On the first night of the Democratic National Committee Convention (DNCC), comedian and actor, Sarah Silverman, in an unscripted moment on stage, said to “Bernie-or-Bust’ people: You’re being ridiculous!”
After thinking about this for a short time, her words brought me back to the 1968 DNCC in Chicago. I became very angry as I imagined how I would have responded if she had said something similar to those of us who were fully committed to Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota even after it was apparent he wouldn’t become the Democratic Party’s standard bearer that year. So I wonder now how Silverman resonated with Bernie’s supporters around the country.
Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota courageously challenged a sitting President of his own party, and along the way, he captured our imagination, our hearts, and our minds.
|
I turned 21 in May 1968, and, therefore, I was authorized to vote for the first time since back then, the legal voting age was 21. However, at the age of 18, I, my friends, and classmates were old enough to be eligible to fight and die in Vietnam: a War I actively protested and worked vigorously to bring to an end. Many like myself viewed the War as a blatantly criminal, illegal, and unjustified invasion and occupation that brought misery and death to our military and to the people of Vietnam in the North and the South.
As an undergraduate student at San José State University until 1969, I joined the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to oppose the War. I helped organize demonstrations, attended and led study groups and sit-ins, while I also worked to improve conditions in student off-campus housing. I also joined in activities to challenge racism on our campus.
Though I became involved in my Young Democrats group in High School in early to mid-1960s, and even ran and was elected as Secretary of our group named after then Vice President of the United States, Hubert H. Humphrey, my deep political education took off in college. Looking back, I remember much more what I learned outside the classroom than in my courses, for those were truly exciting and terrifying times of war, riots, and political assassinations.
While we lauded President Lyndon B. Johnson on his courageous leadership in the realm of his domestic policies, especially in his active and enthusiastic support for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act one year later, we saw how his military ventures had torn apart the country.
Stepping into the political void left in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party after what we saw as Humphrey’s capitulation to his administration’s disastrous hawkish military policies, a fresh and dynamic voice articulated the feelings and visions of a younger generation of concerned activists. Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota courageously challenged a sitting President of his own party, and along the way, he captured our imagination, our hearts, and our minds.
Running in the first state primary in New Hampshire that year, he garnered 42 percent to Johnson’s 49 percent of the vote. Four days later, seeing that Johnson could possibly loose his small lead in the primaries, New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy threw his hat in the ring. Though I and many of my peers liked Kennedy’s politics, the timing of his entry into the primary process smelled of pure opportunism rather than courage.
And then we were all completely thunderstruck with surprise watching Johnson give a televised address on March 31, 1968, when he suddenly uttered from the Oval Office that “I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.” Less than one month later, on April 27, Humphrey announced his candidacy.
Though I have seen instances of the Democratic Party placing its metaphoric thumb on the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton and against the candidacy of Bernie Sanders this year, this pales in comparison to the heavy hand that Party officials deposited on the scales to assure Hubert Humphrey’s nomination in 1968.
While my candidate, Eugene McCarthy, won by far the largest percent of the popular vote in the Democratic general primaries (approximately 3 million or 38.7 percent to Humphrey’s 161 thousand or 2.1 percent) in a crowded field of candidates, and Humphrey didn’t even bother to enter some of the state primaries, Party officials gave Humphrey the right to carry the Democratic banner as its Presidential nominee. It did this by awarding Humphrey the vast majority of overall delegates in the non-primary states, thereby bringing him over the top in terms of the number of delegates needed. Talk about “rigged elections”!
“By failing to vote for ‘the lesser of the two evils’ in 1968, did I really maintain my sense of integrity on the micro level, and did I serve the best interests of the country on the macro?”
|
By the time the election came around in November, I was so angry and discouraged by the electoral political process, I decided that if I were going to maintain any sense of integrity and ethical standards, I could not and would not vote for anyone that year, even though I considered Humphrey the least reprehensible relative to Richard Nixon.
The day before election day, two friends and I drove south down Highway 1 along the beautiful California coastline. We camped and played our acoustic guitars and violin beneath tall ancient redwoods overlooking crashing waves at Big Sur. Two days later, as we return to San José, by choice, we remained unaware of the election’s outcome.
At the time, I regretted nothing for my decision to opt out. I didn’t even feel troubled by losing all the points on the surprise pop quiz given by the professor in my Music Conducting class. My integrity remained in tack. Well, at least that’s what I thought until I reflected on the potential consequences and then the actual realities of a Nixon presidency.
For a full five additional years, the body bags carrying the fallen continued to pile up. The people of Vietnam, combatants and civilians alike, continued suffering the horrors of incinerated flesh and scorched fields and forests from the massive airdrops of Napalm from U.S. bombers, increasing the already massive profits by Dow Chemical Company, and other corporations.
Race relations worsened, as did the already large gap in wages and accumulated wealth between the socioeconomic classes. Nixon’s involvement in Watergate and his eventual resignation further divided the country.
So in retrospect, I ask myself the perennial two-part question, “By failing to vote for ‘the lesser of the two evils’ in 1968, did I really maintain my sense of integrity on the micro level, and did I serve the best interests of the country on the macro?”
Looking back now, I realize that in 1968 at the age of 21, I was functioning on a dualistic or binary cognitive development level. I perceived the world, people, and events as either “good” or “bad,” and pragmatism as “surrender.” Viewing both Humphrey and Nixon as “bad,” I could not honestly vote for either without surrendering my ideals and ethical standards.
Using this event as a constant touchstone document in my personal historical library, I now understand the cosmos more in its multiplicity, its nuance, along a continuum rather than as a binary. I also often consider pragmatism not so much as surrender, but more as compromise and as a necessary give and take.
For this reason, when Sarah Silverman reprimanded “Bernie or Bust” enthusiasts, I did not react with anger. On the contrary, I surprised myself by automatically shouting “You go girl!” with a wide, circular, three-point finger snap toward the TV screen.
But for other Bernie backers who are finding it difficult to transfer support to Hillary, you might want to consider the model used in the 2000 presidential election between Republican George W. Bush, Democrat Al Gore, and Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader.
That year many progressives wanted to vote for their preferred candidate, Nader, and, thereby, maintain their political values. On the other hand, many feared that by voting for Nader, people would in essence be casting their lot with Bush since Nader had as much change of rising to the Presidency as any individual does when purchasing a single ticket and winning a national Mega Bucks lottery.
At home under the Bush administration, we witnessed a gradual loosening of governmental regulations on Wall Street and the housing industry, which set the stage for the biggest downturn in domestic and international economies since the Great Depression.
|
I don’t know who or which group devised a strategy by which people who wanted to vote for Nader, but did not want Bush to ultimately win the election, to engage in a “vote-swapping” arrangement with a friend. This plan involved Nader supporters contacting an acquaintance who was intending to vote for Gore and lived in a “safe” blue Democratic state where Gore had a virtual lock. This person on election day would, instead of voting for Gore, cast a vote for Nader. In return, the initial Nader supporter would vote for Gore, especially in red Republican and “toss-up” states.
In this way, Nader advocates would not inadvertently help elect Bush, while engaging in the electoral process. Unfortunately, an inadequate number of Nader supporters followed this plan since Nader garnered enough votes in Florida alone to hand Bush the presidency.
I often wonder how history would have been different if Gore had won: would we have invaded Iraq, what turned out as a misguided and disastrous venture that resulted in the death of over 4,000 U.S. military personnel and severe injuries to thousands more, and the expenditure of trillions of tax dollars wasted needlessly. And the deaths and injuries to literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Plus the political destabilization of the entire Middle East giving rise to radical terrorist groups.
At home under the Bush administration, we witnessed a gradual loosening of governmental regulations on Wall Street and the housing industry, which set the stage for the biggest downturn in domestic and international economies since the Great Depression.
So I ask those who voted for Ralph Nader, did you really walk away with your integrity in tact? Did your vote serve the best interests of the country?
In this crucial election year, for Bernie supporters who simply cannot under any circumstances vote for Hillary, at least try to work out a vote-swap arrangement with someone in an overwhelmingly “Blue” state.
And for champions of Bernie who are considering voting for Donald Trump, the only thing you have in common with Trumpets is your anger at the electoral system, and nothing else. If, however, you think you can switch your allegiance from Bernie to the Donald, then you haven’t the faintest clue what Bernie and the movement he unleashed stands for and values.
To you, I would simply repeat Sarah Silverman’s admonition: “You’re being ridiculous!”
—
Photo: Getty Images
The reason that I cannot vote for Hillary is that I took an oath, one that required thought and a deeply held conviction that the decision I was making would be one for the good of the people of this country. That oath was taken when I joined the Navy. I joined at the age of 23, so I was not some kid just out of high school looking to find his way. I had already lived in three other countries and I believed in America. The oath that I took, and which I still feel bound to today some… Read more »
So you’re voting for Trump. God help us all if he’s elected as our next President!
I need to ask something about this site. Do all of you honestly think that the only good man is a left man, a liberal man. Because honestly, this is all there is on this site as a definition of a good man. This is really disingenuous at best, and completely dishonest at worst.
Mark, yours is a fair and reasonable question. I am part of the GMP team but speak only for myself. I consider myself to be an independent who is very liberal on social issues and a centrist on most other issues. I have close friends and family members who support Trump or Johnson, all of whom I assess are good men (or women). It is important to me that I evaluate the individuals as such and not as part of a collective. Your question has inspired me to write a Call for Submissions on this subject. I invite you to… Read more »
Of course they can but many, like my son. will not vote for her
My son will
Warren, I resonate with your experiences. I’m a bit older so can remember back a little farther to Barry Goldwater’s presidential run in 1964. The Republican campaign slogan was “In Your Heart You Know He’s Right.” The Dems responded, “In Your Guts You Know He’s Nuts.” Goldwater lost big. But times are changing. The system is still rigged, but people are less willing to accept it. I don’t think Bernie supporters who don’t want to get behind Hillary are “ridiculous.” They just are tired of supporting a rigged system election after election. I’m voting for Hillary, because I believe she’s… Read more »
Jed, I have been a supporter of Bernie and appreciate your eloquent response, as usual. Thank you.
Lisa, Thanks for your comment. I think the GMP community is a wonderful one for the sharing of our ideas, passions, questions, concerns, and actions.