By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
August 14, 2000
On "Meet the Press" yesterday, Tim Russert asked Senator Joe Lieberman, Al Gore’s choice for vice-president, "What do you think are the most important issues facing the country?"
LIEBERMAN: The most important is how do we keep the economic prosperity going. I sure think that Al Gore and I have a better idea of how to do that, building on the record of the last eight years. And then, how to bring more people into the winner's circle, working people who have not enjoyed all the benefits of the economy.I think there are some other issues that haven't received as much attention in the past as they should, like how do we better protect the environment, give people clean air and clean water. And what can we in government do, not so much through the law, although sometimes, but to work with the families of America to help the moral center, the moral health of this country."
The very existence of Sen. Joseph Lieberman on the Democrat ticket mentioning the moral health of the country is remarkable. Lieberman has gained his reputation over the past few years as he had attempted to, in his words, "shame the leaders of the entertainment industry to say, look, draw a line. Won't you please decide that going over that line can make you a few more dollars, but it's just not worth it, because it's harmful to our children and our whole society.
"We're coming dangerously close in the entertainment industry, much as we prize our liberties, to the point where they're going to invite legal restrictions on their freedom because they are beginning to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and they're going to be held accountable."
Could we actually be close to the DEMOCRATS of all people advocating censorship, especially censorship of the entertainment industry which has put millions into the coffers for Bill Clinton, and Al Gore? Could be. In spite of an aura of self-confidence that the American people won’t oust the Administration in office if the economy is good, the Democrats know that is not necessarily the case. That’s not what happened back in 1968 when Richard Nixon was elected. It was the constant attacks and stirring up class warfare that just wearied a whole lot of the American people.
There are some interesting similarities between the year 1968 and the year 2000. There was general prosperity in 1968. In the first eight years of the 1960s, when the White House was occupied by John F. Kennedy and/or Lyndon Johnson, ten million new jobs were created in the United States, unemployment dropped by 40 per cent and the number of persons living below the poverty line declined from 40 million to 26 million. The general level of health and education increased substantially, despite the war in Vietnam (or, perhaps, because of the war in Vietnam, since staying in school was the best method of avoiding the draft.) The threat of nuclear war seemed less.
Yet, the year 1968 was a year of turmoil. In spite of the sharp reduction in the number of poor, the remaining poor became radicalized, along with the anti-Vietnam war activists. The so-called "New Left" used violent protests and disruption as their means of dialogue, using disruption and bad manners as their definition of "freedom." It was the time period when the slogan among the New Left was "you can’t trust anyone over 30."
In September of 1968, Hubert Humphrey flew into Rochester, New York for a rally and, as an editorial page columnist, I was there, with two of my sons, ages 11 and 8, to report on the event. As we waited for the airplane to arrive a group of "New Left" protesters in front of me kept raising their arms in a stiff, Nazi-style salute, with two fingers upraised in a V sign.
The dialogue began when a man, probably in his fifties, asked what the sign meant. One of them said it was "the New Left’s symbol for victory."
"Oh, said the man. "I thought it meant something else. When I was in school, it meant you were asking permission to go to the bathroom. I thought I would tell you it is right over there." The New Left sneered and called the man a "typical, middle-aged, stupid jackass."
By 1968 the nation had been though almost eight years of turmoil, including several high level assassinations. John F. Kennedy had captured the admiration of the media, in spite of the fact that his foreign policy, like Bill Clinton’s foreign policy, was composed mostly of failures. Although the "New Left" composed of people LIKE Bill Clinton hated the Vietnam War, their wrath was never directed at the president who got America so involved in Vietnam - John F. Kennedy. The media defended Kennedy during the Cuban Missile crisis, when there was a real concern that it could end in nuclear war, yet it was Kennedy’s foreign policy failures for the missiles to have been in Cuba in the first place.
I wrote at the time "In spite of nearly 200 years experience in democracy in our country it occurs to me in every presidential election campaign that a sizable number of Americans still …seem to be looking for a king, not a president. …The electorate did not blame President Kennedy for his failures. The Kennedys were rich, handsome, well-educated, articulate and made a wonderful substitute royalty with their style and flair…."
One of the concerns being expressed as the Democrat convention opens in Los Angeles is whether or not it will experience the same kind of street violence that took place at the 1968 Democrat Convention. If it doesn’t, it’s not because the marchers aren’t TRYING to create a confrontation.
"More than a thousand raucous demonstrators ended their march through downtown Los Angeles this afternoon with a rally in front of the Staples Center, the site of the upcoming Democratic National Convention," the Los Angeles Times article begins in today’s paper.
"Scores of police officers in riot gear watched warily through the glass face plates on their helmets as the noisy but mostly peaceful marchers wound their way from the assembly point at Pershing Square, the city's downtown park, to the Staples Center convention site about a mile away.
"There were no confrontations and no arrests.
"Marchers chanted and banged on makeshift drums as they walked down Broadway, demanding a new trial for Death Row inmate and Philadelphia journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal, as well as an end to the death penalty in the United States.
"About 40 self-described anarchists, clad in black--black tennis shoes, black jeans, black shirts and black bandannas shrouding their faces--jeered police, shouting obscenities and "L-A-P-D, Go Away. Racist, Sexist, Anti-Gay."
"Despite the taunts--and the 90-degree heat--the police stayed cool. They ignored a 12-foot puppet mimicking a police officer that sprayed tear gas, and ignored a demonstrator who literally bounced himself off the baton"
The protesters seem to almost be part of a time warp. It’s a technique from another era, strangely out of place in the Information Age. I thought of the dialogue at the Rochester Airport in 1968, which pitted liberal supporters of Hubert Humphrey against radical anti-Vietnam War protesters who wanted to keep the people from hearing what Hubert Humphrey said that day because, they said, Humphrey "hasn’t anything worth saying. He only appeals to the unintelligent, stupid, middle class with their childish notions of empty patriotism."
At that, he was interrupted. An elderly woman turned around and snapped, "Unintelligent, are me! Unintelligent! Huh! You haven’t said one intelligent thing yet!" Of course that led to a discussion of intelligence, which the young protesters claimed they had more of than anyone else. One of the protesters said "You people all want to squelch freedom of speech just like the police in Chicago."
That was too much for my 11 year old son, Gary, who was leaning on his Humphrey sign listening to this exchange between a group of supposed adults. He folded his arms, looked the lead protester in the eye and said: "If you don’t like the vice president, then you must be against him. If you are against him and you don’t want to listen to him, why didn’t you stay home and watch television? Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can interrupt and yell at the vice president."
The protester, challenged not by a member of the "over 30" generation whom he held in contempt, but by someone who considered HIM part of the "older generation" was momentarily speechless. The rest of the people standing around began to smile. Hubert Humphrey came and went, without the planned disruption - not because of police in riot gear, but because an 11 year old’s logic silenced the protesters bent on disruption.
When the election of 1968, in spite of the good economy and the reduced numbers of people in poverty, the voters dumped the Democrats. Strangely, when people today talk about the current good economy and reduced poverty, they tell us that good times means the party in power always wins.
It doesn’t and it didn’t in 1968. Why? Primarily because the man and woman on the street were just sick and tired of the left wing’s bad manners, contentiousness, constant harangues and class warfare. For the last eight years the public has been listening to the 1999s version of that technique. Clinton and the Democrats have made class warfare the cornerstone of their program and, frankly, it’s just getting old. If, as everyone expects, Al Gore and the Democrats continue the Clinton tactics of attack, attack and attack, they may well find themselves facing a solidly Republican victory in November.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
