1968 Political Turmoil: A Year Of Global Upheaval And Change

1968 was a tumultuous and transformative year in global politics, marked by widespread social unrest, pivotal elections, and significant geopolitical shifts. In the United States, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, coupled with escalating anti-war protests against the Vietnam War, deepened political and racial divisions. Abroad, the Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia symbolized a brief but hopeful push for liberalization under Soviet rule, only to be crushed by the Warsaw Pact invasion. Meanwhile, the Paris student riots and worker strikes in France challenged the establishment, leading to a brief but profound political crisis. The year also saw the rise of civil rights movements worldwide, from Mexico’s Tlatelolco massacre to the global anti-apartheid struggle, underscoring a universal demand for justice and change. Collectively, 1968 reshaped political landscapes, leaving an indelible mark on the 20th century.

Explore related products

Playing with Fire: The 1968 Election and the Transformation of American Politics

$10.05 $18

The Year That Broke Politics: Collusion and Chaos in the Presidential Election of 1968

$17.17 $24

A People's History of the United States

$17.98 $23.99

1968: Radical Protest and Its Enemies – A Global History of Revolutionary Movements, Feminist Activism, and Lasting Change

$29.99 $11.99

The Making of the President 1968: The Classic Account of Nixon's Election, Kennedy's Assassination, and a Nation Divided (Landmark Political)

$9.86 $16.99

American Maelstrom: The 1968 Election and the Politics of Division (Pivotal Moments in World History)

$9.99 $17.99

US Presidential Election: Nixon vs. Humphrey, with third-party candidate George Wallace also running

The 1968 U.S. presidential election was a seismic event, shaped by the tumultuous backdrop of the Vietnam War, civil rights unrest, and political assassinations. Richard Nixon, the Republican nominee, positioned himself as the candidate of law and order, appealing to a silent majority weary of social upheaval. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, struggled to distance himself from the unpopular policies of the Johnson administration, particularly the war. Meanwhile, George Wallace, running on the American Independent Party ticket, capitalized on racial tensions and economic anxieties, further fracturing the electorate. This three-way race reflected a nation deeply divided, with each candidate embodying distinct responses to the crises of the era.

Nixon’s strategy was a masterclass in political triangulation. He promised to end the Vietnam War through a "secret plan" while simultaneously courting voters alienated by the counterculture movement. His Southern Strategy subtly appealed to white voters disillusioned with the Democratic Party’s embrace of civil rights, though he avoided overt racism. Humphrey, despite his progressive record, was hamstrung by his loyalty to President Johnson, whose approval ratings had plummeted. Wallace, on the other hand, ran an unapologetically segregationist campaign, winning five Southern states and nearly 10 million votes. His success underscored the enduring power of racial backlash in American politics.

The election results revealed a nation in flux. Nixon won with 301 electoral votes, but his popular vote margin over Humphrey was razor-thin—less than 1%. Wallace’s strong showing demonstrated the appeal of populist, anti-establishment rhetoric, a precursor to future third-party challenges. The election also marked a realignment of the parties, as Nixon’s victory began to shift the South toward the Republican Party, a trend that would solidify in subsequent decades. For voters, the choice was less about policy specifics and more about which candidate best represented their vision for America’s future.

Practical takeaways from this election abound for modern political strategists. First, framing matters: Nixon’s "law and order" message resonated because it addressed voters’ immediate concerns. Second, third-party candidates can significantly influence outcomes, even if they don’t win. Wallace’s campaign forced Nixon and Humphrey to adjust their strategies, particularly in the South. Finally, the election highlights the risks of incumbency during times of crisis. Humphrey’s association with Johnson’s policies doomed his candidacy, a lesson for vice presidents seeking to succeed their bosses.

In retrospect, the 1968 election was a turning point in American political history. It showcased the power of divisive rhetoric, the fragility of party coalitions, and the electorate’s willingness to embrace change—or the illusion of it. Nixon’s victory inaugurated a new era of conservative politics, while Humphrey’s defeat signaled the end of the New Deal coalition. Wallace’s campaign, though unsuccessful, left an indelible mark on the nation’s racial and cultural fault lines. Together, these candidates and their campaigns offer a cautionary tale about the consequences of polarization and the enduring struggle to define America’s identity.

Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.: Sparked nationwide riots, civil rights movement upheaval

The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4, 1968, was a seismic event that sent shockwaves through the United States, igniting a firestorm of emotions and actions that reshaped the nation’s political and social landscape. Within hours of the news breaking, cities across the country erupted in riots, with over 100 major urban centers experiencing unrest. From Washington, D.C., to Chicago, and from Detroit to Baltimore, predominantly African American communities expressed their grief, anger, and frustration through protests that often turned violent. The immediate aftermath saw over 40 deaths, thousands of arrests, and millions of dollars in property damage, underscoring the depth of the nation’s racial divide.

To understand the scale of the upheaval, consider the context: King was not just a civil rights leader but a symbol of nonviolent resistance and hope for millions. His death came at a critical juncture, as the civil rights movement was already grappling with internal divisions and external backlash. The Poor People’s Campaign, King’s final initiative aimed at economic justice, was in its planning stages, and his assassination left a void that no single leader could immediately fill. The riots were not merely reactions to his death but eruptions of long-simmering tensions over systemic racism, poverty, and police brutality—issues that King had dedicated his life to addressing.

From a strategic perspective, the riots served as both a catalyst and a cautionary tale for the civil rights movement. While they drew national and international attention to the plight of African Americans, they also hardened resistance among segments of the white population, who viewed the violence as a justification for maintaining the status quo. Policymakers responded with a mix of repression and reform, including the deployment of federal troops to quell unrest and the accelerated passage of the Fair Housing Act, a key piece of legislation King had championed. Yet, the riots also exposed the limitations of nonviolence as a singular strategy, prompting a new wave of activism that embraced more radical approaches.

For those studying or teaching this period, it’s essential to emphasize the complexity of the moment. The assassination and its aftermath were not just historical events but lessons in the fragility of progress and the enduring struggle for justice. Practical tips for educators include incorporating primary sources like King’s speeches, contemporary news reports, and firsthand accounts from participants in the riots. Encourage students to analyze the role of media in shaping public perception and to consider how the events of 1968 continue to influence modern movements like Black Lives Matter. By grounding the discussion in specifics, we can help learners grasp the human cost of political upheaval and the ongoing relevance of King’s legacy.

Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: Occurred during his presidential campaign, shocked the nation

The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy on June 5, 1968, remains one of the most seismic political events of the 20th century. Occurring in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, just moments after Kennedy delivered his California primary victory speech, the shooting sent shockwaves through a nation already reeling from political and social upheaval. Kennedy, a charismatic figure who had championed civil rights, economic justice, and anti-war sentiments, was gunned down by Sirhan Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian with a grievance against the candidate’s pro-Israel stance. The assassination not only halted Kennedy’s promising presidential campaign but also deepened the sense of national despair, coming just five years after the murder of his brother, President John F. Kennedy.

Analyzing the immediate aftermath reveals the profound impact on the 1968 election and American politics. Kennedy’s death left a void in the Democratic Party, which was already fractured by the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. Vice President Hubert Humphrey emerged as the nominee but struggled to unite the party’s progressive and moderate wings. Kennedy’s assassination also amplified the growing sense of instability in the United States, which had already witnessed the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. in April of that year. These tragedies fueled widespread disillusionment, contributing to the election of Richard Nixon, who capitalized on fears of chaos and promised law and order.

To understand the assassination’s broader significance, consider its role in shaping political security measures. Kennedy’s death exposed the vulnerability of public figures in an era of escalating political tensions. In response, the Secret Service expanded its protective duties to include major presidential candidates, a practice that continues today. This shift underscores the assassination’s lasting legacy on campaign safety protocols, ensuring that candidates can engage with voters without facing undue risk. For modern campaigns, this serves as a practical reminder to prioritize security, especially in high-stakes environments.

Comparatively, Kennedy’s assassination differs from other political murders in its timing and context. Unlike the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which occurred during his presidency, Robert Kennedy’s murder took place during a campaign, directly influencing the electoral process. It also contrasts with the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., which was racially motivated and sparked widespread civil unrest. Kennedy’s death, while politically motivated, highlighted the personal cost of divisive global issues, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on domestic politics. This unique intersection of international and domestic politics sets it apart in historical analysis.

Finally, the assassination’s emotional resonance endures as a cautionary tale about the fragility of progress. Kennedy’s vision of a more just and equitable America inspired millions, particularly marginalized communities. His death not only robbed the nation of a potential leader but also symbolized the silencing of hope during a turbulent era. For contemporary activists and politicians, this serves as a call to action: to persist in the face of adversity and to safeguard the ideals Kennedy fought for. In remembering his assassination, we are reminded that political change often comes at great personal cost, but the pursuit of justice remains a collective responsibility.

Explore related products

1968: The Year That Changed the World - A Complete History

$8.99 $16.99

Global Imagination of 1968: Revolution and Counterrevolution

$12.79 $24.95

Triumph Regained: The Vietnam War, 1965-1968

$30.49 $49.99

History of Political Philosophy

$38

Waging a Good War

$11.71 $20

1968: The Most Consequential Year In United States History (Critical times in American History)

$16.99

Prague Spring: Soviet-led invasion crushed Czechoslovakia's political liberalization efforts

The year 1968 was a tumultuous one in global politics, marked by social upheaval, anti-war protests, and a quest for greater freedoms. Amid this backdrop, Czechoslovakia’s Prague Spring stands out as a bold yet tragic experiment in political liberalization. Under the leadership of Alexander Dubček, the country sought to create "socialism with a human face," introducing reforms that included freedom of speech, decentralization of government, and limits on censorship. This movement, however, was abruptly halted by a Soviet-led invasion in August 1968, which crushed Czechoslovakia’s aspirations for reform and reasserted Soviet dominance over the Eastern Bloc.

To understand the Prague Spring, consider it as a step-by-step attempt to balance communism with individual liberties. Step one: Dubček’s government lifted press censorship, allowing open criticism of the regime for the first time. Step two: they proposed economic reforms to reduce state control and encourage worker autonomy. Step three: plans were made to decentralize power, giving more authority to the Slovak region. These measures were not anti-communist but aimed to humanize the system. Caution, however, came from the Soviet Union, which viewed these reforms as a threat to its control over satellite states. The invasion, involving over 500,000 troops from the Warsaw Pact, was a stark reminder of the limits of sovereignty within the Soviet sphere.

Analytically, the Prague Spring reveals the inherent tension between ideological reform and geopolitical power dynamics. While Dubček’s reforms resonated with the Czechoslovak people, they challenged the Soviet Union’s post-World War II strategy of maintaining a buffer zone of compliant states. The invasion was not just a military action but a symbolic act to suppress dissent across the Eastern Bloc. Its aftermath, known as the "normalization" period, saw the rollback of reforms and the purging of reformers from the Communist Party. This event underscores the fragility of political liberalization in authoritarian contexts, where external pressures often outweigh internal aspirations.

Persuasively, the Prague Spring serves as a cautionary tale for modern movements seeking democratic reforms within authoritarian systems. It highlights the importance of international solidarity and strategic planning. For activists today, the lesson is clear: incremental reforms, while appealing, must account for the potential backlash from entrenched powers. Practical tips include building broad-based coalitions, leveraging international support, and preparing for non-violent resistance. The Prague Spring’s legacy reminds us that the fight for freedom is often met with resistance, but its ideals endure as a beacon for future generations.

Comparatively, the Prague Spring shares parallels with other suppressed reform movements, such as Hungary’s 1956 uprising and China’s Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. Each case demonstrates the clash between local aspirations for freedom and global power structures. However, the Prague Spring’s unique contribution lies in its attempt to reform communism from within, rather than overthrow it entirely. This nuanced approach makes it a valuable case study for understanding the complexities of political change. While the invasion ended Czechoslovakia’s experiment, its spirit lived on, influencing later movements like the Velvet Revolution of 1989, which finally brought democracy to the country.

Mexico City Olympics Protests: Athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised fists in protest

The 1968 Mexico City Olympics became a global stage for political dissent when American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos transformed a medal ceremony into a powerful statement against racial inequality. As the national anthem played, the two sprinters, having won gold and bronze in the 200-meter dash, raised their gloved fists in a Black Power salute, heads bowed, shoes removed to symbolize poverty. This act of defiance was not spontaneous but a calculated response to systemic racism and the Civil Rights Movement’s call for justice. Their silent protest, lasting mere seconds, reverberated across the world, challenging the notion that sports and politics should remain separate.

Analyzing the context reveals the depth of their sacrifice. Smith and Carlos were not just athletes; they were activists who understood the Olympics’ global audience as an opportunity to amplify their message. Their gesture was a direct response to the Olympic Project for Human Rights (OPHR), which had urged athletes to boycott the Games or use their platform to highlight racial injustice. While the boycott failed to gain widespread support, Smith and Carlos’ action became its most iconic manifestation. Their protest was met with immediate backlash: they were suspended from the U.S. team, received death threats, and faced long-term career repercussions. Yet, their willingness to risk everything underscores the urgency of their cause.

Instructively, their protest serves as a blueprint for athlete activism. It demonstrates how athletes can leverage their visibility to address societal issues, a lesson echoed in modern movements like Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling protests. Smith and Carlos’ actions remind us that symbolism matters: the black gloves represented black unity, the bare feet poverty, and the Australian silver medalist, Peter Norman, who stood in solidarity, wore an OPHR badge. For those seeking to emulate their courage, the key lies in understanding the intersection of personal platform and collective struggle. Athletes today can follow their example by aligning their actions with specific, actionable demands, ensuring their protests are both meaningful and impactful.

Comparatively, the 1968 protest stands out in the history of political demonstrations at the Olympics. Unlike the 1936 Berlin Games, where Jesse Owens’ victories subtly challenged Nazi racial ideology, Smith and Carlos’ action was overtly confrontational. It also contrasts with later protests, such as the 2020 Tokyo Olympics’ relaxed rules on athlete activism, which allowed for more nuanced expressions of dissent. However, the 1968 moment remains unparalleled in its raw, unfiltered audacity, a reminder that sometimes the most effective protests are those that disrupt the status quo most visibly.

Descriptively, the image of Smith and Carlos on the podium is a study in contrasts: the stark black gloves against the white track suits, the bowed heads in silent defiance, the tense atmosphere as the anthem played. Their bodies became canvases for resistance, their medals secondary to the message. This visual power ensured their protest transcended language and cultural barriers, embedding itself in the collective memory of the 20th century. For those studying political symbolism, the photograph remains a masterclass in how to communicate complex ideas through simple, yet profound, gestures.

Frequently asked questions