When the Ghosts of 1968 Return

From the Center

Should the perfect be the enemy of the good? Or, to put a more accurate but rhetorically awkward twist on an old adage, should the perfect be the enemy of the somewhat better? 

“Good” and “better” are extremely subjective terms, especially in a debate about the tumultuous geopolitics of the Middle East. But as Democrats gather this week for their national party convention, these two questions will define what happens on the streets of Chicago and how much or how little the thousands of protestors who have descended upon the Windy City will impact what goes on inside the United Center. Which in turn will teach us whether and how they will affect Kamala Harris’ path forward once she leaves the convention and heads back out on the campaign trail.

In the weeks leading up to Joe Biden’s sudden departure of the race, there was immense media attention focused specifically on those who were planning to gather to protest Biden’s ongoing support for Israel in the Gaza War. Much of that attention subsided when Harris announced her candidacy, but it’s become apparent that thousands of pro-Palestinian activists are planning large and potentially disruptive protests throughout the week.

At the time this was written when the convention was just getting underway, there is no way to predict how extensive and how confrontational the demonstrations will be. But it’s clear that while Harris has been much stronger in her call for a ceasefire than Biden and places much greater emphasis on the plight of the Palestinian people, her substantive policy approach to the Middle East is indistinguishable from Biden’s. And that’s not nearly good enough for the White House’s strongest critics, who are intending to make sure their displeasure is heard over the next few days.

As Mark Twain may have said, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes. And when the Democrats gathered in this very city back in 1968, another sitting vice president who had unexpectedly become the party nominee was saddled with the unpopular legacy of the outgoing president. Hubert Humphrey didn’t separate himself from Lyndon Johnson on the Vietnam War until more than a month after the convention, when Humphrey announced in a televised speech that if he was elected, he would put an end to the bombing of North Vietnam and called for a ceasefire. But the convention at which he was nominated was defined by the protests against a policy from which he had not yet separated himself. That chaos created an ideal contrast for his opponents when juxtaposed against Richard Nixon’s law-and-order message, and helped cost him the election.

The war in Gaza is not nearly the political albatross that Vietnam was back in that era, and it’s difficult to see Harris moving away from Biden’s Middle East plan substantively as opposed to rhetorically. But even if he chose to do so, it’s not going to happen this week. Which means that Harris will be on the receiving end of a great deal of populist ultra-progressive rage. The cries of “Killer Kamala” are not nearly as loud as those of “Genocide Joe”, but that balance is likely to shift by the end of the week. 

Harris herself recently exhibited some frustration toward anti-Israel protestors when they repeatedly interrupted her speech, admonishing them by saying: "You know what? If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I'm speaking."

The vice president’s core argument, laced with a noticeable amount of peevishness, was to suggest that those who oppose her and Biden’s plan for Gaza would find Trump’s agenda even more objectionable. Trump himself has made a similar case to strongly pro-life voters, many of whom are dissatisfied with his position that decisions regarding abortion restrictions and legality should be left to the states. But he maintains the support of most social conservatives, who have decided that what they see as Trump’s less-than-ideal plan is still far preferable to the Democrats’ much stronger pro-choice beliefs.

Harris, on the other hand, runs the risk of watching many committed progressives decide to either cast a ballot for a third-party candidate or sit the election out altogether. In a closely contested election, these non-voters could tip the balance in key swing states. By the end of this week, we’ll have a much better sense of how deep their anger runs and whether they pose a threat to Harris’ candidacy.

Want to talk about this topic more? Join Dan for his webinar, “The Dan Schnur Political Report." And read more of Dan’s writing at www.danschnurpolitics.com.

Dan Schnur is a Professor at the University of California – Berkeley, Pepperdine University, and the University of Southern California, where he teaches courses in politics, communications and leadership. Dan is a No Party Preference voter, but previously worked on four presidential and three gubernatorial campaigns, serving as the national Director of Communications for the 2000 presidential campaign of U.S. Senator John McCain and the chief media spokesman for California Governor Pete Wilson. He has a Center bias.

This piece was reviewed and edited by Clare Ashcraft, Bridging & Bias Specialist (Center bias).