Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

George McGovern: His Liberalism had nothing to do w/ '72 defeat

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
CMT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:14 PM
Original message
George McGovern: His Liberalism had nothing to do w/ '72 defeat
The current issue of Playboy has a long article written by George McGovern on the nature of the 1972 campaign and how it relates to 2004 and especially comparisons between himself and Howard Dean.

McGovern makes the point that his "liberalism" wasn't what defeated him in '72. He makes persausive points that the reasons for his loss were:

1)The absence of George Wallace running as an Independent. Wallace was one of the leading Democrats in the '72 primaries winning in Florida, Michigan, and Maryland. But his views on civil rights would not have allowed him to be nominated by the Democratic Party and so Wallace would have run as an Independent in '72 the same as he did in 1968 when he won 13% of the vote. McGovern believes that had Wallace not been shot and disabled by an assassins bullet and actually run in '72 he would have done as well as Ross Perot did in 1992. So most of the Wallace vote swung heavily to Nixon, who had adopted a "southern strategy" once he was installed in the white house.

2) The selection of Thomas Eagleton and his removal from the Democratic ticket. McGovern takes the blame for this. When news came out that Eagleton had received shock treatments for depression McGovern made his famous statement about supporting Eagleton "1,000 percent." only to remove him from the ticket days later when he felt pressure from key Democratic groups. In retrospect McGovern feels he should have withstood the pressure and kept Eagleton on the ticket.

3) The third reason McGovern gives for his defeat is that he never got his best chance to speak directly to the American People when he delivered his acceptance speech. Becuz balloting for VP took so long he delivered this most important speech at 2:47 am east coast time--well after most people went to bed.

To further bolster his point that an his "outsider" reputation was not the reason he lost in 1972, McGovern points out that "my friend" Walter Mondale was the establishment candidate in 1984--winning heavy duty endorsements from establishment democrats and the AFL-CIO endorsement only to meet the same fate that McGovern did in '72, lose 49 states.

I have no link, becuz it is not online, but it made fascinating reading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Donating Member ( posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. I was just thinking the same thing yesterday.
Weird.
I particularly agree with reasons 2 and 3. Hadn't thought about reason 1.
I was thinking about this in reference to Dean's grass roots campaign and McGovern's.
I was 16 in 1972 and McGovern's campaign was the first one I actively worked on.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HootieMcBoob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. guess i'll have to buy that edition
for the mcgovern article of course :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mlawson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. I dunno. Could anyone have beaten Nixon in 1972??
I doubt it. Just like Ronnie in 1984, and Clinton in 1996. Voters LIKED Ronnie and Big Dog, and felt secure with Nixon.

Who else could have run in 1972?? Muskie was a Mondale, and Teddy Kennedy's chances had been destroyed by Chappaquiddick. Humphrey was through with it, and Carter was still unknown. Who have I left out, if anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. It sounds about right
Edited on Fri Oct-31-03 04:28 PM by Mairead
My main reason for not voting for him was the sense of having been steamrollered by his machine during the caucus. My second reason (but I think the first reason for a lot of people from the way they made '1000%' an epithet) was his shameful treatment of Eagleton.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
birdman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. Shameful trreatment ?
Eagleton lied to him. He knew full well that his
background was deadly for a national campaign but
told McGovern that he had no "skeletons". McGovern
handled the issue terribly but it was a lose-lose
situation and Eagleton should have been honest.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #17
27. Yes, shameful treatment
By 1972, treatment for depression was no longer grounds for people backing away with their eyes bugged out. I ran into only a few people with your attitude; the rest were more tolerant. But everybody was contemptuous of McGovern. The most pro-McGovern attitude to be found was 'he should have dumped him right away, not say he supports him and then dump him'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
birdman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #27
33. If the public was so enlightened about depression why did Eagleton lie ?
Simple. The public was nowhere near so enlightened.

Eagleton knew that McGovern would have had to go to his second
choice if he knew the truth. So he lied to the McGovern people
and left a time bomb ticking in the campaign.

Agreed that McGovern handled it badly but he was faced with two bad choices (dump a running mate or keep one with deadly baggage).
The fault, however, is Eagletons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-03 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. He lied for the same reason Clinton lied about Monica
It's none of anyone's damned business, just as FDR's use of a wheelchair wasn't.

Treatment for paranoia, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or some of the neuroses would be problematic, but treatment for depression should not be any more than treatment for a broken arm should be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
birdman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-03 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. So it was none of McGovern's business Eagleton was hiding a time bomb
Edited on Sun Nov-02-03 09:26 AM by birdman
that was going to destroy the campaign. Hellooooo!

Eagleton lied for the exact same reason that Clinton lied -
to protect himself from embarrassment (personal and political).
Do you think Bill was trying to protect some great principle
of personal privacy or else he would have told the world
exactly where he had been putting the Presidential prong?

If treatment for depression (electro-shock therapy by the way)
was not "any more than treatment for a broken arm" then Eagleton
should have brought it up while he was running for the Senate from Missouri. But he didn't because he knew it was a liability. And
he allowed it to ruin the McGovern campaign and damage the national party.

I worked for McGovern that fall and I have never forgiven that creep Eagleton for torpedoing the campaign. Screw him.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. I disagree with McGovern, and I'm surprised he says this stuff.
Personally, I think the reason he lost so bad was that Nixon was able to claim he'd ended the Vietnam War. He was pulling troops out all year long. Without the war issue, McGovern had nothing to campaign on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CMT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I think that was an issue as well
along with everything McG said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member ( posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. history
History is strange.
It sure didn't feel to me like the Vietnam War was over in '72. Not the way I remember it.
But others might remember differently.
Plus they were still giving out lottery numbers for the draft until the end of 1974.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. McGovern didn't see what was happening then, so I'm not surprised
that he still doesn't get it now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. When you run too far left
You run away from the rest of America. George didn't grasp that. Thirty years later he is still trying to rationalize getting his ass kicked by Nixon of all people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #16
25. You think running left of Reagan is too far left
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #25
34. You think
If that is the accurate term, that anyone who disagrees with you is a winger. Tain't true. There are bunch of Democrats who are much more in step with the rest of America. Run away from us and you lose elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #16
35. Actually, I think the issue was more that he ran on a single issue.
When you define yourself according to a single issue, especially one that's controled by the other side, you run the risk of having that issue removed.

Dean is almost entirely defined by opposition ot Bush's Iraq war. If Bush didn't run/pulled out of Iraq, nobody would know who or what Dean was.

This is part of the reason why LBJ said you have to run FOR something. You can't be against everything. Once you've defined yourself in terms of what you're for, the other side can never take that away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddleoftheroad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-03 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. I think you mischaracterize Dean
And I'm no Dean supporter. But I see him as a three-dimensional candidate, not a one-issue concept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. I think that is very true
Nixon had made it seem like the war was at it's very end by election day, only to bomb the shit out of hanoi a couple of weeks after it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
7. McGovern ran on one issue: opposition to Vietnam
All Nixon needed to do was talk about his secret plan to end the war, talk about ending the draft, and there went the rug out from underneath McGovern.

Bush will do the same thing with Iraq.

They're bringing us way down on the economy and on Iraq so that we can come up a little before the election and feel like everything's headed in the right direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. I sure as hell hope not
because there alot of things I hate about bush and iraq is only a small part of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
12. Blaming his loss on Wallace NOT running as an independent?
Frankly, that alone seems to be an admission that he was too liberal to win a majority of the popular vote. Besides, McGovern's share of the popular vote was still lower than what Humphrey received in a three candidate race in '68. And I seriously doubt Wallace would have had neadly as much impact in 1972 as he did in the earlier race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. And it was even lower than what Mondale and Dukakis
received in their landslides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
14. What about his other issues?
McGovern proposed that the Gov't send $1,000.00 annually to every man, woman & child in the U.S. (In today's terms that would be about 5,000 to 6,000) In the Dem debates another Dem said that the proposal would cost over 200Billion. McG said that was silly, and asked where that figure came from. The other Dem candidate replied that it was the population 200Million time 1,000. Grade school arithmatic. McG stayed with the idea. THAT PROPOSAL ALONE WAS ENOUGH TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT HE WAS NUTS.

He proposed reducing the military budget by 1/3. That was during the cold war, with a hot war going on.

The Eagleton affair could have been minor if he had handled it right. (Call Eagleton, confirm story, get Eagleton's resignation, Publicly announce that regretfully he was accepting the resignation of a good man, etc., replace Eagleton, keep going.) Instead he stuck by Eagleton 1000%, publicly announced that support, then dumped Eagleton. It made him look indecisive and two-faced.

The first two items by themselves would have been enough to defeat him. He was double digits behind in the polls before the Eagleton mess hit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Michael Harrington Donating Member (304 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
15. There's also the minor matter...
of him running against the foulest campaign organization in modern American history, one that (happily) sowed the seeds of it's own destruction in that very campaign. It's a good article.

And Shannen Doherty is very hot :loveya: especially for a Republican :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
18. I've said this before
but nobody even knew what McGovern's positions were, other than ending the war. His proposal for $1000 to everyone was rarely discussed, nor were most of his other issues.

Instead, he bore the brunt of middle America's feelings about the youth culture.

The news media always portrayed him as surrounded by long-haired supporters, and as if he had no issues other than the war.

The overwhelming votes for Nixon had little to do with McGovern and everything to do with middle America being horrified at the youth culture.

That was certainly the feeling I got listening to my parents' friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. His positions were well known.
The Dems had their TV ads too. The $1,000 to everybody was discussed. After all, I still remember it 30 years later. There were lots of newpaper columnists that wrote about it. McGovern was able to get his message out, and it was rejected overwhelmingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
20. I agree about the $1,000 to everyone.
I still remember that 31 years later, and it positioned McGovern as a nutjob - like Goldwater in 1964.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JaneQPublic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
21. And wasn't there a little thing called Watergate?
Didn't the Repukes break into the Dem HQ before the election and steal info about campaign strategy ?

And didn't it go undiscovered until AFTER the election and Tricky Dick was returned for a second term?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Close, but not quite.
The break in was caugh red handed by a security guard. They had bugging gear on them so it was obvious that the Reps were trying to bug the Dems. It became a campaign issue, most people didn't care because they were afraid of McGovern.

The sad part is that McG understood war. He was a B-17 pilot in WWII and flew combat missions, if my memory is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 04:34 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. He was a WWII hero, but he chose to deemphasize it
He was a WWII hero, but he chose to not to emphasize it.


http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0910-04.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paschall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 05:16 AM
Response to Reply #21
30. Not to mention Nixon's Dirty Tricksters
Those wonderfully American agents who infiltrated, not only the McGovern campaign, but the anti-war camp to discredit it.

Who remembers J. Edgar Hoover's greasy little hands in that abhorrent distortion of the political process? Or Donald Segretti, who was hired specifically by the Committee to Re-elect the President to "harass" Democratic candidates?

<snip> The crisis of Watergate began with wiretaps in 1969 on an "enemies list" of those who opposed of the secret Cambodia invasion, the Tom Huston plan in 1970 to investigate protesters and cause their arrest and possible mass internment, the creation of the White House plumbers unit under John Ehrlichman to plug leaks such as Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the CRP organization and the use of dirty tricks in the 1972 campaign, led by Donald Segretti and CRP legal counsel G. Gordon Liddy, including the first break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in May 1972 to plant a wiretap on the telephone of Larry O'Brien. </snip>

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/20th/nixon01.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-03 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
22. He got only 37%
Americans rejected him decisively--his platform did play a role in that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. So we should have stayed in Viet Nam?
nice!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #26
36. We did stay. Nixon won. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
24. I'm not sure if he would have even been the nominee if
I'm not sure if he would have even been the nominee if
Nixon's dirty tricks hadn't taken out Muskie.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 04:56 AM
Response to Original message
29. Wait.... how can he say "liberalism" wasn't what defeated him when...
the VERY FIRST ITEM you listed pertains to the essence of liberalism.

Nixon's "southern strategy" was aimed at picking up the dixiecrat votes the Democratic party sacrificed by supporting civil rights.

Something just doesn't add up there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 05:24 AM
Response to Original message
31. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Ani Yun Wiya Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-03 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. How did you end up at this site?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC