0
   

Democrats Have Their History Wrong — and Are About to Make a Grievous Mistake

 
 
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2016 05:50 am

Democrats Have Their History Wrong — and Are About to Make a Grievous Mistake

Lesson of 1972 isn't that progressive nominees lose. Dems lose when they are out of step with voters, like Hillary.

By Kathy Donohue / Salon
March 7, 2016

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/democrats-have-their-history-wrong-and-are-about-make-grievous-mistake

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/screen_shot_2016-03-07_at_10.15.49_am.png
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union supporters hold signs during a Humphrey rally.
Photo Credit: Wikipedia

This election cycle, Democratic Party leaders are pleading with younger voters to heed the lessons of history. Echoing George Santayana’s famous warning: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” they urge millennials to take a close look at what happened to Democrats in 1972. That was the year, they explain, that the Democratic Party made a monumental blunder at its national convention by empowering young people, women and minorities at the expense of party elites. The result was the nomination of George McGovern, a candidate whose ideas were so radical that they guaranteed a landslide victory for Richard Nixon.

Leaving aside whether such an interpretation of 1972 is accurate, there is a more fundamental issue here. What if pundits and Democratic Party leaders are focusing on the wrong election? What if the lessons that history has for us are to be found not in 1972 but in 1968? What if we are heeding the absolutely wrong warnings?
ADVERTISING


Much like 2016, the 1968 election was supposed to be a coronation. Lyndon Johnson had won the White House four years earlier with one of the landslide victories of the 20th century. Few doubted he would be reelected, and no establishment politician even considered challenging Johnson for the nomination. But also like 2016, a relatively obscure senator felt that there had to be a candidate in the race who would bring up issues that were in real danger of being ignored. In 1968 that senator was Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota and the issue was the Vietnam War.

Political pundits dismissed McCarthy as a fringe candidate who had absolutely no chance of winning. But McCarthy’s campaign galvanized young people. An army of volunteers descended upon New Hampshire. Hippies, who a few weeks earlier had been wearing jeans and long hair, decided to “Get Clean for Gene.” Young men shaved their beards, young women donned dresses and all began going door to door throughout the Granite State.

McCarthy did not win New Hampshire but he took 20 of the 24 delegates, a result that sent shockwaves through the political establishment. Four days later Robert Kennedy, who had earlier declined to run because he assumed the election belonged to Johnson, threw his hat into the ring. Two weeks after that in an absolutely astounding turnaround of events, the inevitable front-runner Lyndon Johnson dropped out of the race. Much like 2016, “inevitability” was not quite as inevitable as everyone had initially assumed.

With Johnson’s departure, the Democrats needed an establishment candidate and looked to Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey. Throughout April and May, as Kennedy and McCarthy battled for votes in the primaries, Humphrey followed a different strategy. Well aware that the majority of delegates in 1968 were not going to be selected by voters but by the party elite in the non-primary states, he focused his efforts on wooing establishment politicians. By doing so Humphrey managed to build a formidable delegate lead much like Hillary Clinton is trying to do by locking in Super Delegates, today’s version of non-elected delegates chosen by party leaders.

When the Democrats met in Chicago late in the summer of 1968, the field had been tragically narrowed two and a half months earlier with the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. Only two candidates remained, Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy. Humphrey had not won a single primary. Indeed, his primary total was a minuscule 161,143 votes. But he controlled the most delegates. By contrast, McCarthy had received 2,914,933 primary votes, almost 20 times the number that Humphrey could claim. Yet, by the time the balloons had settled onto the convention floor, a Democratic Party controlled by machine politicians and union leaders had chosen Hubert Humphrey as the Democratic nominee.

As the race for the White House entered its final phase, a war-weary electorate, clearly frustrated by the status quo, had a choice. They could go with the establishment Democrat, who promised to continue Johnson’s policies, or they could elect a Republican, who had long ago mastered the sorts of campaign strategies that are currently propelling Donald Trump’s campaign. Much like Trump, Richard Nixon offered solutions without providing specifics, telling voters that he had a “secret plan” to “end the war but win the peace” in Vietnam. And while Nixon did not target Mexicans or Muslims, he did promise to restore law and order by cracking down on entitled and unruly young people demonstrating on the nation’s campuses and black people taking to the streets in urban neighborhoods. When the results came in, Nixon had edged past Humphrey in the popular vote and had a comfortable margin in the Electoral College.

Looking at 1968, it would seem the lesson that history has for us is that Democrats need to be really careful about assuming that the establishment candidate is the key to electoral victory. But what about 1972? Isn’t the lesson of that election that Democrats suffer their most devastating losses when they run candidates who speak to the party’s progressive base.

Actually, no. The lesson of 1972 is something quite different. To begin with, McGovern was not a particularly strong candidate. He had secured the nomination with only a quarter of the primary votes. The unions refused to work for him. And he ran a poor campaign. Even more significant, he was going up against a sitting president, Richard Nixon, who had brought troop levels in Vietnam down from almost half a million to around 30,000, had eased Cold War tensions by going to China and had stabilized the economy, at least temporarily, by implementing wage and price controls. Nixon would have been tough to beat under any circumstances, and McGovern was not the candidate to do it.

But the real lesson that McGovern’s defeat teaches us is not the dangers of progressivism so much as the dangers of being out of step with the electorate. Every few decades, the existing political order is completely overturned and in the upheaval a new order emerges. This happened in the 1930s, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt replaced what has been called the “Republican Ascendancy” with his New Deal Coalition. It happened again in the late 1960s and early 1970s when the rise of the right replaced the liberalism of the New Deal.

We are due for another upheaval and there are indications that we are actually in the middle of one right now. If that is the case, then what the election of 1972 teaches us is not that McGovern was too liberal for voters but that he was too out of step. He was trying to run as a ’60s liberal when the electorate had moved well beyond the ’60s, just as Clinton is running as a ’90s triangulating liberal when voters are hungry for change.

History has some important lessons to teach. They are just not the one that pundits and establishment politicians are claiming.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,585 • Replies: 17

 
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2016 06:18 am
@bobsal u1553115,
How is Clinton out of step with voters when more voters vote for her?
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2016 06:41 am
No one in 1968 thought the election would be a coronation. In fact, the Democrats delayed their convention for three weeks so that it would coincide with LBJ's birthday. Nixon got a three week head start on Humphrey and everyone who was paying attention then understood that part. For three weeks Nixon was able to get his message out and to slam the Democrats, and no one was answering.

Far from being out of touch with the people, Humphrey got on well with people. LBJ didn't have much use for him, and he was on the road whenever he wasn't presiding over the Senate. He was upbeat and people liked him. The media geniuses (Rolling Eyes), like the one who wrote this article, said that Humphrey talked too much. So? People came out to hear the candidates talk, they expected them to talk. It was the press who thought Humphrey was too prolix. Anyone who pays attention knows the press are too busy patting themselves on the back to know what is actually going on until they get their noses rubbed in it. Remember Harry Truman holding up the newspaper the day after the 1948 election?

I met Hubert Humphrey a few weeks after the convention. I was one of a group of student workers setting up the ballroom for a fundraiser to be held that evening--it was a little extra cash in our pockets. Humphrey came in, came over to shake our hands, and then sat down to talk to us. He asked question, and then listened to the answers, as his subsequent questions demonstrated. We talked, he listened. He took time out of what i'm now sure was a hectic schedule in order to talk to us. That was pretty significant in 1968--we weren't old enough to vote, then. It was also typical of Humphrey.

Basically, what i see here is a would-be pundit attempting to push his political agenda, and trying to make a whore of history in the attempt. Journalists truly are the bottom-feeders of the literary world.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2016 06:43 am
@engineer,
Why are her events drawing less than half those of Bernie Sanders? Why does she depend on PACs, banksters, Wall Street? Why doesn't she draw at least half what Bernie does in small contributions? Why has she had so many many policy evolutions in the last six months?

She's pandering right when she needs to tack left.

How do you feel about a candidate winning the popular vote in an election and the other candidate getting more delegates? The primary system is BS and needs immediate reform.
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2016 07:18 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Hilary Clinton has received 4,934,084 votes to date. Sanders has received 3,285,924. Clinton has more than 50% more real, no kidding votes than Sanders. It's not about rallies or delegates, it's about real voters voting for their candidate and those voters are voting for Clinton by 2 to 1.

Quote:
How do you feel about a candidate winning the popular vote in an election and the other candidate getting more delegates?

I'm all for the popular vote getter getting the nod.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2016 07:22 am
It does not matter which candidate has the more votes at this point. Two wrongs don't make a right.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2016 07:25 am
I see the "Sanders is a god" crew have come along to vote down my post. Sanders may be a good guy, but i am sick to death of his loud-mouthed, hectoring partisans.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2016 07:26 am
@engineer,
The primary system is a joke.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  5  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2016 07:31 am
I get "hectered" every time I post about Bernie.
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2016 07:32 am
@edgarblythe,
Oh, poor bay-bee . . . peddle that BS to someone else.
edgarblythe
 
  5  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2016 07:33 am
Clinton gets her biggest primary victories in states that generally vote Republican in the general election. So, she is not nearly so strong as the numbers would indicate.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2016 07:33 am
@edgarblythe,
Personally, I considered Hector a hero in the Iliad. It's a shame that his name has become associated with bullying.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2016 07:34 am
@Setanta,
I'm not the one crying.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2016 07:36 am
@edgarblythe,
That is a completely fair point. Winning Mississippi big doesn't mean that she has a chance at all of taking the state in November. The flip side of that is that those are Democratic voters and the party candidate represents them too. You can't just say "well, you live in a red state so we aren't going to count your votes".
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2016 07:46 am
@edgarblythe,
I'm not crying, either. Whenever i see someone making a claim about history, i check it out because nine times out of ten, it's bullsh*t. I came in here, read the article, saw that it was bullsh*t and said so. You can check the facts on that, too. Having done so, my post gets two down-votes right away. The Sanders crew around here are just about the nastiest partisans i've seen in years. I frankly don't care who gets the nod from the Democrats, just as long as those loons from the Republican party don't take over.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2016 02:16 am
@engineer,
You have missed the implication from the narrative. Hector constantly taunted and belittled the Greeks as he stood on the city wall. as well as taunting those Greeks whom he had defeated in individual combat. Most significantly, he taunts Patroklos as he lays dying. Maybe you need to read the Illiad again.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2016 08:42 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote edgarblythe:
Quote:
Clinton gets her biggest primary victories in states that generally vote Republican in the general election. So, she is not nearly so strong as the numbers would indicate.

In 2008, nobody expected the Democrats to get Virginia and North Carolina in the election. But they did. You can't disenfranchise any state from the primary system because of some pre-election evaluation of the likelihood of it going blue or red. That's why they hold actual elections, instead of just going by Gallup.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2016 06:37 pm
If we can get the vote out and get a Congress more like we the people, its more important than who's President.

I worry a Hillary Clinton ticket would take the White House, but would keep the turnout down.

And the 'mainstream/moderate/progressive' Republicans talk about a third party run against the Teapublican GOP. How does it get any weirder than that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Democrats Have Their History Wrong — and Are About to Make a Grievous Mistake
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/16/2018 at 06:18:05