Chapter 13

Protesting for Equality and Pushing for Change

In This Chapter

Striking for the farmworkers: Latinos on the march

Reclaiming Native American soil

Showing gay pride

Balancing the political scale: The conservatives react

Although the civil rights and antiwar movements were at the forefront of the fight for economic, social, and political change during the 1960s, other individuals and groups mobilized against the status quo, pressing for more rights and freedom on their terms. Buoyed by the efforts and successes of other groups, Latinos, Native Americans, and homosexuals refused to be ignored by the rest of America. Although these movements didn’t reach their heights until the 1970s, their roots are firmly planted in the fertile soil of the 1960s and the powerful prevailing mood that encouraged people across the United States to believe that change was possible.

Of course, those who longed for the good-old days couldn’t understand and refused to tolerate the revolution all around them. They united as well; the conservatives and the silent majority (Americans who, even during a tumultuous time, didn’t protest and largely thought things were okay the way they were) also had their say during the ’60s.

¡Sí, Se Puede! Cesar Chavez and Latino Activism

During the 1960s, under the leadership and inspiration of Mexican American labor activist and leader of the United Farm Workers, Cesar Chavez (see Figure 13-1), Latinos united to claim the right to equality and dignity. Si, se puede — yes, you can — became the catchphrase for the times.

Figure 13-1: Cesar Chavez, one of the most influential Latino leaders in the U.S.

©Jason Laure/The Image Works

Although Latinos represented a substantial segment of the American popu- lation, especially in the western states, they often occupied the lowest rungs of society. They were maids, dishwashers, nannies, and gardeners, but most often they were migrant field workers, traveling from one place to another planting and harvesting the fruits and vegetables that fed America. They were paid substandard wages and were often exploited by their bosses, but they felt powerless to change their lot. However, inspired by the successes of the civil rights movement and led by Chavez, Latinos found their voice and began to demand fair treatment.

Moving from the fields to the picket line

Cesar Chavez, one of the most important Latino leaders in U.S. history, grew up knowing injustice. Born in 1927 near Yuma, Arizona, Chavez and his family were swindled out of their home by unscrupulous Anglos. In 1938, they moved to California, where the entire family worked the fields of the state before settling in the Sal Si Puedes (Get Out if You Can) barrio in San Jose, California. As a child, Chavez disliked school, because his English was poor and he was forbidden to speak Spanish in class. He also didn’t see how a formal education related to the life of a migrant worker, so he left school after the eighth grade.

Despite his early educational experience, Chavez believed later in life that education provided a way for Latinos to get out of the fields and into mainstream American life. He educated himself by becoming an avid reader of everything from biography to philosophy and believed in using education to further the cause of humanity. One of Chavez’s most famous quotes was, “The end of all education should surely be service to others.”

After serving in the U.S. Navy during World War II from 1944–45, Chavez married Helen Fabela and settled in San Jose, California, in 1948 to raise his family. Both Cesar and Helen were interested in bettering the lives of farmworkers. Believing that Mexicans would be more willing to fight for their rights if they became American citizens, they taught the farmworkers how to read and write.

Influenced by Father Donald McDonnell and Fred Ross, community activists and organizers, Chavez learned about organizing strikes and nonviolent protests and realized that he could use this new knowledge to help his people. In 1952, Chavez joined the Community Service Organization (CSO), a Latino civil rights group that worked to register Mexican Americans to vote and also to fight discrimination. Eventually, he became the national director of the CSO and remained with the organization until 1962. Although he had successes in registering voters, getting farmworkers to stand up for their rights was a tough task — they were always afraid of losing their jobs.

Before they unionized, agricultural workers barely earned a subsistence wage. Perhaps even worse, their working and living conditions were deplorable. Many of the farmworkers were migrant workers, who moved to follow the crops — after they harvested the crop in one location, they moved somewhere else to work another crop. Usually, migrants lived in camps with primitive living conditions — a lack of clean facilities, poor (if any) schools for their children, and no medical care. Although some migrants were illegal aliens, many were citizens. But regardless of their status, it was difficult to organize migrant workers in protest, first because they were on the move, but just as importantly because no matter how rough their lives got, migrants were unwilling to rock the boat and possibly lose the only jobs they had.

Brandishing the boycott

In 1962, Chavez founded the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA), the first farmworkers’ union in the United States. At first, the union struggled to stay alive, because most migrant workers could barely put food on the table, much less pay union dues. However, Chavez persevered, organizing the farmworkers to fight for better working conditions and a living wage as well as bringing the problems of farmworkers to the public.

In 1965, the NFWA supported the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC), a Filipino farmworkers union, in a strike against grape growers. In March 1966, together with Dolores Huerta, another labor organizer, Chavez planned and led a march from Delano, California, to Sacramento to press for state laws allowing farmworkers to unionize and engage in collective bargaining. By the time they arrived in Sacramento, Schenley, one of the largest growers, signed an agreement allowing farmworkers to engage in collective bargaining. On August 22, 1966, the NFWA and AWOC merged to become the United Farm Workers (UFW), with the support of the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).

One target of the UFW was the grape industry because labor conditions were particularly bad for workers in the vineyards and because grapes were a popular consumer product. The first grape boycott, which started in 1967 and lasted until 1971, encouraged people not to buy table grapes. The boycott gained the support of prominent labor leaders and unions, such as the United Auto Workers. In 1970, the UFW signed its first contract with a major grape grower.

Throughout the sixties, the farmworkers continued pressing for fair treatment, using nonviolent methods including boycotts, pickets, and strikes. Chavez was greatly influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s strategy of passive resistance. Among many other things, Gandhi is famous for his long March to the Sea, which protested the British laws that prevented Indians from producing salt. Although the march didn’t result in an immediate repeal of the laws, it was a model for civil rights marches, as well as the farmworkers’ march from Delano to Sacramento. Like Gandhi, Chavez also went on hunger strikes, bringing attention to the harsh lives of the farmworkers and showing his people that they didn’t need to resort to violence to achieve their goals. In 1968, he went on his first hunger strike, living on only water for 25 days.

Senator Bobby Kennedy was sympathetic to the farmworkers’ cause and called for fair treatment for Hispanic agricultural workers. In 1968, Kennedy joined Chavez at a mass that ended his hunger strike, calling Chavez “one of the heroic figures of our time.”

For the rest of his life, Chavez worked to improve the lives of farmworkers, insisting that growers live up to and improve agreements with the union. Chavez and the UFW organized strikes and boycotts against grape and lettuce growers whenever contracts were violated and continually pressed for better wages and working conditions for farmworkers. Chavez died on April 23, 1993, and almost 40,000 mourners marched behind the casket.

By using nonviolent methods of protest, Chavez and the UFW were able to organize tens of thousands of farmworkers and negotiate contracts giving them higher pay, family health coverage, pensions, and union hiring halls, which effectively ended discrimination in hiring. Amidst the turmoil of the sixties and the numerous civil rights and antiwar protests that had mixed results, Chavez and the farmworkers’ unions had some impressive victories — due in part to the economic hardships that the boycotts and strikes imposed on the growers as well as the awareness and moral outrage that the peaceful protests aroused in ordinary citizens.

Grape grievances and successes after the sixties

In 1973, the UFW began a second grape boycott, which received even more support than the original 1967 action. At the peak of the boycott, 17 million Americans refused to buy grapes. Two years later, this second boycott ended when the Agricultural Labor Relations Act was passed, allowing farmworkers to organize and engage in collective bargaining. In 1984, Chavez organized another boycott to protest the spraying of pesticides in the vineyards. This action lasted 16 years, and in the end, growers stopped using the most toxic chemicals.

Up through the present, the UFW has won important benefits for farmworkers. Growers now must provide rest periods, clean drinking water, hand-washing facilities, and regulations protecting workers from pesticides. Farmworkers are guaranteed seniority rights and job security. Union health benefits were established for farmworkers and their families. And a pension plan and a credit union were created for retired farmworkers.

Leaving the Reservation

Another minority group inspired by the civil rights movement was that of American Indians. More than any other group, they believed that they had history on their side. These people weren’t dragged to the United States as slaves nor did they immigrate, fleeing persecution or looking for a better life. They were on North American soil first, and the European conquerors stole their land and destroyed their way of life.

In 1969, the occupation of Alcatraz by American Indians pushed the history — and plight — of the group squarely in front of the rest of the American public. As a result, the move for American Indian self-determination gained wider support. And perhaps most importantly, the occupation of Alcatraz was the beginning of a political movement that is still going strong today.

Breaking into Alcatraz

Alcatraz was famous in American society as a prison for the worst of the worst. The last stop for such career criminals as Scarface Al Capone, Machine Gun Kelly, and Robert Stroud, the Birdman of Alcatraz, the small island was the last place that anyone wanted to call home. The greatest Alcatraz legends are about inmates who tried to escape from “the rock” and brave the currents of San Francisco Bay to swim to freedom. Officially, none of them ever succeeded (but some were never heard of again, so who knows if they ever made it across the bay).

After the prison was closed in 1963, American Indians returned to Alcatraz to symbolically reclaim the island for the native people. In the first occupation in March 1964, five Sioux demanded to use the island as a cultural and educational center. The initial justification for this occupation was the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, which promised to return surplus federal land to the American Indians who originally occupied it. The occupation lasted only a few hours, however, and United States marshals escorted them off the island.

The next occupation began on November 9, 1969, when a group of American Indians chartered a boat and returned to Alcatraz. Because many different tribes were represented in the occupation, they named themselves “Indians of All Tribes,” claiming the island for all American Indians. Although this initial group left the island the same evening, they realized that they had begun a movement. During the next two weeks, Richard Oakes, the leader of the occupation, visited the University of California in Los Angeles and recruited approximately 100 American Indian students and others to join the Indians of All Tribes. On November 20, they returned to Alcatraz, where they stayed for more than 18 months. Richard Oakes, an articulate leader, was often identified as the chief of the Indians of All Tribes and was sometimes called the mayor of Alcatraz.

The protest became much more than a giant sit-in. The occupation forces actually established a viable community on the island. They elected a council to govern themselves, although all decisions were made by consensus (another case of participatory democracy, as described in Chapter 11). The council ran their community effectively, administering security, sanitation, day care, school, and housing. Figure 13-2 shows the American Indian occupation of Alcatraz.

A place of punishment — then and now

Although most information about Alcatraz before the whites is based on oral history, some of the legends are most interesting — especially the one saying that American Indians who violated tribal laws were often ostracized by being sent to the island. Legend also says that American Indians went to Alcatraz to gather food, especially bird eggs and sea life. After the Spanish arrived in 1542, some American Indians fled to Alcatraz to escape the California Mission system, which coerced their tribes into church-run communities to learn to farm, read and write, speak Spanish, and become Christians.

In 1847, the army took over Alcatraz and used it as a fortress and a military prison until 1933. Among those incarcerated, ironically, were many American Indians. In 1873, Modoc Indians were confined to the island prison after they were convicted of murdering a general, and in 1895, Hopis were incarcerated in Alcatraz for resisting government regulations that would eradicate their way of life.

In 1934 Alcatraz became a federal penitentiary, housing some of America’s most hardened criminals. But because the prison was old and expensive to operate, and the philosophy of long-term incarceration was contrary to the newer theory of rehabilitation of prisoners, Alcatraz was closed in 1963.

Of course, the federal government had no intention of ceding the island to the “invaders” and insisted that the American Indians leave, but the tribes weren’t ready to give up. Although the U.S. government agreed to formal negotiations, they felt that the tribes’ demands were intolerable — the American Indians wanted the deed to the island and planned to establish a university, cultural center, and museum on the site.

At the beginning, the American Indian society on the island was almost Utopian. When federal officials tried to blockade the island, sympathizers managed to get supplies to the protesters. However, by early 1970 the organization began to fall apart. Students left to return to school, and Indians from reservations and urban areas arrived to take their place. Attracted by the communal nature of life on the island, the hippies also arrived, bringing alcohol and drugs to Alcatraz. Then, when Oakes finally left the island after the death of his stepdaughter, the tribes had no effective leadership. The community on Alcatraz began to reflect all the problems of society everywhere, and although the settlement lasted for another year and a half, it never recaptured its earlier idealism. During this period, the population was fluid — people came and stayed for several months, and others simply visited for a few days.

Figure 13-2: American Indians take back Alcatraz.

©Bettmann/CORBIS

The government decided to play a waiting game. Fearing violence, they didn’t take any overt action to oust the American Indians. However, they did try to make life a little more intolerable — at one point, the government shut off all electrical power and removed the barge that supplied fresh water to the island. In January 1971, two oil tankers collided at the entrance to the San Francisco Bay. Though everyone knew that the occupation of Alcatraz played no part in the collision, the crash gave the federal government an excuse (however lame) to act. On June 10, armed federal marshals, FBI agents, and Special Forces removed the five women, four children, and six unarmed American Indian men who were still on the island. The occupation was over.

Gambling on the future

Although the demonstrations and occupations were important in increasing awareness of American Indian life, perhaps nothing has changed the lives of American Indians more than the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), passed by Congress in 1988. Just a year earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that American Indian tribes were sovereign political entities and could operate gaming facilities free of state regulation. However, none of this recognition may have come about without the earlier activists, who made people realize that the American Indians were, in fact, sovereign nations entitled to govern themselves on their own lands. For many tribes, gaming has provided the funds for economic development.

Taking AIM into the 1970s and beyond

Russell Means, born into the Lakota nation, became an American Indian activist in the late 1960s. After the Alcatraz occupation was over, Means became active in the American Indian Movement (AIM), an Indian rights organization founded in 1968. In 1973, he led AIM members and Lakota to the former Wounded Knee camp in South Dakota, attempting to take back the land that was promised to the Oglala Sioux in the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. As with many other protests, the FBI and the National Guard became involved, resulting in a 71-day siege. By the time the siege ended, 2 people were dead, 12 were wounded, including 2 marshals, and nearly 1,200 were arrested. From that point on, the federal authorities hounded Means and AIM members.

Although Means wasn’t the only American Indian activist, he was one of the most visible, even appearing in films (Last of the Mohicans and Natural Born Killers). (Another notable leader was Wilma Mankiller, the tribal leader of the Cherokee nation, who worked to improve life for her tribe in areas of economic and educational opportunities, adult literacy, and healthcare.) Despite the fact that he was often jailed, Means remained committed to the cause of justice for American Indians. At the time of this writing, he’s active in the Colorado chapter of AIM. He actively works to prevent strip mining and the dumping of radioactive waste on native lands. He also works to keep American Indian families together and improve education on the reservations. But first and foremost, Means tries to preserve American Indian culture and promote their pride, living up to his name Oyate Wacinyapi (Works for the People).

Since the 1960s, AIM has fought to force the United States government to honor American Indian treaties, including the restoration of native lands and increased funding for schools on reservations. Working to repeal state authority over native lands, tribes have been able to become economically independent by establishing gambling casinos, as discussed in the “Gambling on the future” sidebar.

Opening the Closet Door

Gays and lesbians have also had an unhappy history of persecution in Western society. At best, homosexuals were tolerated, as long as they didn’t overtly show that they were gay. The 1960s witnessed an increased drive to publicly assert their sexual identity, and events at the end of the decade helped forge a full-fledged movement.

Coming out

As a result of the women’s movement and the increasing overt nature of sexuality in the country, as well as the high visibility of the civil rights and antiwar movements, gays and lesbians began to feel more comfortable about asserting who they were and demanding the right to be treated equally with other Americans. When women began exploring and enjoying their sexuality, they fostered a freer atmosphere for others to explore individual sexuality as well. And when gays saw that other groups could press their agendas, they began to believe that they, too, could advocate for their rights. They were tired of being “in the closet,” pretending to be heterosexual in order to keep their jobs, families, and friends.

Americans began publicly discussing homosexuality after the 1948 publication of Alfred Kinsey’s book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which said that approximately 10 percent of males have a homosexual experience in their lives.

The most visible sign of gay activism during the ’50s and early ’60s was an increased willingness for gays and lesbians to come out of the closet and identify themselves as homosexuals, even to a straight society. They began to congregate in gay communities in large cities and in gay bars, which were long considered a hotbed of immorality.

Gays became less willing to be considered social outcasts, and by the late ’60s they began to demand equal treatment with heterosexuals. At that time, the main focus was on ending discrimination, decriminalizing sodomy and repealing other repressive laws, and changing the public view that homo- sexuality is a sin. Today, however, the scope of gay activism has expanded to include freedom from hate crimes against homosexuals, equal employment and housing opportunity, the right to serve in the military, and official recognition of domestic partnerships and, most recently, gay marriage.

Rioting at the Stonewall bar

Before 1965, raids on gay bars were fairly routine. However, that year a politically involved gay activist — Dick Leitsch of the Mattachine society, a gay rights organization dedicated to improving homosexuals’ lives and working for equality — challenged the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA), which had a policy of taking away the liquor license of any bar serving three or more homosexuals at one time.

In 1966, after alerting the media, Leitsch held a “sip-in,” intending to have a drink with two other gay men at a bar. When the bartender turned them away, they complained to the city’s human rights commission. Embarrassed by press coverage of the event and its aftermath, the chairman of the SLA denied that the department prohibited selling liquor to homosexuals. The following year, the courts determined that the SLA couldn’t revoke a liquor license without evidence of violations (which didn’t include serving gays).

However, on June 27, 1969, police thought they had a good reason to raid the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village. The bar didn’t have a valid liquor license, had ties with organized crime, offered scantily clad boys as entertainment, and brought an unruly element to Sheridan Square. So that night, after 1 a.m., police raided the bar. Although many patrons escaped arrest, the cops nailed anyone without an ID or anyone who was cross-dressed.

The patrons were incensed, and the riot was on. Competing accounts of the chaotic event make it difficult to determine whether the riot was started by a drag queen clubbed by a policeman or a lesbian crowded into a squad car, but whatever the cause, the anger was contagious, and the crowd moved to overtake the police. The police tried to retreat into the bar, but when they grabbed and beat an innocent bystander, the violence escalated. Some rioters set the bar on fire, and others ripped parking meters from the sidewalk to use as weapons. Soon, not only were the patrons of the Stonewall lashing out — the entire neighborhood got involved in the melee. Even a tactical force sent in to quell the riot was unable to control the angry mob, who protested throughout the night.

The crowd returned for the next few nights. Although the violence lessened as the nights wore on, the protesters, chanting “Gay power!”, were no less outraged at the way police had treated gays for years. After the Stonewall Riots were over, the gay community decided to turn their anger to positive change. By the end of July, the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) was formed in New York. The Stonewall Riots mobilized the gay community — homosexuals, who were no longer content to hide at the margins of American society, started newspapers, formed community organizations, and became politically active.

By 1970, the GLF had chapters across the country. In June, they held a march to commemorate the Stonewall Riots. Between 5,000 and 10,000 men and women marched from Greenwich Village to Central Park, which inaugurated the tradition of the gay pride celebration. Today, in many American cities, gay pride parades are normally held on the last weekend in June to honor the Stonewall Riots and celebrate the gay lifestyle. Although most major legislation wasn’t passed until the 1970s and later, the progress of gay rights started in the ’60s.

The battle over gay rights today

By the end of the 20th century, most states had repealed their sodomy laws, and the remaining states declared these laws unconstitutional in 2003. Today, many companies and local governments prohibit hiring or housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and ban sexual harassment. Several states have passed domes- tic partners legislation, which extends health benenfits to unmarried partners and protects their rights in case of illness or death. Another important piece of legislation enacted by several states categorizes gay bashing as a hate crime, which is a violation against human rights (however, federal hate-crime legislation doesn’t yet include sexual orientation).

Despite the progress of gays, the fight is far from over. Today shows more widespread acceptance of gay rights, but they’re still opposed by a number of religious and politically conservative groups who believe that the Bible considers homosexuality a sin and that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Conserva- tive state governments and the administration of President George W. Bush at the beginning of the 21st century fought back, opposing calls for the legalization of gay marriage and proposing a constitutional amendment banning it.

Preserving the Status Quo: The Conservatives

Not everyone supported civil rights or protested the Vietnam War during the 1960s. Several vocal groups were actively anti-Communist, fought racial integration, opposed government social programs, and believed that the Vietnam War was protecting democracy. Although the ’60s conservatives didn’t all adopt each of these mind-sets, a key underlying factor was that most of them strongly objected to the protests that they felt were unpatriotic and to the protesters, whom they saw as dirty, lazy, immoral, and unprincipled.

During the early 1960s, the most prominent and respected conservative was Barry Goldwater, one of the founders of the American conservative movement. He ran against Lyndon Johnson for the presidency in 1964 but was so out of step with the majority of voters that Johnson won by a landslide. Many people feared that Goldwater would undo much of the progress made over the past years, especially in social programs (see Chapter 3).

Goldwater’s conservatism (and that of most of the 1960s conservatives) was focused mainly on a strong anti-Communist stance as well as the least amount of interference by the federal government. He opposed federal regulation of business as well as federal laws that infringed on states’ rights, which made many people believe that he agreed with racial segregation. He believed in personal freedom and responsibility and didn’t think that people need government interference in their private lives.

Among some of Goldwater’s greatest supporters were the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). Founded in September 1960 at the estate of William F. Buckley Jr., the founder and editor of conservative magazine The National Review, the YAF became the most powerful right-wing youth group in the country. Later in the decade, YAF actively clashed with radical groups such as Students for a Democratic Society (see Chapter 11) and continues to support conservative causes today.

In spite of his loss, Goldwater and his followers turned the Republican Party toward the right, and just 16 years later, Ronald Reagan, who agreed with Goldwater’s position on most issues, won the presidency. Late in his life, Goldwater disagreed with many of the views promoted by conservative Republicans, including their opposition to gay rights, believing that the conservative movement shouldn’t promote a religious and social agenda. In fact, today he’d probably be a Libertarian (someone who believes in the absolute minimum amount of government regulation and interference) rather than a Republican.

Fighting the Communist conspiracy: The John Birch Society

In 1958, the John Birch Society was established in Indianapolis, Indiana, by Robert Welch Jr., a conservative businessman from Massachusetts, to fight liberal tendencies in American politics and stop alleged Communist infiltration and control within American society. (He chose the name in reference to a Baptist missionary who had been killed by Communists in China in 1945.) Welch believed that social programs, welfare, and unions were all moving the country toward socialism. The society used grass-roots efforts, organizing local chapters, mounting letter-writing campaigns, and making the views known in the community. Started with only 11 members, this group’s ranks swelled in the early 1960s to have somewhere from 60,000 to 100,000 members and an annual income of $5 million.

The society received much of its support from wealthy businessmen who had a vested interest in fearing Communist ideology. Believing that men such as Joseph McCarthy (see Chapter 11) were right in fearing that Communists had heavily infiltrated the U.S. government, the John Birch Society accused some of the most prominent men of the era of being part of a grand Communist conspiracy. Ironically, many of the people they accused were strong conservatives, such as President Dwight D. Eisenhower, CIA Chief Allen Dulles, and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren. Although they a powerful, well-funded group (and backed Barry Goldwater for president), the John Birch Society never seized control of the Republican Party, yet they did their best to pull the Republican agenda further to the right.

The society still exists today and still promotes extreme right-wing views. Their Web site identifies their current political campaigns as trying to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations, reclaiming the Panama Canal, and stopping the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas.

Stumping for segregation

Though many southern governors actively opposed racial integration and made headlines by blocking school doors and loudly stating their views, George Wallace of Alabama was perhaps the most outspoken (or at least got the most press). Early in his career, Wallace was actually a liberal compared to many of his southern colleagues, although he was a strong supporter of states’ rights and against any federal program that stepped on the states’ toes. This resistance meant he was opposed to any federal civil rights program, such as school integration, because education was a matter reserved for the states in the Constitution.

In 1962, Wallace ran for governor on a pro-segregation, pro-states’-rights platform. On June 11, 1963, he reaffirmed his anti-integration stance by barring the schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama to prevent two black students from enrolling, although he eventually stepped aside when federal marshals showed up. Figure 13-3 shows Wallace at the university, probably his most famous photograph.

In 1964, Wallace ran for the Democratic nomination for president, and in 1968, he established the American Independent Party and ran as its first presidential candidate. He ran on a platform of states’ rights, segregation, law and order, and support for the war in Vietnam (as well as his hatred for hippies and condemnation of protesters as traitors). Although he did gather support, he was too extreme for many voters.

Speaking to the silent majority

Although the late ’60s were marked by vocal protests and left-wing sentiment, when Nixon ran for president on a Republican platform in 1968, he was able to take advantage of the confusion and disarray in the Democratic Party (see Chapter 11 for information about the 1968 Democratic National Convention) as well as a silent majority of Americans — large parts of the white working and middle classes who felt that the nation had become caught up in anarchy and narrow self-interests, to the detriment of the greater interests of the majority (see Chapter 4).

Figure 13-3: Alabama National Guard general tells Governor Wallace (left) that the Guard will enforce federal law to admit African American students to the University of Alabama.

©Bettmann/CORBIS

In his campaign, Nixon promised “peace with honor” as a way to resolve the Vietnam War. Although he gave no details on how he’d end the conflict, many supported him because they believed that the Democrats would only continue escalating the war, which, so far, had produced rather dismal results.

Nixon’s clown prince

Like him or hate him, most people agreed that Richard Nixon was intense, serious, and came across as basically humorless. However, his running mate, Spiro Agnew, openly expressed Nixon’s (and the silent majority’s) scorn and distaste for the hippies, antiwar activists, what he called the intellectual elite, and liberals in general. What made Agnew more than a political rabble-rouser were his interesting turns of phrase, such as “nattering nabobs of negativism,” which were a source of great amusement to the press, which he in turn called the “effete corps of impudent snobs.” Agnew’s history foreshadowed his boss’s eventual downfall — in 1973, he was forced to resign from office when he pleaded no contest to charges of extortion, bribery, and tax evasion while he was governor of Maryland.