a Democrat. I voted 3rd party.
Wed Mar 11, 2015, 01:22 PM
Mar 2015

I vote issues, policies, and principles. Not party or politician.

It wasn't the 3rd party votes that gave Nixon the election. It was the war.

It wasn't the 3rd party votes that gave Dumbya the election in 2000. It was Gore's failure to capture enough votes.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»1968/2016: Humphrey/Clint...