Tag Archives: blog

Forty Years and Four Hundred Yards Apart

If you are old enough to remember the halcyon days of the CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News, you may have also noticed that one of the most disturbing and also the most ecstatic political memories that you carry actually occurred in the same city and virtually the same location, separated by 40 years and perhaps just 400 yards.

Barton Silverman/New York Times
     Barton Silverman/New York Times

The nadir came in 1968. A recent college graduate, I was among millions of Americans who were shaken by the impression that the superstructure of our nation-state was beginning to fall away. The stains of the assassination of President Kennedy five years earlier were still sealed into the fabric of the culture. And we could not know it was only a start.  Martin Luther King was gunned down in April while organizing a poor people’s campaign in Memphis. Two months later Robert Kennedy was fatally wounded by a Jordanian living in Los Angeles. By August, and against an enveloping sense of doom, there was at least the modest hope of some sort of political redemption as Democrats gathered in Chicago to stage-manage a presidential nomination. It was supposed to be a celebration of the orderly transfer of national leadership that would finally reconcile increasing public opposition against the Vietnam War. In the same year the conflict had already taken almost 17,000 lives. The nation was not only at war with the North Vietnamese, it was increasingly apparent that it was at war with itself, especially younger Americans who could be conscripted into a meaningless death. Inside the International Amphitheater near the stockyards the party trudged toward the nomination of Hubert Humphrey to head up the top of the ticket. He was to replace a mortally wounded Lyndon Johnson who had dithered his administration into a free-fall as it tried to find an exit from its war policy. Johnson’s attempts at leadership had divided Democrats so badly that it was in the process of incinerating itself.  

That would become all too clear on the night of August 28, when hundreds of anti-war activists any many young Democrats were on hand to seal the fate of the party.Their goal was to march in front of the Hilton and Blackstone hotels along Michigan Avenue, within earshot of the convention delegates. But they would witness the fury of a police backlash. Some of the activists were troublemakers. Most simply wanted to register their frustration with the inertia that had overtaken the party.

Mayor James Daley had done what he could to impede press coverage of the protests. The plan was to force the networks to cover the proceedings in the convention hall a few miles away, while preventing live television feeds of the confrontations brewing downtown. But the still-powerful news divisions of CBS and NBC weren’t used to being cowed by an uncharismatic machine politician.The convention was also their show. And they found ways to cover the angry confrontation that boiled over into the streets. Their solution was to set up cameras in Grant Park, recording the inevitable clashes that both sides had anticipated for weeks.

The Chicago Police turned out to be a machine ratcheted up to unload its fury. They used tear gas, truncheons, jeeps fitted with barbed wire, and undisciplined sweeps of bystanders trying to escape to surrounding streets and the park itself. In what a formal investigation later called a “police riot,” Daley’s minions’ managed to produce the kind of bloodshed and mayhem that it was ostensibly dedicated to preventing.

The city and the nation had seen violence many times before. But this conflict in particular settled into the national consciousness as a symptom of a deep and perhaps unbridgeable political rupture. The demonstrations momentarily concealed a rising disquiet among normally disengaged Americans who could not help but be witnesses to the train wreck of a doctrinaire foreign policy. When Walter Cronkite said as much on CBS, he contributed to a middle-class backlash that would be less strident but just as disruptive as the tactics of the “Yippies” in the streets. Even so, there could be no satisfaction in the meltdown of the Democratic Party in Chicago. It virtually guaranteed that government would be handed over to the secretive and suspicious Richard Nixon, a living paradox who could just barely conceal his twin instincts for political repression and the overextension of military power. 

While there was little question that bloodbath of political assassinations between 1963 and 1968 shocked the nation, for me at least, that single August night in Chicago somehow represented a rot that was even deeper. The assassinations where devastating. But all were more or less the products of lone actors. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, Americans had to learn to harden themselves against the distorted logic that allows psychopaths to carry out personal fantasies of revenge with loaded weapons. To live in the United States is to accept the surreal normalization of random gun violence: a legacy given false legitimacy by a grotesque misreading of the Second Amendment. In addition, and in its own peculiar way, John Kennedy’s death at least momentarily brought the nation together. Recalling his words became its own act of public meditation on the possibilities of political transcendence. By contrast, we would have to wait 40 years to see even a partial vindication of the moral persuasion of Dr. King.

The violence in Chicago was so disturbing because it was systemic. Violent response to citizen-protesters had the apparent imprimatur of official policy; no electoral outcome could easily heal that wound. It was a surprise to many Americans that it suddenly made sense to talk about battles in the streets of Prague and Chicago in the same breath. The brutal Soviet suppression of young dissidents in Czechoslovakia had an eerie similarity to the military-style sweeps of Michigan Avenue and Grant Park. They all seemed to point to a dying order that would replace the rhetoric of conciliation with the application of brute power. 

If the nation never seemed more troubled after the painful ruptures in the hot summer of 1968, it came the closest to affirming its aspirations 40 years later, reflected in the moment when the same city served as the setting for the introduction of a new President and his family. It all happened within a few hundred yards of the same hotels bordering Grant Park. It’s my own choice for the one political moment that rose to a level of pure ecstasy. The evening was theater, to be sure, but also a signal that the nation could think differently about how it wished to be led. It’s too simplistic to say that the election of 2008 was the final antidote to the poisons of racism and an endlessly interventionist foreign policy. But who can forget those images? On that night Obama was the perfect embodiment of his own theme of hope. Against the glowing skyline of The Loop, he reclaimed the nation’s honor in the presence of over 100,000 citizens who had gathered to witness the deceptively short walk to the center of the stage.

What Mayors Can Teach Us About Public Discourse

Pittsburgh Post Gazette
  Ed Rendell/Pittsburgh Post Gazette

Mayors must function in a political world that is far closer to what the ancients in Greece and Sicily had in mind as the model for a democratic life.

There is no level of public office quite as consequential to the domestic lives   of urban Americans as the leader elected to run a city. Mayors usually stand out as particularly accessible effective communicators. By contrast, legislators savor deliberation and the arts of self promotion, often with heads in policy clouds rather than the delivery of specific services.  Legislating is measured in increments that would seem pathetically unproductive to mayors who must meet payrolls, collect taxes, and carry on the myriad life-sustaining operations of a city.  And while presidents plainly carry the heavier burden of executive leadership, the presidency is now so “imperial” as to be cut off from contact with the lives of most constituents.  Indeed, the rhetorically challenged George W. Bush rarely moved beyond the white house unless encased in a bubble that limited access and assured he would not be burdened by the visage of a disenfranchised constituent.   

Mayors must function in a political world that is far closer to what the ancients in Greece and Sicily had in mind as the model for a democratic life. They are never very far from their voters and their problems, and their leadership more directly affects the quality of life of their constituents.   Mayors are expected to be on the ground and engaged, dealing with a staggeringly long and well-known list of challenges:  finding money for schools, garbage collection, snow removal, sewer and water repair, health care, police and fire protection, social services, roads and public transportation.  To achieve a level of coverage for these basic needs they must run a human gauntlet that seems to always include virulent city council members, local businesses ready to flee to less expensive locales, and—in the unluckier of the nation’s cities—members of the press who add to the challenges of governance by treating municipal politics as a shooting gallery.  Mayors must also have the staying power to tackle endless community meetings, defiant unions, indifferent state legislatures, disproportionate numbers of the nation’s poor, and drop-everything visits to heartbreaking scenes of urban mayhem.  Their budgets require that they do more with less as tax bases erode, and as suburb-dominated legislatures back away from funding the essentials of city life. 

Perhaps the difficult political challenges of the cities are why many academics and journalists ostensibly interested in governance focus on the presidency. There is an allure to the Oval Office and the journalistic stars that cover it. The Washington-based mass-media “communitariate” has many of the same inducements that feed the parallel world of Hollywood journalism.  Events in these datelines happen in nicer settings.  Everyone involved is better dressed and convinced they are dealing with great ideas rather than a broken and distracted polity.  And like the celebrity watchers who live near the glitter of northwest Los Angeles, those safely at home northwest of the National Mall can pretend not to notice the paradox of urban disintegration amidst a city of ostensible leaders.

An emphasis on the political glitter of Washington D. C. is unfortunate, since there is a more vital political culture on display in the nation’s city halls.  Many mayors are unusually good matches for the colorful gadflies attracted to neighborhood politics.  Effective municipal leaders seem born to the challenge of engaging the weak and the powerful alike.   Biographer Carl Solberg described the “prairie progressive” Hubert Humphrey as “possessed and effective.”  His description of the one-time Mayor of Minneapolis could have been applied to other leaders of cities that were once the engines of the nation’s wealth and identity.  “He couldn’t shake enough hands, join enough lodges, send enough Christmas cards,” Solberg recalls.  “He was forever late on the [campaign] trail because of his desire to please his last audience—end all their doubts, answer all their questions, convert them totally to him. Wanting to be loved, he was unable to be cruel.”

So let’s call it a “theory of mayors” and admit its exceptions up front.  As the example of Toronto’s Rob Ford reminds us, not all succeed.  A few are a poor fit for the forced optimism the job demands.  And many of the best move on to less tumultuous work in the Congress or private consulting. But it is instructive that, while we may be lucky to get one good president in a generation, a replenished cadre of rhetorically gifted civic leaders always seem attracted to the messy front lines of American political life. A list of recent leaders who were often superbly suited to the communication demands of municipal leadership should include Humphrey in Minneapolis, Gavin Newsom in San Francisco, Cory Booker in Newark, Harold Washington in Chicago, Shirley Franklin of Atlanta, and Michael Bloomberg in New York City.  If we want to teach learn from the past about political persuasion and occasional political courage, we would do well to skip the press conferences of the presidents in favor of the more incisive encounters of mayors such as New York’s Ed Koch or Philadelphia’s Ed Rendell.

–Adapted from Gary C. Woodward, The Perfect Response: Case Studies of the Rhetorical Personality (Lexington Books, 2010).