Reply #6: The big mistake of '68

[Radical Activist]

is that the nation wanted someone who would end the war, and the party nominated someone who was still supporting it. The Party totally misread the wants and needs of the public. That caused disunity and a sad loss. Humphrey finally came around and supported withdrawal from Vietnam, but it was too late. Hopefully the party isn't making the same mistake by failing to adequately respond to a large movement against the war in Iraq. By having a ticket of two people who voted for the war, and by watering down the platform, I'm concerned that Kerry/Edwards might cause disunity by failing to represent the same kind of movement that the party mistakenly ignored in '68. This year is very different and if Kerry doesn't take the anti-war crowd for granted then I don't think there will be the kind of division there was in '68 (I hope).

On the other hand, I don't think the "New" v "Old" Democrat argument is necessarily about ideological purity. For me the debate is about moving the public to the left by informing people and making our case as liberals v. following polls and trying to appear moderate enough to get swing voters. Appealing to moderates might make sense in the short term of each election, but in the long term it guarantees that liberal principles and values will be the minority view as long as we fail to defend those values courageously.

RFK was typically daring and out front by trying to inform the public and move them to the left. I'm not sure that can be said of many moderate New Democrats who would trade short term victory for long term viability of progressive values.