Déjà Vu in Chicago: History Poised to Repeat at 2024 Democratic Convention

 

The 2024 Chicago convention, set against the backdrop of civil unrest and anti-war protests, risks becoming a flashpoint for the Democratic Party, eerily reminiscent of the chaotic and violent scenes of 1968.

Ready for another round of déjà vu? It seems Chicago is once again poised to play host to a convention that could spiral into chaos, just as it did in 1968. While some may scoff at the idea, citing Kamala Harris’s policy contrasts with Hubert Humphrey or the war in Gaza not reaching the fever pitch of Vietnam, history has a funny way of repeating itself in unexpected ways.

Picture this: the Democrats descend on Chicago, eager to unify behind Harris. But outside the convention hall, the streets are stirring. Protesters, fueled by anger over the U.S.'s stance on the Gaza war and broader social issues, are set to clash with local authorities. Sound familiar? In 1968, a similar mix of war, civil unrest, and political disillusionment transformed Chicago into a battleground. That year, Humphrey faced an anti-war movement that saw him as an extension of the Johnson administration and its support for the Vietnam War. Today, Harris finds herself in a parallel position. Though she’s distanced from Vietnam, she remains tethered to the Biden administration’s unwavering support for Israel—hardly a comfort to the Democratic Party’s left wing.

Just as Humphrey’s nomination was a coronation engineered by party insiders, Harris’s ascent to the top of the ticket smacks of political orchestration. Party elites have anointed her despite her failure to secure any primary victories. In 1968, the Democratic establishment dismissed the anti-war wing of the party, much to the detriment of unity. Likewise, Harris’s lukewarm reception from progressives suggests that the Democrats could once again be misreading the mood of their base. The war in Gaza, though not as costly in American lives as Vietnam, has left many on the left disillusioned, alienated, and deeply dissatisfied with the party’s direction.

And that alienation isn’t confined to the fringe. The Harris Poll’s "alienation index," which tracks the feelings of the general populace, stood at 66 last year—almost double what it was in 1968. Americans feel disconnected from their government, convinced that the rich continue to get richer while the average person is left behind. The same grievances that fed Nixon’s "silent majority" now fuel the rise of populism on both sides of the political spectrum. Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the "forgotten" Americans is an eerie echo of Nixon’s 1968 campaign, which capitalized on the widespread sense of alienation and despair. Trump, like Nixon, is angling to be the beneficiary of Democratic infighting and disenchantment.

Protesters in 2024, just as in 1968, find themselves at odds with the establishment wing of the party. Back then, Eugene McCarthy’s anti-war supporters stormed Chicago in hopes of forcing the Democrats to adopt a more progressive platform. This year, the Coalition to March on the Democratic National Convention is leading protests, criticizing Harris for paying "lip service" to progressive ideals without substantively altering U.S. foreign policy. Hatem Abudayyeh, the coalition’s spokesperson, is convinced that the Democrats will ignore their demands, just as they did with the anti-war protesters in 1968. The party insiders of the past failed to heed the calls for change and lost the election; history could be setting up a sequel.

Even inside the convention hall, the echoes of 1968 grow louder. Humphrey had to contend with significant opposition from within his own party, most notably from anti-war factions. Similarly, Harris may face dissent, though this time the anti-Israel left holds fewer cards. Despite efforts to recalibrate their rhetoric and demands, progressives find themselves outnumbered and underfunded. The pro-Israel lobby remains formidable, having successfully unseated two anti-Israel Democratic members of Congress earlier this year, thanks to millions in spending on negative ads.

Yet, despite these obstacles, the tensions simmer. The lack of unity over the war in Gaza has exposed deep fissures in the Democratic Party. In 1968, it wasn’t just the war that divided Democrats—it was the broader sense that the party had lost touch with its principles. Today’s Democrats face a similar crisis. On the one hand, they espouse progressive values on domestic issues like income inequality, racial justice, and climate change. On the other, they maintain an unwavering commitment to hawkish foreign policies, creating a cognitive dissonance that threatens to fracture their base.

For Harris, the stakes are high. Humphrey famously waffled on Vietnam, only belatedly breaking with Johnson’s policy when it became politically expedient. Harris faces a similar conundrum. If she distances herself from Biden’s stance on Israel, she risks alienating moderates and pro-Israel Democrats. But if she continues to align with Biden’s policies, she may further antagonize the left, creating an opening for a third-party challenge or suppressing turnout among disillusioned progressives.

This dilemma underscores the larger challenge facing the Democratic Party: balancing the demands of its increasingly progressive base with the political realities of a centrist establishment. The Chicago convention in 2024 could very well become a flashpoint, much like its 1968 predecessor. Back then, the convention was marred by violence, with police clashing with protesters in what a government commission later called a "police riot." While protest organizers this year hope for peaceful demonstrations, the potential for conflict remains. Chicago’s history of heavy-handed policing, combined with the charged atmosphere of a politically divided nation, could easily lead to confrontations that recall the brutal scenes of 1968.

Ultimately, the question remains: Will the 2024 convention prove to be a unifying moment for the Democrats, or will it further expose the rifts within the party? The lessons of 1968 suggest that ignoring internal dissent and suppressing calls for change is a recipe for disaster. In that year, the Democrats failed to address the concerns of the anti-war movement, leading to a fractured party and a devastating electoral loss to Nixon. Harris and the Democratic leadership must tread carefully to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

But perhaps, in the end, history is not cyclical but rather a broken record that occasionally skips. And as the Democrats march into Chicago once more, they may find themselves stuck in the same old groove, replaying a tune they should have long since changed. Because, after all, what’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.