I'm old enough to remember 1968. In the United States, it was a presidential election year. A president, Lyndon Johnson, rendered himself unelectable by pursuing an unpopular war policy opposed by a rising youth movement.
Johnson gave a televised policy speech on the Vietnam War on the evening of Sunday, March 31, 1968, and announced that he would not run for re-election. It may have been a coincidence, but on the East Coast, at least, Johson's speech pre-empted a show that was very vocal in its opposition to the war: "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour" on CBS.
What prompted this? The most likely answer was that two candidates opposed to the Johnson administration's war policy had declared their intention to vie with Johnson for the Democratic Party's nomination. Sen. Eugene McCarthy declared in November of 1967, and just two weeks before Johnson's announcement, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy declared on a similar platform. Johnson's decision also set the stage for his 1964 running mate and vice president, Hubert Humphrey, to run for the Democratic Party's nomination. Johnson had already won the New Hampshire primary, held March 12, by the time he made his decision not to run. McCarthy got 42 percent of the vote to Johnson's 49, which was an astonishing result, given that Johnson had the power of the incumbency and a good economy as tailwinds. However, the Tet Offensive, a successful sneak attack launched by North Vietnam and its Viet Cong allies in South Vietnam in January, appeared to be the impetus to making the division in the party irreconcilable.
Meanwhile, a Republican opponent accused of being a shady character, Richard Nixon, said he could keep America strong and quickly end the war. There was also a third party, the American Independent Party, whose nominee was Gov. George Wallace, a Southern Democrat (I can't tell if he ever permanently changed his party affiliation to AIP, if you know, let me know and I'll fix this) and segregationist. According to some sources, Wallace's goal was to win enough electors so that the Electoral College could not decide the election (i.e., no candidate would receive the majority of electors) and the election would be thrown from the public sphere to the House of Representatives, where he could wield some clout for his own policies.
Another significant alternative party, known in my neck of the woods (it was New Jersey in those days) as the Peace and Freedom Party, also was in the mix. Its platform rested on opposition to the war and pushing for civil rights and racial equity. Depending on the state, the ticket might have either Eldridge Cleaver or Dick Gregory at the top. In my state, it was the comedian, Gregory. It didn't have much effect on the election (read its history according to Wikipedia here: Peace and Freedom Party - Wikipedia) but the statement made in defense of nominating people who weren't already politicians (the slogan was: "We are not seeking the candidate with the broadest appeal. We seek the candidate with the deepest truth.") has some bearing on how this 1968 movie is being rebooted this year.
So now, in Joe Biden, we have a candidate significantly damaged by the chaotic end to a long military deployment in Afghanistan and economic headwinds that his opponents blame on his economic priorities. Earlier this year, it appeared he was being challenged for his own party's nomination by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., yep, the son of the 1968 protest candidate. Now, Kennedy appears to be on a maverick third party run, more like Wallace's campaign. And in the "Peace and Freedom" corner of this year's campaign is philosopher Cornel West, running for "truth and justice," per his website. Further tightening the parallel is that both Peace and Freedom candidates were black, as is Cornel West, in an otherwise white field.
In the 1968 case, the U,S. elected a president against whom credible allegations arose that he had been involved in a criminal conspiracy to tilt the 1972 election in his favor. In the 2024 case, we have a candidate who claims the 2020 election was rigged against him and who is being prosecuted on allegations that he engaged in conspiracies to overturn the tallied election results in 2020.
The difference is important and sad. Nixon did not want to be impeached, so instead he stepped down from office. He never admitted to any wrongdoing and the U.S. never got a chance to have the issue adjudicated, as his successor pardoned him. In the current case, the candidate has been impeached twice, but not convicted, and uses that history and each succeeding prosecution to raise funds for re-election.
Clearly, the parallels aren't perfect, but I wanted to share them because I'd rather see a different movie. History rhymes.
