Noam Chomsky on 1968

By Noam Chomsky Published 08 May 2008

Nineteen sixty-eight was one exciting moment in a much larger movement. It spawned a whole range of movements. There wouldn't have been an international global solidarity movement, for instance, without the events of 1968. It was enormous, in terms of human rights, ethnic rights, a concern for the environment, too.

The Pentagon Papers (the 7,000-page, top-secret US government report into the Vietnam War) are proof of this: right after the Tet Offensive, the business world turned against the war, because they thought it was too costly, even though there were proposals within the government - and we know this now - to send in more American troops. Then LBJ announced he wouldn't be sending any more troops to Vietnam.

The Pentagon Papers tell us that, because of the fear of growing unrest in the cities, the government had to end the war - it wasn't sure that it was going to have enough troops to send to Vietnam and enough troops on the domestic front to quell the riots.

One of the most interesting reactions to come out of 1968 was in the first publication of the Trilateral Commission, which believed there was a "crisis of democracy" from too much participation of the masses. In the late 1960s, the masses were supposed to be passive, not entering into the public arena and having their voices heard. When they did, it was called an "excess of democracy" and people feared it put too much pressure on the system. The only group that never expressed its opinions too much was the corporate group, because that was the group whose involvement in politics was acceptable.

The commission called for more moderation in democracy and a return to passivity. It said the "institutions of indoctrination" - schools, churches - were not doing their job, and these had to be harsher.

The more reactionary standard was much harsher in its reaction to the events of 1968, in that it tried to repress democracy, which has succeeded to an extent - but not really, because these social and activist movements have now grown. For example, it was unimaginable in 1968 that there would be an international Solidarity group in 1980.

But democracy is even stronger now than it was in 1968. You have to remember that, during Vietnam, there was no opposition at the beginning of the war. It did develop, but only six years after John F Kennedy attacked South Vietnam and troop casualties were mounting. However, with the Iraq War, opposition was there from the very beginning, before an attack was even initiated. The Iraq War was the first conflict in western history in which an imperialist war was massively protested against before it had even been launched.

There are other differences, too. In 1968, it was way out in the margins of society to even discuss the possibility of withdrawal from Vietnam. Now, every presidential candidate mentions withdrawal from Iraq as a real policy choice.

There is also far greater opposition to oppression now than there was before. For example, the US used routinely to support or initiate military coups in Latin America. But the last time the US supported a military coup was in 2002 in Venezuela, and even then they had to back off very quickly because there was public opposition. They just can't do the kinds of things they used to.

So, I think the impact of 1968 was long-lasting and, overall, positive.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: 1968

View the discussion thread.

117 comments

Sat, 2008-05-10 19:23 — vrob

davidbeyer, you cite talking points, legal arguments and newspapers surveys, but ignore the underlying reality: as a result of the Palm Beach butterfly ballot 60,000 elderly Jewish voters voted for Buchanan. There may not be clear proof that this was planned deliberately by Republican operatives though I vaguely recall serious questions raised to this effect. There are other questions about minorites waiting hours in line, being turned away, etc. Regardless, the basic fact of Florida 2000 is this: more voters went to the polls that day intending to vote for Gore than Bush. You don't seriously contest this point do you?

Sat, 2008-05-10 19:43 — StephenDecatur

I have to agree with most of what sduncan said. I like the fact that Chomsky is a non-conformist. Certainly, the world would be better off with a more intellectually curious populace.

However, just like Chomsky, I have reaped the benefits of American imperialism. I'm not talking about individual wealth. I'm talking about the stability that we enjoy in the U.S. as long as we can point to threats from the outside, real or assumed, at which we can focus our human emotions of fear, vanity, and lust for conquest.

But, by giving Chomsky a pedestal from which to speak, he keeps the system in balance. Without people like Chomsky, Zinn, Carter, and Sontag, we become fascists. Without people like Wyrich, Wolfowitz, Pipes, Feith, Bybee, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Krystol, Bush, Netanyahu, and Alberto Gonzalez, we turn that energy onto ourselves.

The solution, I think, is to allow people like Chomsky and Sontag to encourage our more peaceful emotions and to criticize the largess of Western society while allowing the Right to keep us as vigilant as we need to be against violent anti-Western forces.

Sat, 2008-05-10 19:45 — lstm1

It is fascinating to see those who still are fighting the election of 2000. They point to the butterfly ballots, but conveniently ignore the issue of military absentee ballots. For those who don't remember, Gore and his lawyers were tasked with challenging every absentee ballot submitted by soldiers overseas. They were quite successful, and more than 30% of all military absentee ballots in Florida were never counted.

Furthermore, as was already mentioned, there have been counts and recounts by newspapers. None concluded that Gore was the rightful winner.

As for the butterfly ballots, I actually do think that many of those who voted for Buchanan had no intention of doing so. So? Should we go back and count some of the Buchanan votes as going for Gore? It is a ridiculous argument, as the "fixes" that Democrats have proposed would never be constitutional. Furthermore, while the Democrats wanted to reallocate the butterfly ballots, they conveniently ignore the military absentee ballots which were never counted. So much for democracy.

Sat, 2008-05-10 19:49 — Careless

vrob, the fact that thousands of Florida voters were too stupid or senile to figure out a butterfly ballot does not lead to a conclusion of a stolen election.

Sat, 2008-05-10 19:54 — StephenDecatur

vrob,

Your facts are all either made up or, in some cases, they're true but deceptive. Cite your source regarding the number of elderly Jewish voters in Palm Beach County. I don't think that you know how many elderly Jewish voters in Palm Beach County voted for Buchanan. Worse, it's an irrelevant point. You have no idea how many people intended to vote for Gore or Bush. Some people marked both Gore and Bush. For whom did they intend to vote?

Your point about "the basic fact of Florida 2000", thus, is based on an unprovable theory: that more people intended to vote for Gore than intended to vote for Bush. It's not a fact at all. And by calling it a fact, you just continue to throw more mud at an already muddy picture.

That said, there was a definitive recount performed by Price Waterhouse and funded by a pool of media sources. This recount held that under all 3 of the most reliable vote tabulation methods, Bush won Florida in 2000 and, thus, the 2000 presidential election. I'm very glad to know that we have better judges on the Florida Supreme Court today than the incompetent, meddling judges who were there in 2000 who tried to thwart the will of the people by creating a third recount in Florida based on their own opinion of what they wanted the law to be.

Scalia was right. A miscarriage of justice was prevented in 2000 when the U.S. Supreme Court kept the Florida Supreme Court from changing the results of the election.

Sat, 2008-05-10 19:57 — StephenDecatur

vrob,

The butterfly ballot was designed and submitted at the insistence of Carol Roberts, a Democratic activist. You should google her. Stop trying to create conspiracy theories to invent your own history. You might fool some of the lightweights who read these blogs.

Sat, 2008-05-10 20:10 — skylane95

Has anyone ever heard of Prague Spring- and how it was abruptly ended on August 21, 1968?

It appears that no one recognizes the brutality of the left.

Sat, 2008-05-10 20:38 — vrob

Sorry folks I'm far from a conspiracy theorist- just because your purported facts may be more provable than the alternative does not make them true. If you truly believe most of the 60,000 Buchanan votes in Palm Beach were not meant for Gore keep dreaming. As for whether this constitutes a stolen election there is of course no hard evidence but in arriving at my conclusions I will allow myself to inject common sense. You stick to Republican talking points. And by the way the equal protection argument endorsed by the Supreme Court was such utter nonsense the opinion limited itself to the case at hand.

Sat, 2008-05-10 21:24 — tonypal

Vrob:
As a Republican and a Bush supporter, I agree with your assertion that most of those people intended to vote for Gore. But doesn't that really speak volumes as to the intellectual abilities of all those liberal democrats, who regularly deride Pres. Bush's intellect?
You might consider the fact that the Florida panhandle is decidedly republican. The networks prematurely called Florida for Gore. The panhandle is in a different time zone, and many republicans went home instead of waiting in line to vote.
Lastly, it was Gore himself, with his brilliant, Harvard law professor attorney Larry Tribe who sought to limit vote recounts to districts favorable to Gore.
As for any arguments that the Supreme Court made a political decision, how about the Florida Supremen Court, with 8 of 9 justices appointed by Democrat Governors. Are we to simply dismiss the political leanings of that court?