A whisper in the ear of young progressives/radicals

[returnee]

The 2024 presidential is shaping up in a way that is giving me flashbacks to the 1968 Humphrey-Nixon-Wallace election. I was not old enough to vote at the time but I was aware of the issues. We watched in horror at two assassinations of progressive leaders, and the protests that exploded in reaction. We were radicalized by radical events happening right before our eyes, daily. The left was energized against the war and for racial equality and justice.
The left also, to a large extent (I’m not quite sure of the numbers), opposed the Democratic Party and Humphrey as not being progressive enough, particularly regarding “the American War,” as the Vietnamese referred to it. And the left did not fully fall in behind Humphrey in the election. As a matter of fact there were protests outside the Democratic convention. We got Nixon! Nixon the war criminal (among other crimes, particularly in the political/electoral arena). This pushed the trajectory of American politics well to the right. Furthermore, Nixon never faced a jury of his peers for his crimes.

So here’s the thing: is this not ringing bells for you? The left was correct in its ideals and goals, but played the politics poorly. Don’t make the same mistake now. By engaging in violence, and not classic civil disobedience (which is generally effective in engaging American’s sense of morality), you alienate voters for the more progressive candidate. Compound that with not voting for the more progressive candidate and America loses.

I was once where you are now. Don’t make the same mistake. If you make the perfect the enemy of the good, you will get the real enemy.

Thank you.

[Big Blue Marble]

1. Who is playing politics poorly?

I fear that it is the Democratic establishment. The attacks on the students
attempting to label them anti-semitic, Putin-led dupes, and Hamas-loving idiots
then sending in the riot police do not open dialogues. It is amazingly insane
and totally self- sabotaging. It denies the sincerity of their sacrifices.

They have a legitimate perspective just as the students in 60's. They need to be
heard. You do not have agree with them, to listen to their positions. Otherwise,
they may ask exactly what country are we in and turn their back on the political
process permanently.

[Jedi Guy]

4. "...to label them anti-semitic, Putin-led dupes, and Hamas-loving idiots..."

If they wish to avoid being called anti-Semitic, a good first step would be not to engage in anti-Semitism and to disavow those who do. Likewise, if they wish to avoid being called "Hamas-loving idiots", a good first step would be not to express support for Hamas or its goals, explicitly or otherwise, and to disavow those who do. When they're out there engaging in these behaviors, particularly harassing Jewish students and chanting things that explicitly support Hamas and its goals, people are going to call it like they see it, and rightly so.

...then sending in the riot police...

If they break laws in the process of protesting, is that just to be ignored? Does the act of protesting somehow ward off the consequences for breaking the law? Some of these protesters seem to believe that's the case and that they can do whatever they like, consequence-free, simply because they hold strong opinions and beliefs about the issue at hand. The Columbia protesters' seizure of Hamilton Hall, for instance, was not acceptable and it's not going to keep me up at night that they were arrested and face suspension or expulsion.

They have a legitimate perspective just as the students in 60's. They need to be heard. You do not have agree with them, to listen to their positions.

They have a position; its legitimacy or lack of same is up for debate. Neither I nor anyone else is required to listen to them or automatically to cede ground to their positions without scrutiny or debate. That's not how it works.

To me, your position reads as if you're saying that they're automatically right, automatically immune from consequences, and automatically worthy of being listened to simply because they hold strong beliefs and are protesting to express them. I reject all three of those premises.

[Martin Eden]

10. Largely agree, but I believe some discretion is advised in arrests for civil disobedience

Of course violence against people or property crosses the line, as does obstructing normal functions in a way that does more harm than moderate inconvenience.

What I would really like to see from protest leaders and/or respected progressives is that support for civilians in Gaza and for a Palestian state is one thing, but intimidation and hate speech against our Jewish brothers and sisters betrays our core values.

As does support for those who committed the Oct 7 atrocity and call for eradicting Israel. By all means condem the atrocities committed by the Israeli government in killing more than 34,000 human beings, mostly women and children. Criticize our own government for continuing to supply the bombs. Demand a ceasefire and increased humanitatian aid.

Standing up for our beliefs and for humanity does not consist in full support for one side or the other in this conflict. Adhere to our highest principles, as opposed to joining one tribe or the other -- because neither embrace the values for which we protest.

[Big Blue Marble]

14. Your anti-protestor bias prevented you from comprehending the point of my post.

These students are castigated, slandered, and punished at the risk of
viability of the Democratic Party and the health of our democracy.
Whether, you think so are not, they are intelligent American Citizens
and have a right to their perspective even if you think they are wrong.

The vast majority are not violent or anti-semitic. Many are Jewish.
You go out of your way to misrepresent them. In a democracy, there
is a diversity of opinion; that is the point. If you do not listen to them,
you lose them. And if you shut down the diversity of opinion, you
no longer have a democracy.

[Jedi Guy]

22. "These students are castigated, slandered, and punished..."

They're taking highly visible public action. That's going to draw attention and it's going to draw responses, not all of them unreservedly positive or supportive. Being criticized is part and parcel of what they're doing, whether for their message, their methods, or both. There's an old saying about what to do if one is in the kitchen and the heat is too much.

Civil disobedience involves taking action and accepting the consequences. Protesting students who were in violation of their university's code of conduct were given plenty of warnings, likewise those who were in violation of the law. For those who chose to stay the course, part of that course is accepting the consequences, whether those flow from the university, the legal system, or both.

...they are intelligent American Citizens and have a right to their perspective even if you think they are wrong.

Given some of the things they've done and said, I question their intelligence, which is nothing more than my opinion. I never said they didn't have a right to their own opinions or perspectives. They don't, however, have the right to break the law while expressing it, nor do they have the right to demand immunity from the consequences for doing so.

The vast majority are not violent or anti-semitic.

Then I suggest they loudly and publicly disavow those who are lest those opinions and actions reflect poorly on their movement. To date, such disavowal has not been forthcoming, to the best of my knowledge. Every day there are instances of protesters harassing Jewish students. A female Jewish student was beaten at UCLA yesterday. It would behoove the organizers of the protest there to denounce that action. Again, to the best of my knowledge, they haven't done so.

Many are Jewish.

And? That doesn't confer upon them moral clarity or superiority, nor does it add any particular weight to their opinions or perspectives. For every protester who is Jewish, you can probably find just as many or more Jewish people who disagree with them. So this point is neither here nor there.

In a democracy, there is a diversity of opinion; that is the point.

I never said there wasn't or shouldn't be a diversity of opinion in a democracy. I did say that they don't have carte blanche to express those opinions in any way they wish, consequence-free, and I stand by that.

If you do not listen to them, you lose them.

You're conflating listening to them and doing as they demand. Individuals or the Democratic Party as a whole can certainly listen to them and consider their perspective, but neither individuals nor the party as a whole are obligated to bow to their demands. This is particularly true when they're demanding simple, facile solutions to complex and difficult geopolitical issues. Bowing to the demands of an uninformed but vocal minority is not, in my opinion, good political strategy or sound governance. Your mileage may vary.

And if you shut down the diversity of opinion, you no longer have a democracy.

Disagreeing with them, criticizing their message and methods, is not "shutting down the diversity of opinion", no matter how much you try to frame it in those terms. Consequences for lawlessness likewise is not "shutting down the diversity of opinions". They can express their opinion and voice their perspective without breaking the law. If they choose to do otherwise, let them bear the consequences of that choice. It really is just that simple.

[Progressive dog]

23. How are they slandered?

They are the ones who are loudly slandering those who disagree with them while giving aid and comfort to HAMAS terrorists, intentionally or not.
Seizure of property and verbal intimidation is violent. Many of them have proven themselves antisemitic by their own words.
The White House statement on Sunday came after videos posted online appeared to show some protesters expressing support for the 7 October attacks.

"While every American has the right to peaceful protest, calls for violence and physical intimidation targeting Jewish students and the Jewish community are blatantly antisemitic, unconscionable, and dangerous," the statement read.

"And echoing the rhetoric of terrorist organisations, especially in the wake of the worst massacre committed against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, is despicable."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68871751

[returnee]

7. I'm not critiquing their ideas.

I’m worried about anything that leads voters away from Biden is this particular instance.

[TomSlick]

15. Exactly.

Bibi would like nothing better than to see Trump elected. If Trump is elected, Bibi will have free rein in Gaza.

[CincyDem]

29. It Trump is elected, both Gaza and The US will long for the good old days of early 2024. n/t

[Big Blue Marble]

16. In rejecting them with such heavy-handed tactics,

the Biden Administration increases the risk of losing their vote.
The more disaffected they feel, less likely they are to vote for
Biden. It is a dangerous game the Democratic Party is playing and
we and our democracy are on the line.

[Cha]

32. Those who don't vote for Pres Biden

Last edited Thu May 2, 2024, 04:16 AM - Edit history (2)

have no idea how bad things are going to get for the whole world if TSF gets in Again.

And, for what.. because they fell for all the Gaslit Bullshit Propaganda spread about him.. by those who want to bring him down.

[PufPuf23]

42. Why do keep posting tweets from Collin Rupp?

Collin Rupp is an owner of Trending Politics and a Trump and Musk supporter.

https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/

Look at the articles. All are anti-Biden and pro-Trump.

Have pointed this out to you in the past.

Does not help POTUS Biden at all.

[TomSlick]

37. You are conflating things.

The Biden administration and the Democratic party don't run colleges or control their reactions to protests.

The protesters, are playing the dangerous game and risk destroying the US, Israel and the Palestinian people.

[AnrothElf]

18. What "students"? 80% of the protesters arrested in Tempe, AZ were not students, staff, or faculty

Last edited Fri May 3, 2024, 12:52 AM - Edit history (2)

And most of the people arrested at Columbia weren't, either.

It's not "students". Just like it's not "genocide".

It's ratfucking, plain and simple.

EDIT: Now that this post has been reinstated, I have corrected the reply title, from "89%" to "80%", as per the local Arizona news source from whence I thenceforth derived it, yo.

With receipts:

Officials said about 80% of those arrested were not ASU students, faculty or staff.

https://www.12news.com/article/news/politics/police-remove-pro-palestinian-protesters-from-asu/75-7aef3345-782e-47ee-bf17-104ffe86784b

[JustAnotherGen]

38. The Democratic Party

Is not sending in the police.

[B.See]

41. No they aren't. But Trump has made it quite clear

what HE'D have done to the protestors. And what he wants Bibi to do in Gaza as well.

Go ahead, fk around, and let the Devil himself back into the Oval Office.

Trump says police clearing Columbia protesters was ‘a beautiful thing to watch’ - The Hill

[JustAnotherGen]

43. And Biden has made quite clear

That these Adults are wrong.

[Ocelot II]

2. Some good observations, but there are also some big differences

between now and then. 1968 was already chaotic; the convention wasn't long after the assassinations of both MLK and Bobby Kennedy - and the loss of RFK made the nomination of the "establishment" candidate, Humphrey, more likely. Humphrey had been LBJ's VP and was therefore associated with the Vietnam war, which had become extremely unpopular - not just because it was a dumb, pointless war, but more specifically because of the draft. Humphrey's only competition was now the antiwar candidate, Gene McCarthy. Just before RFK was killed he delegate count was Humphrey 561.5, Kennedy 393.5, and McCarthy 258, but after that his delegates were uncommitted, and now the two factions were competing for those votes. In the meantime, the very authoritarian and very anti-protest mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley, took an adversarial approach to the protesters who had gathered outside the convention center, which he ordered encircled with barbed wire, while deploying 11,000 officers of the Chicago Police Department and 6,000 armed men from the Illinois National Guard. Inevitably there would be clashes between the protesters and the police, and many acts of violence committed by police officer against unarmed, peaceful protesters were broadcast live. Nevertheless, enough people sided with Daley's tactics to throw the extremely close election to Nixon.

What's different about this year are the following facts:

1. The Democratic Party itself is not now deeply divided despite the Israel/Gaza situation.
2. There is no serious competition for the nomination.
3. Protesters will be trying to influence the party's and Biden's foreign policy wrt Israel, not trying to influence the selection of a nominee.
4. There is no Mayor Daley to deploy police for the express purpose of suppressing protests or arresting and beating up protesters.
5. The 1968 protests were directed at our own country's foreign policy, not at some other country's over which our government's influence or control is limited.
6. None of the protesters in those days were displaying hostility toward some other nationality or ethnic group, or blaming innocent American members of any such group for the actions of those who were actually waging the war.

There might be some incidents involving protesters during the convention, though I don't think we'll see anything like 1968. But I do hope the protesters keep in mind that any vandalism or violence can seriously backfire against them, their cause, and the rest of us.

[returnee]

9. Thanks for all those details.

A very deep and enlightening historical review.
I was more focused on the similarities and how those similarities might presage the danger of TSF getting elected.
Despite the differences, I still see the danger.

[Hassler]

26. All good points. And Biden is the sitting president, not a candidate

[LisaM]

31. Another difference is that I believe Biden is actively seeking a ceasefire.

Of course, he is dealing with two actors (Netenyahu and Hamas) who don't wish the conflict to end. But I sincerely believe that Biden does and is working towards that end. He's no Nixon. One of my biggest frustrations with all this is that Biden is shouldering blame that he does not deserve.

[Ocelot II]

33. I agree.

[Ping Tung]

35. An excellent summary of what happened in Chicago.

One should also remember that their were protests inside the convention by anti-war members of the convention.

Humphrey didn't lose because of the protesters. He lost because Nixon promised "Peace With Honor" and Humphrey just offered more of the same as LBJ delivered. The voters didn't want to "lose" the war, they wanted to get out of it by winning.

Nixon's "peace with honor" was to escalate the war even more and kill even more than had already been killed by LBJ's policies to “Bring the coon-skin home and hang it on the wall” which he declared.

As it turned out, of course, is that the protesters didn't lose the war to LBJ, Humphrey, or Nixon. The Vietnamese won the war, Nixon lost his office, and Jimmy Carter became one of the best presidents in our history.

[Ocelot II]

36. Very good summary of the aftermath - you are quite correect

in saying that more voters wanted to end the war by winning it, which is what Nixon promised. That wasn't ever going to happen, though, which is why Nixon didn't want the Pentagon Papers leaked.

[mopinko]

3. i'm not far from northwestern. have half a mind to mosey down.

i dont have a lot of faith in the kids that go there, tho. i dont eat in evanston any more cuz they’re the 1s waiting tables most places. it’s not good, if 4 no other reason than it’s not their real job.

[senseandsensibility]

5. Saw a great sign at one of the protests

C'mon People Now, Smile on Your Brother with a big smilie face. That's the kind of 60's attitude we need more of!

[ShazzieB]

11. I love that!

Really takes me back...

?si=SIwWvr0npIAylQgD

[senseandsensibility]

17. Thanks

Love that song (and the lyrics)!

[BannonsLiver]

30. And then what happened to most of those "60's attitude" people?

Oh, that’s right….

[IronLionZion]

45. 1972 might make your point better than 1980

[brooklynite]

34. I'm not impressed...

Because there seems to be a very subjective view of who constitutes a "brother"...and who does not.

Christians were told to "lover your brother as yourself" but fought each other for 2,000 years.

Israelites were happy to buy slaves as long as they came from "the heathen that surround you".

Pro-Israel demonstrators may not see their opponents as their "brothers", but pro-Gaza demonstrators don't either.

[senseandsensibility]

39. Signs at rallies are not stating that the way things are or have been

is cool. They are usually aspirational. I would put treating others as your brothers or sisters in that category. If we could do that this issue and many others would be solved.

[IronLionZion]

44. Everybody get together

Try to love one another right now

[Mr.Bill]

6. Here's some 50+ year old music to go with the current times.

From the first album by the Chicago Transit Authority:

I saw them at my first rock concert shortly after this album was released.

[Raven]

8. Reading the posts above me, Im thinking that we can slice and dice this thing six ways to Sunday but the

bottom line is that if we don't put all of these differences aside and vote for the only decent person on the ballot, we won't see another ballot, at lease not an honest one. I graduated from college in 1968; I was a student organizer in the "Dump Johnson" movement. We thought, when Johnson announced he was not going to run, that we had won. We didn't win. We got Nixon and more war and the beginnings of the modern Republican Party. Seeing these mistakes being repeated today makes me very, very sad.

[ClaudetteCC]

13. History rhymes

there are some parallels though i am not old enough to recall what happened in the earlier Chicago convention first hand.
that said, the US protesters of 1968 were animated by US involvement in a foreign war. The current protesters are animated by a specific war between 2 entities on another continent. They don't seem to give the same interest to Ukraine/Russia or myriad other conflicts or problems faced by Uigurs, Armenians, or those in Burkina Faso, Nigeria, etc.

[calimary]

20. Welcome to DU, ClaudetteCC!

Yes, it sure does rhyme. Being old enough to have been to a few anti-war protests in 1968, I appreciate your comparison.

[markodochartaigh]

25. Also where were these protesters

only a couple of years ago when Saudi Arabia was using US weapons to pound Yemeni civilians?

And, Welcome to DU!

[calimary]

19. Gee Whiz, returnee! You just came up with an ALL-TIME-GREAT slogan!!!

"If you make the perfect the enemy of the good, you will get the real enemy."

DAYUM that's good! DO NOT make the mistake of holding out for "perfect." There's no such thing as "perfect." And besides, a "perfect" candidate on our side is more likely to get shot by one of the bad guys than to win an election, if history is any guide. The merely good is ALWAYS a WHOLE LOT better than the absolutely monstrously awful.

[Bev54]

24. Without even taking sides, someone should be explaining to them that if they cast a protest

vote or don't vote at all and Trump is elected, they will no longer even have the right to protest anymore. He will have them shot in the streets.

[Rhiannon12866]

27. I wasn't old enough to vote, either, but I remember what my teacher said about this election

She said that she didn't care if Nixon or Humphrey was elected as long as it wasn't "that man Wallace!" Of course we know now, though it took 50 years, that Nixon was secretly colluding with the Vietnamese to thwart LBJ's peace negotiations, prolonging the war for another seven years, resulting in thousands of avoidable deaths on both sides.

[IronLionZion]

28. The nature of being young is they believe they have more room for mistakes

while older people are running out of time.

[David__77]

40. The war against Vietnam was immoral and criminal and needed to be stopped.

[JCMach1]

46. We were in an actual war with an ongoing draft... Does not come close

To supporting an ally in a war against an egregious terrorist act.

Most of the protest aims by groups tend to focus on the myopic nature of their protest.

Divestment will do almost nothing.

Their protests will do nothing to persuade, or change leadership in Israel.

The protests, in fact, are undermining their actual cause at this point.

So no, it's not 1968.

I
-100% do not support the protesters.
-Do not support Hamas for obvious reasons.
-Do not support the RW, Likuud government in Israel led by Netanyahu.

What I do support is the Israeli and Palestinian people. The only way that situation gets salvaged at all (hostage return, permanent ceasefire) is if the US President has a strong hand to push a negotiated settlement. Everything the protesters are doing is undermining the President.