Friday, February 10, 2006
Disenfranchised hippies, blacks, peace protesters and feminists
Looking dapper, trim and straight [straight? - ed.] at age 83, George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate whose name has become political code for "too liberal," spoke for an hour Thursday at Book Passage in Corte Madera, sounding like the kind of wise old sage he wishes the current occupant of the White House would listen to.
A decorated World War II bomber pilot who served 18 years in the U.S. Senate, McGovern lost to Richard Nixon in a landslide three-and-a-half decades ago.
Despite a decisive defeat, his Vietnam War-era campaign - the subject of the recent documentary "One Bright Shining Moment" - will be remembered for bringing disenfranchised hippies, blacks, peace protesters and feminists into the Democratic fold on a platform of peace and social justice.
Taranto gives him credit where due, but suggests that he hardly has grounds for a hearty last laugh:
OK, so McGovern was in some sense vindicated by Nixon's resignation--and by the next two elections. In 1974 the McGovernized Democrats made substantial gains in both the House and Senate, to which they added slightly in 1976. In 1977 a Democrat became president and the 93rd Congress began, with Democrats holding 61 Senate and 292 House seats.
But it's been all downhill since then. Republicans made gains in 1978, and in neither house of Congress have the Democrats equaled their 1977 peak. The GOP has won five of the past seven presidential elections, and no Democratic candidate since 1976 has received a majority of the popular vote. In 1980 Ronald Reagan won the White House and the GOP took the Senate. Among the Democratic senators defeated that year was one George McGovern of South Dakota. Fourteen years later the Republicans took both houses of Congress.
There's no denying Taranto's version of history, and then some. Indeed, one might plausibly argue that the McGovern campaign's enfolding of "disenfranchised hippies, blacks, peace protesters and feminists into the Democratic fold on a platform of peace and social justice" has made it impossible for Democrats to compete for the great American center. Since 1972, the Democrats have added environmentalists, advocates for gay rights, pro-abortion groups, anti-globalization groups and trial lawyers. The Democrats are a party of activist groups, each with a narrow agenda that is more important to them than the victory of the party. During the primary season, each of these groups tries to squeeze candidates into committing to their cause. During the general election, each group maneuvers to encourage the Democratic nominee to move to the center -- that is, compromise -- on some other group's issue. The result is a muddled message and apparent fecklessness. Remember Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry? They all had the same problem delivering a clear message. Democrats like to think it is because they are smarter -- that "complex problems deserve complex answers." The real reason is today's post-McGovern Democratic party is a loose assemblage of activists, not a true political party that is willing to sacrifice the perfect in the cause of victory.*
_________________________
*Yes, I know that the Republicans have to struggle with their own activist groups. However, there are really only two that cause them any heartburn at the ballot box: the anti-abortion movement and the anti-immigration crowd, and both groups have shown more willingness to subsume the purity of their own ideology to the cause of victory than most of their counterparts on the left.
3 Comments:
By 
Final Historian, at
Fri Feb 10, 08:46:00 PM:
The GOP has historically always been less fractured than the Democrats. The Democratic Party wins when its leadership is capable of convincing the various activist blocs to quiet down and follow their lead. That actually means it usually takes a more capable leader to take the Democrats to the White House than than is the case for a Republican. Alas for the Dems, they are in few supply of any Roosevelts or Trumans.
By 
, at
Fri Feb 10, 09:33:00 PM:
Ah yes ... thanks for bringing up the self-ordained complex, cultured and intelligent John Frauds Kerrie.
I giggle when I think about Newsweek (or similar mag) that ran the article expressing the opinion that Kerry wasn't discussing his (lack luster and highlight-free Senatorial career), I mean, brilliant career in the Senate because the things he'd done were so complex and difficult to understand that we, the huddled masses just wouldn't understand.
Indeed.
By , at
Mon Feb 13, 03:52:00 PM:
"the anti-immigration crowd"
The vast majority of Republicans I know are anti-illegal immigrant. In decades of discussions about this issue the most common position stated is "easier legal immigration, extrememly difficult illegal immigration. This reflects the law and order position that is a core issue to most conservatives.
