MyDD :: 1968

1968

by Jerome Armstrong, Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:54:53 AM EST

It reminds me of a Nixon masterpiece. The visuals for the Republican presidential candidate's most pathbreaking commercials in 1968 featured only mood-setting stills. The one that began with Nixon intoning, "It is time for an honest look at the problem of order in the United States," flashed pictures of burned out buildings--no black rioters, just the consequences of what rampaging blacks did. Then, finally, on a rubble-strewn street, a close-up of a mannequin that, if you weren't paying attention, could scan subconsciously as a naked white woman lying helpless in the middle of the street: Birth of a Nation time.

The genius FNB politics is that it can make those who diagnose it sound like barking moonbats. Sometimes you have a case. Sometimes, you're just being paranoid (Matt Druge says "Dems rumble in Hollywood jungle; Clinton-Obama throwdown"--Aha! Jungle!--and "Obama team takes a 'Lincoln Bedroom' shot"). And it's often only in retrospect that the game seems truly deliberate. In 1952, Nixon used the word "traitor" to describe Dean Acheson, Adlai Stevenson, and Harry Truman. Outrageous!, Democrats responded. Whatever do you mean?, Nixon said in wounded tones, claiming he'd been misunderstood; he only meant they were "traitors to the high principles in which many of the nation's Democrats believe." Today, it's obvious that he meant to suggest, you know, the crime of treason.

The bonus: His charge also revealed liberals as shrieking and hypersensitive. That's the problem with FNB politics, and Reagan showed it better than anyone. He used to make jokes: About Africans, "When they have a man for lunch, they really have him for lunch." So, when gubernatorial candidate Pat Brown distributed a pamphlet ("Ronald Reagan, Extremist Collaborator--An Exposé") of such quotations in 1966, it backfired. Reagan was making a joke! Why are these liberals so humorless?

On the note of the '68 campaign, a must read by Richard Bryne, Selling it Short (which includes the commercials Rick mentions above).

I'm still reading Nixonland at home, but while I've been up this week for my son's "Rookie" camp at Ripken field, I've been reading the baseball/cultural book "October 1964" by David Halberstam.

Tags: 1968 (all tags)

Permalink :: 14 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: 1968 (1.00 / 1)

So Jerome, can I ask you to take your post a step further... how does this play in the election today? And the Dem primary last Spring?

I don't ask this to raise old wounds, but we do have the benefit of hindsight with the Dem primary -- and we have the hindsight with time to use that information going forward in the general election.

It feels like the perfect time to try to understand the role of race in the two campaigns -- especially since this site has had no shortage of people still hurting -- and still discussing -- from the charges of racism or racial messaging from the primaries.

I'll add my own thoughts so as not to demand what I won't provide: I still believe, like the McCain camp, the Clintons realized that racism, though wrong, runs deep, and that there was opportunity in exploiting it. History, I don't believe, will be kind to the "Hard Working Americans, White Americans" line, but at the time, many Obama supporters here were ridiculed for being upset by comments like that.

At the same time, the Obama campaign used the optics of racism to consolidate support during the primaries. I still think the Iraq vote was the reason Hillary lost, but the drain of black support for her -- once a key part to her commanding poll leads -- can't be understated.0

I don't recall your take on these suspected 'dog whistles' at the time, Jerome, but I am curious what you think now. And if -- as I believe -- the McCain camp is clearly playing the whistle now, is Obama up to the task of repelling it?

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:07:58 PM EST

1968 =/= 2008 (none / 0)

The 1968 shoe fits poorly. While there are some strong similarities, there are also key differences.

In a sense, the dog whistle racist attacks have already worked.

In an era of Internet of 24/7 cable news, talk radio, and the internet, everyone already knows Obama is )half) black -- those people aren't going to vote for him.

The key difference between 1968 and 2008 is that the makeup of the country and the mood are radically different. Those people aren't enough this time around.

by iohs2008 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:39:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1968 (2.00 / 1)

I said very little about it during the primaries, and banned many that were quick to make racial accusations. In my mind, for one Democrat to call another Democrat a "racist" is about as low as it gets. It should only be done when its true, in which case they are a Republican.

By far, its the low-point of modern-day Democratic Party politics. I doubt it will be a story though thats told often, as no doubt, those on both sides that partook in it are ashamed and would like to think it never happened.

Especially though, the accusations against Bill Clinton, those were the very worst.

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:50:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1968 (none / 0)

In the West Virginia democratic primary:

Racially motivated voting ran somewhat higher than elsewhere: Two in 10 whites said the race of the candidate was a factor in their vote, second only to Mississippi. Just 31 percent of those voters said they'd support Obama against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, fewer than in other primaries where the question's been asked.

We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.

by Jess81 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1968 (2.00 / 1)

Yep. Nixon's 1968 "Law and Order" tv ad campaign was brilliant and probably the best in presidential campaign history, Reagan '84 notwithstanding.

Watch Nixon ruthlessly mock Hubert Humphrey, here.

by blueflorida on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:12:21 PM EST

Re: 1968 (none / 0)

I do see a lot of parallels to 1968, which was the last great geographic alignment in politics. The Democratic Party was running out of steam and a group of young, hungry Republican operatives like Pat Buchanan unshered in a period of GOP dominance. The Republican Party is now tired and voters appear to be dying to throw off the baggage of the late 80's through the 90's. But change is never easy. All the pundits who question why it is so close between Obama and McCain are either unaware or ignoring the fact that the 1968 election was very close between Nixon and Humphrey (actually, the 1980 election was also close right up to the very end). The only thing we have missing is a George Wallace. 1968 was a brutish year and 2008 will be no different.

by RandyMI on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:12:51 PM EST

Re: 1968 (none / 0)

'80, not. Thereason why '80 swung was because the media, up to the debates, had made Reagan out to be a Goldwater repeat. Now ask yourself, is the media making Obama out to be a repeat of Mondale or McGovern? No, he's already got about as good as it gets with the media, there's no bounce to be had there, he's not like Reagan, in terms of positioning, at all.

More likely, Obama is very near both his ceiling and his floor, of support. I believe Obama would benefit greatly from a low turn-out election from those that usually vote, and a high turn-out election from those that are first-time voters. The former just happened in the '06 election, so if that repeats, then what Obama would benefit from is the youth, black, liberal professional, and under 50 Latino turnout.

I'm not sure which election that makes it the correlative to, but it's where I'd look.

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:56:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's a trap, not an attack (2.00 / 1)

Many people don't appear to realized that most Republican "dog-whistle" politics isn't meant to convince bigots "I'm on your side," the bigots already know that. Dog-whistles are meant to provoke an over-reaction which alienates the opponent from the voters, as Alinsky says "the real action is in the enemy's reaction."

Obama has avoided most of these traps, but many in left blogistan can't help taking the bait.

by souvarine on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:33:17 PM EST

Re: 1968 (none / 0)

Noted Bob Somerby yesterday on HOW OUR SIDE LOSES ELECTIONS:

...We think Tom Brokaw showed poor judgment in staging this surrogate match-up [Leiberman/Kerry]. (In our view, Brokaw has been amazingly bad in his month on Meet the Press.) The optics here were fairly clear: All Republicans favor McCain--and so does a big famous Democrat. It would be fine to stage a debate, as others have done, in which Lieberman promotes McCain's stance on Iraq while Hagel promotes Obama's; there's facial parity in such a battle. But we think yesterday's match-up was poorly conceived. By its nature, it was "more prejudicial than probative," in a way which favored McCain.

That said, the two solons debated, for half an hour. And uh-oh! We thought Lieberman massacred Kerry, especially in the first ten minutes, in which Kerry did what our side did all last week: Yelled "eek-a-mouse" about the idea that McCain would have run that vile, naughty ad. That ad--the ad with Britney Spears in it! Good heavens! Dear Jesus! How dare he?

In our view, liberal reaction was foolish all week. On Sunday, we thought Kerry got massacred as he boo-hooed, blubbered, wept and wailed about that naughty ad. Almost surely, David Gergen then made matters worse with his view of another McCain ad.

What happened last week when McCain ran that ad? Instead of laughing at the ad and saying it showed that McCain is a fly-weight, we did what we most love to do--we started a fight about race, casting ourselves as the high-minded party and squealing, shrieking, complaining and yelping about McCain's misconduct. Josh Marshall was one who leaped to this stance, insisting that the use of Spears and Hilton was racial--and racially troubling. Yesterday, the results began rolling in--and only a certain kind of "liberal" could be surprised by the numbers. At TPM, Josh posted the following e-mail. Later, he had to clean up what the e-mailer said about Tapper:

E-MAIL TO TPM (8/3/08): Disquieting Rasmussen numbers this morning--McCain's crying racism worked. 53 percent of Americans, including the same percentage of whites and half of all Democrats, think that Obama's "dollar bill" remark was "racist." Only 22 percent think the Paris Hilton ad was racist--most of those being black people, of course (only 18 percent of white people took this view)...

As Pearlstein notes, it's all they've got, and how Somerby reminds us, it's their standard MO. Screaming racism at every turn may have thrown Clinton off her game and may have worked in the Dem primaries, but we're not in the Dem primaries anymore, Toto. So how about a concerted effort to avoid traps Dems, and Dem bloggers.

by JohnS on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:58:02 PM EST

Re: 1968 (none / 0)

What does FNB stand for?

$439Billion spent on the US Military and still no universal health care.

by jlars on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:13:59 PM EST

Re: 1968 (none / 0)

Read the Pearlstein article (via Jerome's link).

by JohnS on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:42:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1968 (none / 0)

I would, but my PDA doesn't seem to be loading the article. Would you mind humoring me with a direct answer?

$439Billion spent on the US Military and still no universal health care.

by jlars on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]