The Democratic Party Post 1968

[jiacinto]

Questions:

1) How much have the events of 1968--Vietnam, the Assinations, and the Democratic Convention in Chicago--hurt the Democratic Party?

2) Has the party ever recovered from those events?

3) What can the party do to win the 5-10% of the vote to close the deal in many states? We are losing the key races by that margin.

4) What can the Democrats do to win the votes of the nonunion white working class?

5) How can the Democrats convince voters, especially swing voters, that they are respectful and tolerant of mainstream values?

[jiacinto]

1. anyone here?

nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Carlos, as near as I can tell

those events ONLY harmed us with capturing the WHITE HOUSE. I do NOT think those events were as significant as YOU take them to be. My evidence is that we continued to control the house for MOST of those years, the senate for a GREAT deal of those years and our message was getting out and our party CONTINUED to gain ground until the Gingrich revolution.

I think the AEI, and all the THINK TANKS have played a MUCH MUCH greater role in our losses than you do.

I DEFINITELY think we recovered from those events and the single BIGGEST factor in our problems NOW was allowing the independent prosecutor rule to sunset.

Frankly, I think Bill CLinton (as much as I liked him in MANY regards) has damaged the party by 1) DEFUNDING it via kissing asses of corporations that CLEARLY give MORE to Republicans than Democrats. 2) Deregulating the airwaves thereby turning OVER the airwaves to the defense industry and the Republican party 3) SORLEY mishandling the Paula Jones case...he could have defaulted on the fucking case and said "I am the president, I am too busy for this" and she would have gotten LESS money, the event would have gotten LESS press and there would have been NO MONICA. People can show me his approval ratings throughout this time all they wish...it DID cause fatigue and again backfired on us in that people got SO fatigued by scandals, that they could NOW give a shit about the REAL ONES.


The problem with Democrats winning the WHITE working class has MORE to do with the media campaigns that HAD these people vote for their states to be RIGHT TO WORK states which AGAIN was a THINK TANK creation. This DEFUNDED and evaporated UNION membership and ALSO actually HARMED labor unions in their ability to organize and have strikes be effective...witness the OVERNIGHT trucking strike.

As far as mainstream values...I think that is a Republican fiction. The vast majority of Democrats have those MAINSTREAM values.

[jiacinto]

3. By "fiction" I mean "perception"

How do we change the perception? And how do we recover?

And why did California never becomea "right to work state"?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. Because the LARGEST unions are here and people KNEW

better.

[jiacinto]

14. Did they ever try to push ballot measures to do it?

nt

[David Zephyr]

19. Isn't That the Wonderful Truth?!

Unions!

[tom_paine]

15. I must say I agree with n.m.s.a...

It is not the core Democratic Party itself that has failed. These events didn't shoot us in the foot and hobble us.

What the Democratic Party didn't do is more important.

They didn't take heed and note of the changing media situation brought on by the creation of the vast uncharted territory of Cable TV. They failed to seize a piece of it. They failed to note that, while cable TV news audiences make up a relatively small portion of news watchers even today, the numbers of "journalists" each cable outlet fielded were the same, and thus able to shift mores in vast disproportion to their audiences.

Thinks, tanks, Party-Loyal-Right-Wing Sub-Media, and the Right-Wing internet (of which they wielded long before the Democrats ever knew what was happening--Poll Freeping apparently went on for YEARS and we were none the wiser...the internet makes Nixonian dirty tricks that much easier too and expands their range...I'm sure even now I am missing aspects of the Cyber-Brownshirts and you'd better believe that as we are catching on to the shit they did 5 years ago, the bastards are inventing new and illegal or borderline illegal actions...hell they have a $200,000,000 war chest already and you'd better believe they are using it in terrible and unethical ways) all combine to form Goebbels v2.0, a dreadful alternate reality which suffuses our society in a blanketing fog, just as Orwell predicted, in which any lie can be laundered and any truth obfuscated.

Further, as you've seen yourself, carlso, the desire to deny that is overwhelmingly strong because we could NEVER craeted a Nazi-style propaganda infrastructure here in Amerika.

But once you wake to it, the monstrous scope becomes clear and like the frog in the boiling pot of water you (and I am not insulting or criticizing you directly carlos, but using the collective "you" which is to say "we") wake up and say, "My God, I'll dying and I'll be dead in seconds...how did this happen without me noticing it?")

No, what nmsa and what I am saying is that the greatest sin the Democrats committed was to not notice what was being done and not take step to check it before it grew to the scope and strength that it did, even on one front...think tanks or media or internet.

But the leadership failed to grasp what was going on on ANY of those fronts, and even today it seems they are still woefully clueless.

The Democratic sin was one of ommission, not commission...

[jiacinto]

18. Well

The media is a major problem.

[tom_paine]

21. But it's not just the media...

It is:

media
think tanks
internet

(hell, I might be missing an aspect or two)

How long did the Freepers get away scot free with Freeping every internet poll that came along? I don't know the answer to that and probably no one does, because they were under the radar for so long.

Hell, thinking back to Iran-Contra, which i think was the first big test for the embryonic Right-Wing Sub-Media.

Remember Ollie North's 95% approval rating? Knowing what we now know, that number reeks to high heaven. Did virtually every Democrat fall in love with Ollie's puppy (killing) eyes and surrender themselves to his manliness?

No way. But I remember those days and the Repugs wielded Ollie's supposed 95% approval rating around like a club. What did the Democrats do? They backed off, of course, because you don't mess with a guy with 95% approval ratings.

But I don't believe Ollie ever had approval ratings like that. That poll was "Freeped" (yes I know the Freepers did not exist in that sense but you know the leaders were already there working away), IMHO.

This is not somthing that sprang into existance in 1992...it was already well along by then.

David Brock as much as says so in "Blidned by the Right".

These Busheviks have had these plans since the 70s. It is only now that it has grown to such a grotesque and Orwellian point (and that it helped cover up a blatantly stolen election based on disenfranchsiement and a dozen other dirty tricks at least, many, like the absentee ballot solicitations and fraud, performed in broad daylight and crowed about by Uncle Karl's minions on election eve) that it has become obvious to even the number of people, still probably under 20% and maybe under 10%, that it has.

Hell, I myself remember as late as Oct. 2000 saying, "yeah, you're right the media is sort of liberal."

What a fool I was! Another frog in the increasingly hot water going for a little swim thinking nothing's wrong here and goish isn't it pleasantly warm here.

And what fools the Democratic leadership, by and large, continues to be on this issue. On all the issues. because this is not a single-front attack, it's a multi-front attack and we are aren't even addressing one of them!

Think-tanks
media
internet

(what else are we missing that we will only see later after it has swollen to grotesque and Orwellian proportions...I wonder)

[jiacinto]

24. Yeah

I wish there were more efforts in that area.

[tom_paine]

27. So what do we do?

You're much more of an activist than I am.

What do YOU think, carlos?

[ShaneGR]

4. We are nearing the end of a Republican Majority

Without Bill Clinton, we would have had zero presidents in the last 20 years. PERIOD. Bill Clinton, in a weird way, saved the Democratic Party. Ronald Reagan almost killed us. But we have survived.

PLEASE. Read the the 'Emerging Democratic Majority'. This is the end of our suffering, for those of us who are in our 20's.... we will dominate for the next 30 years.

RECOGNIZE

[jiacinto]

5. yeah

I read it. And you can see signs in it in how Democrats swept the elections except for one in Fairfax County, VA.

[Silverhair]

There is a problem with that books projections.

It assumes that the youth and Latinos will be Democrats. But the Reps are making big inroads into the Latino vote, and more youth than expected are becoming Reps. We got our work cut out for us.

[tom_paine]

25. And that is why the Busheviks are secure their Empire now

So that, even if what you say is true (and the youth and Latino votes is belying predictions, as was mentioned below), Goebbels v2.0 will NEVER allow this electorate expression to surface.

[Faygo Kid]

6. OK, I'm here - but too much to answer

It's not the Democratic Party, but the nation, that has not recovered from the events of 1968, surely a seminal year by any measure. That is the quick answer to 1 and 2. As to 3, we need a strong, consistent message not based on fear, but the hope and the expectation for lives of opportunity that the Dems have stood for. As to 4, be straight with them; they will respond to their self interests, and don't pander (no more Confederate flag stereotypes; working moms and dads and others don't need to be talked down to). As to 5, don't give in on the GOP definition of mainstream values: define TRUE mainstream values - tolerance, opportunity, good schools, medical care, jobs - THOSE are mainstream values, not the divisive hatred, class preferences and warmongering of the GOP (probably need to use different terms, but you get my drift). OK?

[jiacinto]

7. Well

What can we do to help the national recover from the events of 1968?

[greatauntoftriplets]

10. Stop Iraq-nam maybe???

Many of us who lived through that era are having seriously bad memories of that time -- our past is coming back at us. We are haunted by the idea of a generation that lost 57,000 young men. I have a good friend who served with the 82nd Airborne in Vietnam. He has many ghosts from that time, and this is not making them any better.

Today is November 6th and something like 25 GIs have been killed there so far this month? Will the death toll hit 100 Americans at the end of the month? And we are told this is "progress" and proof of our "success".

[Faygo Kid]

11. A long time ago, my friend

We can no more help the nation recover from the events of 1968 than we can from the events of 1861, at this point. History has a way of doing that. We need to help the nation recover from the events of 2000-2003; i.e., the hijacking of this nation by the Bush administration. And speaking of history, this is the worst, most radical administration in the nation's history. Glad you are into history; it must play a role in people's understanding, but we can't undo, nor can we focus, on 1968 at this point (I was in high school then, by the way).

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. Your posts on this are quite astute!

:thumbsup:

[Faygo Kid]

17. Gee, thanks

Especially from someone with more than 25,000 posts. I am humbled!

[w4rma]

8. LBJ was a fool to trick America into Vietnam.

If Kennedy wasn't assassinated, then LBJ wouldn't have had the power to do that. If LBJ hadn't invaded Vietnam then the anti-war protests wouldn't have occured.

[jiacinto]

9. But didn't Vietnam start under the Eisenhower administration?

nt

[Silverhair]

16. Not really.

Under Ike we had lots of military adviser in lots of nations. Vietnam wasn't anything special. Under Ike we had a few advisers in Vietnam, but that's all. Under JFK the number of troops and our field involvement began to increase dramatically. The first American was killed in 1962. I was sent over in 1965, by LBJ who started the big build-up. When I went over there were only 30K troops in country, when I left there were 250K, and it eventually became 500K.

LBJ didn't understand war and tried to approach as he would a difficult congress. His stupidity got lots of people killed for nothing. I know he was a Dem president and he did a lot of good with the civil rights legislation, but I will permenantly hold Vietnam against LBJ. He should have either pulled out right away, (Vietnam was not of strategic importance to us.)or invaded the north and took over Hanoi and fought all out, except no nukes of course. Instead he tried to choose a middle way and that was the bloodiest of all, for both sides.

[Faygo Kid]

20. Au contraire, my admired friend

Thank you for your service. During the Eisenhower Administration, free elections were to be held in Vietnam. Because it was obvious Ho Chi Minh would win, they were torpedoed - by the U.S. That started us down the tragic path to involvement. I agree with your assessment of LBJ, but don't let his advisers off the hook, either. He was ill served by "The Best and the Brightest." I recommend George Ball's autobiography to you, "The Past Has Another Pattern." By the way, I missed going because of a high lottery number in 1970. And, I believe the Vietnam War was a tragic mistake, but that this one in Iraq is more truly immoral - and LBJ's lies about Tonkin, et al pale in comparison to this administration's rationale.

[tom_paine]

23. Yes, thank you for your service, silverhair

We have tussled a bit on these boards, but on that we can agree.

From one vet to another (not that I could ever compare my peacetime service to yours, nor imagine the hell you went through)...

thanks.

:toast: :toast:

And now you continue your service to your country by joining us here in resistance to Tyranny, though I recognize we differ on the degree and intent of the Busheviks (I pray your more modest assessment of the long-term danger is correct).

Again...

:toast: :toast:

tom_paine
USAF veteran 1981-1985

[David Zephyr]

22. You Are Right, Jiacinto.

The Pentagon Papers clearly state that South Vietnam "was the invention" of the United States after the French had agreed to pull southward for two years after which an election was to be held. Ho Chi Minh agreed to these terms, but the C.I.A. and the U.S. Military had no intentions of ever allowing a free election because, as the Pentagon Papers teach us, the U.S. knew that the Ho Chi Minh would win every village throughout all of Vietnam.

As early as 1954 (squarely during Eisenhower's administration), Allen Dulles then orchestrated and planted our puppet Diem as "President" of Vietnam. By the way, he had been living out of the Vietnam for a long time (sort of like Chalabli, huh?) and to really offend the Vietnamese people as only the CIA under Dulles could do, Diem was a Catholic in a nation of Buddhists.

Eisenhower gets an undeserved clean pass on Vietnam. The U.S. involvement clearly began under that administration.

[Julien Sorel]

26. Turn left. Focus on 'the base.'

Don't pander to swing voters -- no one needs them. The Democratic Party must stand firm: the nation will come crawling back in 20 or 30 years.

[jiacinto]

28. Yeah you do if you want to win

You need more than the base to win. And what happens to the rest us of when we have to wait 20-30 years?

[tom_paine]

29. I think Billy was being sarcastic, carlos

He forgot to use the </sarcasm off> signal.

Shame on you, Billy.

[PATRICK]

30. Carter did, Clinton clinched it

But the Right upped the ante to the utmost extreme which was hard to counter sanely without the money or media or limber adaptations to practically do battle. They seemed to spend as much time groping for footing in a post-Vietnam, post-FDR but also post-Southern Conservative new era that they are still drowning in baggage. Yet we can still handily win in any reasonable fair(hah) contest. In a level contest the party would quickly become dominant(if not ideally progressive). In the future that would become easy given any intelligence and vitality in an up and coming generation of leaders(real).

Looking back unless you are guarding against the GOP knife is a false security or nervous nellie flaw. The fundamentals of politics, reform and dealing with the dirt are essential.

The people are simply not allowed to see the good of the party no matter how desperately(and sometimes shamefully) the DNC dresses it up.

Without power I see a withering away of any rallyitng point for the silenced majority no matter what great positions or leaders we have. It will counteruinutitively become what the GOP by all reason should be now- a third party discussing idealism to four walls.

[jiacinto]

31. So how do we improve our media message?

nt

[blindpig]

32. the indirect approach

i don't have the answers as i'm not a political wiz but i have read sun tzu. you don't meet strength with strength if there'e a possibility of defeat. you don't let the enemy define the field of battle. you try to win the war before the battle by other means. you do the unexpected. internet grass roots organizing is one indirect means of attacking the * cash machine. i'm sure we can find others.
i'd continue but my ride is here. to the barricades!