Skip to main content

That 1968 Vibe



On a SLATE comment thread, I recently wrote as follows:

Is it just me, or does all this have a very 1968 vibe for anyone else? Here as there, the incumbent President is a Democrat. In '68, of course, LBJ was eligible to run again, but was knocked out early. Let's ignore that difference for a moment and see what else lines up.
There are two Democrats each with a plausible claim to continue the incumbent administration, for those who WANT to see it continued. There is a former cabinet member (Attorney General or Secretary of State, as the case may be) on the one side, and the sitting Vice President on the other. The establishment of the Dems could live with either of them.  There is also a very non-establishment figure coming off from the flanks, with a surprisingly strong following in the base, call him Eugene or Bernie as you please. All very '68.
The signature domestic accomplishment of the incumbent is in the area of health care reform, Medicare/Medicaid. Overseas, of course, there is an endless tunnel of violence and escalation.  
Oh, did I mention that the former cabinet member/candidate has a famous family name, reminding voters not of the incumbent but of the Democratic President before that?  All very '68. Of course I wish Secretary Clinton a long happy life, so there are some respects in which I very much don't want this analogy to hold. 
The point though is, Humphrey/Biden emerged from that nominating process triumphant but weakened, and it all helped bring about the Presidency of Richard Nixon.

A fellow calling himself Guinnessmonkey replied:

What?  Where, exactly, are American soldiers currently dying by the thousands, 'cause I must have missed that.
Though yes, Bernie = Eugene.  That wing of the Democratic Party runs one every few years, particularly after the Dems have held the White House for two terms.  It makes them forget what it's like to have a GOP president (often because they're too young to remember), so they start talking in terms of ideological purity instead of electability.

To which I in turn wrote:

hat the overseas violence hasn't played itself out the way it did in the '60s doesn't really hurt the analogy. The more antiseptic killing through drones is sufficient to fuel the sort of resentment Bernie/Eugene can tap. 
Another key point: if Biden does get into the race, Hilary will surely move to the left. She's now positioned as a centrist, like her old "triangulating" husband. Or, for that matter, like Robert Kennedy, whose signature accomplishment as AG had been to put a prominent labor leader in prison. A bit of triangulation before the word, there. 
Anyway, IF Biden gets in, expect him to lock up the centrist support, and Hillary to move left to co-opt Bernie's support. Which was Kennedy's play-book in '68.  Her belated discovery that Keystone might be a bad idea is an example, but so far just a small step. 

------------------------------- 

I just wanted to share.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak