1972 Democratic Party Platform is so progressive as to be off the scale today

[andym]

Here is small selection of it:
note that it is very long-
George McGovern was to the left of nearly every Democrat today and it shows in the Democratic Party platform:
National health insurance, regulations on multi-national corporations to prevent job export, civil rights for everyone (sexual preference was not explicitly mentioned though), pro-environment, 2.50 minimum wage (14.38 today) etc

Be surprised!
I'm not sure this year's platform is really as progressive. Go to the link below and read the whole platform. It's amazing.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29605

Also, it doesn't include all of the ideas that McGovern ran on, including a minimum income for everyone, by issuing a check to every adult for $1000 (worth about $5800 today)

Jobs, Income and Dignity

Full employment—a guaranteed job for all—is the primary economic objective of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is committed to a job for every American who seeks work. Only through full employment can we reduce the burden on working people. We are determined to make economic security a matter of right. This means a job with decent pay and good working conditions for everyone willing and able to work and an adequate income for those unable to work. It means abolition of the present welfare system.

To assure jobs and economic security for all, the next Democratic Administration should support:

A full employment economy, making full use of fiscal and monetary policy to stimulate employment;

Tax reform directed toward equitable distribution of income and wealth and fair sharing of the cost of government;

Full enforcement of all equal employment opportunity laws, including federal contract compliance and federally-regulated industries and giving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adequate staff and resources and power to issue cease and desist orders promptly;

Vastly increased efforts to open education at all levels and in all fields to minorities, women and other under-represented groups;

An effective nation-wide job placement system to entrance worker mobility;

Opposition to arbitrarily high standards for entry to jobs;

Overhaul of current manpower programs to assure training-without sex, race or language discrimination for jobs that really exist with continuous skill improvement and the chance for advancement;

Economic development programs to ensure the growth of communities and industry in lagging parts of the nation and the economy;

Use of federal depository funds to reward banks and other financial institutions which invest in socially productive endeavors;

Improved adjustment assistance and job creation for workers and employers hurt by foreign competition, reconversion of defense-oriented companies, rapid technological change and environmental protection activities;

Closing tax loopholes that encourage the export of American jobs by American-controlled multi-national corporations;

Assurance that the needs of society are considered when a decision to close or move an industrial plant is to be made and that income loss to workers and revenue loss to communities does not occur when plants are closed;

Assurance that, whatever else is done in the income security area, the social security system provides a decent income for the elderly, the blind and the disabled and their dependents, with escalators so that benefits keep pace with rising prices and living standards;

Reform of social security and government employment security programs to remove all forms of discrimination by sex; and adequate federal income assistance for those who do not benefit sufficiently from the above measures.

The last is not least, but it is last for good reason. The present welfare system has failed because it has been required to make up for too many other failures. Millions of Americans are forced into public assistance because public policy too often creates no other choice.

The heart of a program of economic security based on earned income must be creating jobs and training people to fill them. Millions of jobs—real jobs, not make-work-need to be provided. Public service employment must be greatly expanded in order to make the government the employer of last resort and guarantee a job for all. Large sections of our cities resemble bombed-out Europe after World War II. Children in Appalachia cannot go to school when the dirt road is a sea of mud. Homes, schools and clinics, roads and mass transit systems need to be built.

Cleaning up our air and water will take skills and people in large numbers. In the school, the police department, the welfare agency or the recreation program, there are new careers to be developed to help ensure that social services reach the people for whom they are intended.

It may cost more, at least initially, to create decent jobs than to perpetuate the hand-out system of present welfare. But the return—in new public facilities and services, in the dignity of bringing a paycheck home and in the taxes that will come back in—far outweigh the cost of the investment.

The next Democratic Administration must end the present welfare system and replace it with an income security program which places cash assistance in an appropriate context with all of the measures outlined above, adding up to an earned income approach to ensure each family an income substantially more than the poverty level ensuring standards of decency and health, as officially defined in the area. Federal income assistance will supplement the income of working poor people and assure an adequate income for those unable to work. With full employment and simpler, fair administration, total costs will go down, and with federal financing the burden on local and state budgets will be eased. The program will protect current benefit goals during the transitional period.

The system of income protection which replaces welfare must he a part of the full employment policy which assures every American a job at a fair wage under conditions which make use of his ability and provide an opportunity for advancement. H.R. 1, and its various amendments, is not humane and does not meet the social and economic objectives that we believe in, and it should be defeated. It perpetuates the coercion of forced work requirements.

Skepticism and cynicism are widespread in America. The people are skeptical of platforms filled with political platitudes—of promises made by opportunistic politicians.

The people are cynical about the idea that a rosy future is just around the corner.

And is it any wonder that the people are skeptical and cynical of the whole political process?

Our traditions, our history, our Constitution, our lives, all say that America belongs to its people.

But the people no longer believe it.

They feel that the government is run for the privileged few rather than for the many-and they are right.

No political party, no President, no government can by itself restore a lost sense of faith. No Administration can provide solutions to all our problems. What we can do is to recognize the doubts of Americans, to speak to those doubts, and to act to begin turning those doubts into hopes.

As Democrats, we know that we share responsibility for that loss of confidence. But we also know, as Democrats that at decisive moments of choice in our past, our party has offered leadership that has tapped the best within our country.

Our party-standing by its ideals of domestic progress and enlightened internationalism--has served America well. We have nominated or elected men of the high calibre of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Adlai E. Stevenson, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson—and in the last election Hubert Humphrey and Edmund S. Muskie. In that proud tradition we are now prepared to move forward.

We know that our nation cannot tolerate any longer a government that shows no regard for the people's basic needs and no respect for our right to the truth from those who lead us. What do the people want? They want three things:

They want a personal life that makes us all feel that life is worth living;

They want a social environment whose institutions promote the good of all; and

They want a physical environment whose resources are used for the good of all.

They want an opportunity to achieve their aspirations and their dreams for themselves and their children.

We believe in the rights of citizens to achieve to the limit of their talents and energies. We are determined to remove barriers that limit citizens because they are black, brown, young or women; because they never had the chance to gain an education; because there was no possibility of being anything but what they were.

We believe in hard work as a fair measure of our own willingness to achieve. We are determined that millions should not stand idle while work demands to be done. We are determined that the dole should not become a permanent way of life for any. And we are determined that government no longer tax the product of hard work more rigorously than it taxes inherited wealth, or money that is gained simply by having money in the first place.

We believe that the law must apply equally to all, and that it must be an instrument of justice. We are determined that the citizen must be protected in his home and on his streets. We are determined also that the ordinary citizen should not be imprisoned for a crime before we know whether he is guilty or not while those with the right friends and the right connections can break the law without ever facing the consequences of their actions.

We believe that war is a waste of human life. We are determined to end forthwith a war which has cost 50,000 American lives, $150 billion of our resources, that has divided us from each other, drained our national will and inflicted incalculable damage to countless people. We will end that war by a simple plan that need not be kept secret: The immediate total withdrawal of all Americans from Southeast Asia.

We believe in the right of an individual to speak, think, read, write, worship, and live free of official intrusion. We are determined that our government must no longer tap the phones of law-abiding citizens nor spy on those who have broken no law. We are determined that never again shall government seek to censor the newspapers and television. We are determined that the government shall no longer mock the supreme law of the land, while it stands helpless in the face of crime which makes our neighborhoods and communities less and less safe.

Perhaps most fundamentally, we believe that government is the servant, not the master, of the people. We are determined that government should not mean a force so huge, so impersonal, that the complaint of an ordinary citizen goes unheard.

That is not the kind of government America was created to build. Our ancestors did not fight a revolution and sacrifice their lives against tyrants from abroad to leave us a government that does not know how to listen to its own people.

The Democratic Party is proud of its past; but we are honest enough to admit that we are part of the past and share in its mistakes. We want in 1972 to begin the long and difficult task of reviewing existing programs, revising them to make them work and finding new techniques to serve the public need. We want to speak for, and with, the citizens of our country. Our pledge is to be truthful to the people and to ourselves, to tell you when we succeed, but also when we fail or when we are not sure. In 1976, when this nation celebrates its 200th anniversary, we want to tell you simply that we have done our best to give the government to those who formed it—the people of America.

Every election is a choice: In 1972, Americans must decide whether they want their country back again.

Jobs, Income and Dignity

Full employment—a guaranteed job for all—is the primary economic objective of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is committed to a job for every American who seeks work. Only through full employment can we reduce the burden on working people. We are determined to make economic security a matter of right. This means a job with decent pay and good working conditions for everyone willing and able to work and an adequate income for those unable to work. It means abolition of the present welfare system.

To assure jobs and economic security for all, the next Democratic Administration should support:

A full employment economy, making full use of fiscal and monetary policy to stimulate employment;

Tax reform directed toward equitable distribution of income and wealth and fair sharing of the cost of government;

Full enforcement of all equal employment opportunity laws, including federal contract compliance and federally-regulated industries and giving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adequate staff and resources and power to issue cease and desist orders promptly;

Vastly increased efforts to open education at all levels and in all fields to minorities, women and other under-represented groups;

An effective nation-wide job placement system to entrance worker mobility;

Opposition to arbitrarily high standards for entry to jobs;

Overhaul of current manpower programs to assure training-without sex, race or language discrimination for jobs that really exist with continuous skill improvement and the chance for advancement;

Economic development programs to ensure the growth of communities and industry in lagging parts of the nation and the economy;

Use of federal depository funds to reward banks and other financial institutions which invest in socially productive endeavors;

Improved adjustment assistance and job creation for workers and employers hurt by foreign competition, reconversion of defense-oriented companies, rapid technological change and environmental protection activities;

Closing tax loopholes that encourage the export of American jobs by American-controlled multi-national corporations;

Assurance that the needs of society are considered when a decision to close or move an industrial plant is to be made and that income loss to workers and revenue loss to communities does not occur when plants are closed;

Assurance that, whatever else is done in the income security area, the social security system provides a decent income for the elderly, the blind and the disabled and their dependents, with escalators so that benefits keep pace with rising prices and living standards;

Reform of social security and government employment security programs to remove all forms of discrimination by sex; and adequate federal income assistance for those who do not benefit sufficiently from the above measures.

The last is not least, but it is last for good reason. The present welfare system has failed because it has been required to make up for too many other failures. Millions of Americans are forced into public assistance because public policy too often creates no other choice.

The heart of a program of economic security based on earned income must be creating jobs and training people to fill them. Millions of jobs—real jobs, not make-work-need to be provided. Public service employment must be greatly expanded in order to make the government the employer of last resort and guarantee a job for all. Large sections of our cities resemble bombed-out Europe after World War II. Children in Appalachia cannot go to school when the dirt road is a sea of mud. Homes, schools and clinics, roads and mass transit systems need to be built.

Cleaning up our air and water will take skills and people in large numbers. In the school, the police department, the welfare agency or the recreation program, there are new careers to be developed to help ensure that social services reach the people for whom they are intended.

It may cost more, at least initially, to create decent jobs than to perpetuate the hand-out system of present welfare. But the return—in new public facilities and services, in the dignity of bringing a paycheck home and in the taxes that will come back in—far outweigh the cost of the investment.

The next Democratic Administration must end the present welfare system and replace it with an income security program which places cash assistance in an appropriate context with all of the measures outlined above, adding up to an earned income approach to ensure each family an income substantially more than the poverty level ensuring standards of decency and health, as officially defined in the area. Federal income assistance will supplement the income of working poor people and assure an adequate income for those unable to work. With full employment and simpler, fair administration, total costs will go down, and with federal financing the burden on local and state budgets will be eased. The program will protect current benefit goals during the transitional period.

The system of income protection which replaces welfare must he a part of the full employment policy which assures every American a job at a fair wage under conditions which make use of his ability and provide an opportunity for advancement. H.R. 1, and its various amendments, is not humane and does not meet the social and economic objectives that we believe in, and it should be defeated. It perpetuates the coercion of forced work requirements.

Economic Management
The first priority of a Democratic Administration must be eliminating the unfair, bureaucratic Nixon wage and price controls.

When price rises threaten to or do get out of control—as they are now—strong, fair action must be taken to protect family income and savings. The theme of that action should be swift, tough measures to break the wage-price spiral and restore the economy. In that kind of economic emergency, America's working people will support a truly fair stabilization program which affects profits, investment earnings, executive salaries and prices, as well as wages. The Nixon controls do not meet that standard. They have forced the American worker, who suffers most from inflation, to pay the price of trying to end it.

In addition to stabilizing the economy, we propose:

To develop automatic instruments protecting the livelihood of Americans who depend on fixed incomes, such as savings bonds with purchasing power guarantees and cost-of-living escalators in government social security and income support payments;

To create a system of "recession insurance" for states and localities to replace lost local revenues with federal funds in economic downturns, thereby avoiding reduction in public employment or public services;

To establish longer-term budget and fiscal planning; and

To create new mechanisms to stop unwarranted price increases in concentrated industries.

Toward Economic Justice

The Democratic Party deplores the increasing concentration of economic power in fewer and fewer hands. Five per cent of the American people control 90 per cent of our productive national wealth. Less than one per cent of all manufacturers have 88 per cent of the profits. Less than two per cent of the population now owns approximately 80 per cent of the nation's personally-held corporate stock, 90 per cent of the personally-held corporate bonds and nearly 100 per cent of the personally-held municipal bonds. The rest of the population—including all working men and women—pay too much for essential products and services because of national policy and market distortions.

The Democratic Administration should pledge itself to combat factors which tend to concentrate wealth and stimulate higher prices.

To this end, the federal government should:

Develop programs to spread economic growth among the workers, farmers and businessmen;

Help make parts of the economy more efficient such as medical care—where wasteful and inefficient practices now increase prices;

Step up anti-trust action to help competition, with particular regard to laws and enforcement curbing conglomerate mergers which swallow up efficient small business and feed the power of corporate giants;

Strengthen the anti-trust laws so that the divestiture remedy will be used vigorously to break up large conglomerates found to violate the antitrust laws;

Abolish the oil import quota that raises prices for consumers;

Deconcentrate shared monopolies such as auto, steel and tire industries which administer prices, create unemployment through restricted output and stifle technological innovation;

Assure the right of the citizen to recover costs and attorneys fees in all successful suits including class actions involving Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, or rights secured by federal statutes;

Adjust rate-making and regulatory activities, with particular attention to regulations which increase prices for food, transportation and other necessities;

Remove artificial constraints in the job market by better job manpower training and strictly enforcing equal employment opportunity;

Stiffen the civil and criminal statutes to make corporate officers responsible for their actions; and

Establish a temporary national economic commission to study federal chartering of large multi-national and international corporations, concentrated ownership and control in the nation's economy.


Health Care

Good health is the least this society should promise its citizens. The state of health services in this country indicates the failure of government to respond to this fundamental need. Costs skyrocket while the availability of services for all but the rich steadily declines.

We endorse the principle that good health is a right of all Americans.

America has a responsibility to offer to every American family the best in health care whenever they need it, regardless of income or where they live or any other factor.

To achieve this goal the next Democratic Administration should:

Establish a system of universal National Health Insurance which covers all Americans with a comprehensive set of benefits including preventive medicine, mental and emotional disorders, and complete protection against catastrophic costs, and in which the rule of free choice for both provider and consumer is protected. The program should be federally-financed and federally-administered. Every American must know he can afford the cost of health care whether given in a hospital or a doctor's office;

Incorporate in the National Health Insurance System incentives and controls to curb inflation in health care costs and to assure efficient delivery of all services;

Continue and evaluate Health Maintenance Organizations;

Set up incentives to bring health service personnel back to inner-cities and rural areas;

Continue to expand community health centers and availability of early screening diagnosis and treatment;

Provide federal funds to train added health manpower including doctors, nurses, technicians and para-medical workers;

Secure greater consumer participation and control over health care institutions;

Expand federal support for medical research including research in heart disease, hypertension, stroke, cancer, sickle cell anemia, occupational and childhood diseases which threaten millions and in preventive health care;

Eventual replacement of all federal programs of health care by a comprehensive National Health Insurance System;

Take legal and other action to curb soaring prices for vital drugs using anti trust laws as applicable and amending patent laws to end price-raising abuses, and require generic-name labeling of equal-effective drugs; and

Expand federal research and support for drug abuse treatment and education, especially development of non-addictive treatment methods.

and much more....

[leveymg]

1. Ike in 1956 had a more progressive economic plank than Hillary today.

Particularly on tax and antitrust, the party is now to the RIght of the GOP during the '50s. Under the power of money, corporations are now fully in charge of both parties.

[Pharaoh]

38. they're way farther right of Nixon right now!

They make tricky Dick look like a liberal!

[Pharaoh]

40. If Nixon Were Alive Today, He Would Be Far Too Liberal to Get Even the Democratic Nomination

Let me give you a definition of the word ‘liberal.’…Franklin D. Roosevelt once said…It is a wonderful definition, and I agree with him. ‘A liberal is a man who wants to build bridges over the chasms that separate humanity from a better life.’ – Richard Nixon

Richard Nixon was our last liberal president. – Noam Chomsky


http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/641730/if_nixon_were_alive_today,_he_would_be_far_too_liberal_to_get_even_the_democratic_nomination

[FuzzyRabbit]

42. I did not know that Noam Chomsky said that.

Last edited Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:50 AM - Edit history (1)

I did not know that Noam Chomsky said that. I feel somewhat vindicated now. I have said for years that Nixon was more liberal that Obama, and I was laughed at for saying that.

It seems the only things Nixon is remembered for is the southern strategy and Watergate.

People forget that Nixon (from http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/641730/if_nixon_were_alive_today,_he_would_be_far_too_liberal_to_get_even_the_democratic_nomination ):
- implemented the first significant federal affirmative action program.

- oversaw the first large-scale integration of public schools in the South.

-advocated comprehensive national health insurance (single payer) for all Americans.

- created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Office of Minority Business Enterprise.

- and other ideas now considered extremely liberal.

Nixon also indexed Social Security for inflation and created Supplemental Security Income. (Remember a few years ago when Obama offered to cut social security payments to the elderly. Unforgivable, even if he is a Democrat.)

If people remembered the recent past, say 50 years, they would realize that a living minimum wage, low college tuition, decent paying jobs, a clean environment and other ideas now laughed at as impossible, not only are possible, they were the reality here in the US within the last half century.

Reaganomics changed all that. Because everyone in the US under age 50 has worked only under Reaganomics, many don't realize what is possible.

[CrispyQ]

80. That was a great article! I agree with the final paragraph.

Have you seen Michael Moore's "Where to Invade Next?" It's very good! He 'invades' countries for their good ideas to bring home to America & surprise, surprise, he finds that some of the ideas were American ideas in the first place & we've abandoned them.

[treestar]

67. While that sounds a bit crazy

Nixon could afford it as it was before Reagan.

It's not entirely Hillary's fault that the Reagan thing happened.

[merrily]

59. The PTB have managed to brainwash/regress us to pre-New Deal days.

Kudos, ya creeps!

[hobbit709]

64. That sums it up perfectly +1000!

[bvar22]

85. Rachel sums it up well.

[Adrahil]

2. Well...

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1972

[pnwmom]

36. Yes. That platform lost by 49 states to 1. n/t

[PoliticalMalcontent]

41. Hard to compare different eras in my opinion.

I believe it is foolhardy to say that since a platform failed so badly once upon a time it should be tabled indefinitely. Times and people change. For full disclosure, I don't know what platform and what decade we're talking about, but I believe the principle stands.

What might work in one era might not work in another and vice versa, etc.

Edit: '72 was well before my time.

[pnwmom]

44. The point is that the 1972 platform was off the scale in 1972.

So it isn't really remarkable that it's off the scale now.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

45. I'm not so sure in today's era that

generic Candidate A touting the '72 platform wouldn't perform pretty darn well against generic Candidate B touting today's platform in today's era.

The thing there are few generic candidates anymore. There's a lot of cult of personality and people in high places pull strings so as to tilt the scales ever so slightly in the favor of their preferred candidates. If we are told we can't vote for the '72 platform because it is a losing platform then that's some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, right? (See: one of the posts below for an example of this).

I believe society is more liberal today than it was in the 70's, granted, I wasn't around for it.

It's just a difference in philosophy.

[pnwmom]

46. The OP said that the 1972 platform was so progressive it would be off the scale TODAY.

I just pointed out it was off the scale when it was written in 1972.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

49. My apologies.

[pnwmom]

54. Not necessary -- but thanks! n/t

[Mojorabbit]

50. I think it was more liberal then in many ways. I was there for it. :) nt

[PoliticalMalcontent]

51. Perhaps so. :) Era of the hippies and all.

It's nice to see more acceptance and protections for LGBT people under the law, but you're right.

I suppose the growing pains of acceptance in society has caused a lot of pushback by a certain segment of society in a really ugly way.

[merrily]

58. It was not off the scale then, nor is it off the scale now.

[Adrahil]

63. Indefinitely? No...

But how about we go jumping off the cliff convinced that THIS, surely that aprachute will open. We need to score some smaller victories, and show the general electorate that progressive ideas work before going all in.

[merrily]

56. No. For many reasons, a war time incumbent won, just as they always have in the US.

Nixon's victory had precious little to do with the Democratic platform.

Every Democratic politician--with the possible exception of McGovern, knew Nixon would win the general, before the Democratic primaries even began.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778825 (Please read the replies as well as the OP).

On issues, most Americans are liberal, especially before the center right and right convince them otherwise. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777036

[hobbit709]

65. McGovern could have run to the right of Nixon and still would have lost.

It wasn't the platform that did it.

[SCantiGOP]

95. But he did run on that platform

He was making a statement, you're right he was never going to beat Nixon. People in 72 were terrified of hippies and those scary black people with guns.
The only way that platform could win would be to restrict the franchise to active DU members.
Doubt that is going to happen.

[scscholar]

3. And lost 520-17

Do we want that again?

[think]

6. Nixon had a strong economy and had brought an end to the war. It's not as simple as you want to make

it.

These use to be important Democratic issues before we sold out to the Third Way Wall Street bankers.

America is now the only developed country that lacks universal healthcare. How embarrassing is that?

[FreakinDJ]

19. Are you fucking kidding me -

The end result of fighting Vietnam on a credit card was double digit inflation

And he prolonged the war to get reelected

[think]

20. "But as Andrew Gelman points out, Nixon also had the benefit of a strong economy."

Was George McGovern doomed to lose in 1972?

By Dylan Matthews October 22, 2012

~Snip~

What happened? The common story is that McGovern was too left-wing and handicapped by having to replace his running mate after he was revealed to be suffering from depression (a big deal at the time). He also suffered from not having organized labor's backing. AFL-CIO leader George Meany declined to endorse McGovern, calling him "an apologist for the Communist world."

But as Andrew Gelman points out, Nixon also had the benefit of a strong economy. He points to this chart from the political scientist Douglas Hibbs:

When the economy is growing as fast as it was in 1972, presidents tend to get reelected. That, Gelman argues, rather than any particular failings of McGovern, decided the race.

~Snip~

So what changed in 1972? Wasn't the United States still fighting in Vietnam? Yes, but casualties had dropped dramatically. In 1968, over 16,000 American servicemen were killed in action. By 1972, that number had dropped to less than 1,000:

Read more:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/22/was-george-mcgovern-doomed-to-lose-in-1972/

[Lance Bass esquire]

30. Touche. ..Just ask Jimmy Carter about the mess he

Inherited...JC was,the fall guy for 8 years of the industrial military complex running amuck and unchecked.

Was really worried that President Obama would get nailed when Bush's bills came do. Obviously Obama is a student of history and wasn't going to make the same mistakes circa 1976 to 80.

[HereSince1628]

61. Nixon's great economy? No, things were awful, he put in place a wage and price freeze

to deal with crippling inflation that seemed to not respond to market forces such as unemployment.

All that factored into my decision to go ahead and volunteer for military service in that war over there, that wasn't yet over.

The ceasefire/American pullout agreement of October wasn't implemented and combat troops weren't pulled out until the new year. As I was overseas at the time, I never had a sense of how the ceasefire agreement influenced the election.

But, the war itself went on, without US.

[1939]

83. The peace treaty wasn't signed until after the 1972 election.

The economy wasn't all that great in 1972 though inflation had moderated a bit (only to pick up steam for the rest of the 1970s).

Nixon was never a charismatic or popular leader.

The 1972 results had little to do with the platforms, but were anti-hippie and anti-war protesters.

Nixon swept the strong union blue collar districts.

[Warpy]

102. Actually, Nixon war riding high because of racial bigots and hippie haters

The economy was not wonderful and Republicans were shitting bricks over a 4%/year inflation rate, the upper end of what's built into fiat currency. The stock market was stuck in place, although earnings were relatively fantastic. Unemployment had crept up, it always does under Republican administrations, and entrepreneurship was stifled by the lack of seed money.

The war had not ended in 1972 and people had begun to realize his secret plan to end the war was to drag it out as long as possible.

Extreme liberalism didn't sink McGovern. It was a so-so economy and the righteous indignation of older Americans against youth and uppity blacks that were his problems, plus just running against an incumbent. He was a sacrificial lamb, party conservatives claiming ever since he lost that no liberal could ever win again.

At least I got to put a "Don't Blame Me, I'm from Massachusetts" sticker on the car.

[andym]

14. McGovern's landslide loss reversed the movement toward progressive policies

And began the movement toward the middle. The loss was considered a lesson for aspiring politicians. McGovern and progressivism was marginalized. Some unions failed to support him, and there were even some "Democrats for Nixon."

President Carter in 1976 was much less progressive than many in the Democratic Party before him. In 1980, he was primaried by Ted Kennedy from the Left partially because of that. By the 1990's the Democratic stood much closer to the GOP of the 70's economically than to the Democratic Party in 1972.

Many later day politicians participated in the 1972 campaign and were influenced by the outcome including Gary "new ideas" Hart who ran the campaign and even both Clintons who campaigned for McGovern.

In retrospect, Nixon was probably unbeatable in 1972, especially when he took the war issue away from McGovern, and numerous campaign blunders by McGovern made the loss even worse. The progressivism of the platform contributed less than is widely thought to the loss.

[Gabi Hayes]

26. whoaaa there, boy! Carter was hamstrung from the getgo by his own PARTY, led

by Tip ONeill and Robert Byrd ambushed his, uhhh, progressive agenda even BEFORE he took office. I just posted about this recently, and am not in the mood to slog through it again

take the time, please, and see how misinformed you are about your assertion, and read this, an excerpt from Liberty Under Siege, by Walter Karp

just one thing, to show you how bad it was. in nominating Ted Sorensen, cold warrior compatriot/aid de camp to JFK, he ran afoul of the bi partisan committee for the present danger, an agglomeration of war mongering, profiteering maniacs in and out of government. the upshot of it was, that despite a filibuster proof senate majority, Carter was told in no uncertain terms NOT to dare bring his name up for the nomination. after being savaged in the liberal media for being soft on communism (!!!!) Carter withdrew, and the battle lines were drawn. he never learned how to play the game against congress (and his own Party!), failing to carry out his threat to go over their heads to the public.

it's all here:

Senator J. William Fulbright, in 1969 was frantically warning the Senate that "our government will soon become what it is already a long way toward becoming, an elective dictatorship."

p19
"I felt I was taking office at a time when Americans desired a return to first principles on the part of their government." The thought occurs to President-elect Jimmy Carter as he sifts, in his methodical way, through all the Inaugural addresses ever delivered. The awakened democracy is exacting, all too exacting, and has almost cost Carter the election. When independent voters began seeing the tribune of the people rushing around the country embracing Democratic Party leaders, they had deserted his banner almost en masse.

So the President-elect-a suspect tribune now-knows well enough what the great bulk of the American people expects of him: They want the democratic movement to go forward. What else is an outsider President for? The real question facing Carter, the terrible nightmarish question, is, 'What will the Democratic Congress allow him to do? Suppose party leaders in Congress give him no support at all? What then? "It was bad enough," says Hamilton Jordan, the President-elect's chief political aide, "that they didn't know him and had no stake in his candidacy, but to make matters worse, Carter had defeated their various darlings in the battles around the country" 'When Carter meets, post-election, with Democratic congressional leaders in Georgia, fear and hostility, fear masked as hostility, seem to roll off Carter in waves. "You'd sit at a meeting with Carter," Representative Morris Udall recalls some six months later, "and he felt the compulsion to remind you that he also had your constituents as his constituents and that he wouldn't hesitate to take Congress on .... It was almost like he felt a compulsion to do this, as though he felt it was inevitable, or looked forward to the conflict, or thought it was unavoidable."

"I can get to your constituents faster than you can by going on television," Carter reportedly warns the visiting party leaders. A dire threat indeed, an empty bluff, never to be carried out, but already necessary, or the first hostile shots have already been fired. Nine days after the election [1976]-Veterans' Day-the Committee on the Present Danger makes its first public appearance with a declaration of war against Carter's hopes for arms control and improved relations with the Soviet Union. "The principal threat to our nation, to world peace and to the cause of human freedom," goes the martial declaration, "is the Soviet drive for dominance based on an unprecedented military buildup"-in fact, a 3 percent average increase yearly since 1970, 2 percent since 1974, but America's "will"-and America's oligarchy can be strengthened only by "massive understandable challenge."

The committee members, it is said, form a "who's who of the Democratic Party establishment." Chairman and founder is Eugene Rostow, Lyndon Johnson's Under Secretary of State, head of the foreign-policy task force of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, some twenty of whose members have become Present Dangerists. "We started over, but with the same people and the same ideas," explains Rostow. To discredit the democratic reforms in 1972; to discredit détente in 1976. The same "ideas" indeed: rule by the few, oligarchy restored, one way or another. Cochairman of the Present Danger is Lane Kirkland, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO and "heir apparent" to its president, eighty-three-year-old George Meany; heir to the votes of 14.5 million powerless union members; heir to trade unionism's unswerving devotion to the Democratic machine and the endless Cold War; oligarchy revived, one way or another. Chief counsel of the Present Danger is Max Kampelman, once one of the chief political advisers to Hubert Humphrey, now gravely concerned, among other worries, over the excessive "power of the press." The nine-man executive committee includes Dean Rusk, Secretary of State under Kennedy and Johnson, one of the first American officials to argue that a President's authority as Commander-in-Chief of U.S. forces allows him to make war at will. What loathing of liberty burns in these hearts! 'What scant love of truth! Chairman of the committee's "policy studies" is Paul Nitze, former Deputy Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson, arms control negotiator for Nixon, who quit in "disgust" in June 1974, now a member of Team B, the tumorous appendix to the CIA. Nitze has lived for twenty-five years in an atmosphere of ever-present danger: principal author in 1950 of a momentous State Department warning to President Truman that unless the U.S. embarked at once on the largest military buildup in its peacetime history, the Soviet Union would launch its drive for world conquest around 1 956-Nitze's "year of maximum danger"; principal concocter of the fictitious "missile gap" in 1957; principal author in 1972 of the newest present-danger: Allied "perception" of Soviet nuclear superiority will bind them in terror to the Soviet will unless the U.S. demonstrates its "will and resolve" with a renewed race for nuclear supremacy.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Walter_Karp/Reaction_Launched_LUS.html

much much more there

and, what do you know about his prescient, ground breaking (and torpedoed once again by his own party) energy speech?

[andym]

33. Example: Carter really started government deregulation before Reagan

After Nixon left office, the Gerald Ford presidency, with the allied interests, secured passage of the first significant change in regulatory policy in a pro-competitive direction, in the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976. President Jimmy Carter devoted substantial effort to transportation deregulation, and worked with Congressional and civil society leaders to pass the Airline Deregulation Act (October 24, 1978), Staggers Rail Act (signed October 14, 1980), and the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (signed July 1, 1980).
wikipedia

He also deregulated the oil industry but not as much as Reagan.
"Carter signed his first energy package into law on November 9, 1978. The deregulation of oil and natural gas prices that resulted would lead to a vast increase in the supply of energy in the 1980s, and consequently a lowering of prices."
http://millercenter.org/president/biography/carter-domestic-affairs
But it was the free market approach that Reagan would expand on.

[Ford_Prefect]

28. And the dirty tricks campaign never happened? No rat fucking? No Watergate?

I just love the way that history I lived through gets re-written by those who weren't there. Especially when it covers such a multitude of sins.

Chickenshit! Third way retrograde history, with menaces for those who believe in New Deal and Great Society values. No facts, just a twisted diatribe to protect those who aren't brave enough to stand up for other people who don't belong to the same Country Club.

If you don't really believe in real functional Civil Rights for every American, or you think that peace is no more than an unattainable pipe dream, or you imagine that we have time to fix the planet with just a bit more technology then that works for you. I get it. No risk taken over ideals that you cannot dine out on.

[merrily]

57. As if. Please see Reply 56 in this thread and the thread to which Reply 56 links. Thank you.

Link to Reply 56 http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7963228

[arcane1]

76. Not me! I'd rather win with terrible ideas!

[pokerfan]

94. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

[loyalsister]

4. A few yrs earlier Nixon had called for a guaranteed minnimum income

[Gabi Hayes]

11. welcome to the club! and just as the media ignored Watergate until after the election

they ignored the Church Commission, the October Surprise, Iran Contra, the lies about both Iraq war run ups, the truth about 911 (only going as far as cheney's seemingly purposeful ignoring all the warnings, from Gore/Richard Clarke/aug 6 PDB), and ala the New York Times, REFUSED to publish James Risen's provable story about Operation Merlin at the behest of Condi Rice (who was called by sources in his later book, State of War the WORST national security advisor in US history).....OK. guess my point is that if the media had done their job back then (which they never do, except in the case of the Pentagon Papers, among few exceptions to the do nothing rule), he might've had a chance.

[mountain grammy]

22. Yeah, my first too.

I kept a McGovern sticker on my beetle until I sold it.

[TheDebbieDee]

7. I don't remember any of that stuff, but I DO remember

all the hub-bub surrounding McGovern's nominee for VP, Sen. Thomas Eagleton of Missouri, my homie. (Eagleton was one of the wealthy heirs to the Eagle Snacks fortune.) A whisper campaign was started that Sen Eagleton had had psychiatric issues that required electric shock treatment. Many Dems at the convention posited that if the rumors were true, Eagleton was not emotionally or mentally fit to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Well after, 24 - 36 hours of rumors and speculation, Eagleton addressed the convention declined the nomination to be the VP Candidate for the Democratic Party...

I was all of 11 years old when this happened - I stayed up late to watch the Convention. I was a weird kid then and now I'm an even weirder adult!

[Gabi Hayes]

13. eagleton LIED HIS ASS off to McGovern when directly confronted with info on his

past mental problems

McGovern made the mistake of believing him, and his campaign never survived the media onslaught against him. they were too cowed by Nixon's full frontal (as well as surreptitious ones using various government agencies illegally) attacks on them after the Pentagon Papers fiasco (enemies list, anyone?), and went all the way against McGovern and his peace creep minions

roger stone was there, btw, he with the Nixon tattoo on his back to this very day

[MohRokTah]

8. It was rejected in a major landslide victory for the Trick Dick. eom

[think]

12. What a lame excuse for giving up on Democratic values. Nixon was president with a strong economy

and had just helped to bring the war to an end.

It's not as simple as "we lost" so let's give up on important Democratic issues no matter how much YOU might want to.


America deserves to have universal healthcare like the rest of the modern world. It should embarrass Americans that we have fallen so far behind the rest of the world in this regards.

America still spends way too much money on our military. We've wasted trillions on stupid fucking wars and a bloated military.

Income & wealth inequality is at it's highest levels since the great depression. And the banks still rig markets and don't go to jail!

The values represented in the 1972 Democratic platform are still important and vital today.

Trying to one off on this is just lame....

[MohRokTah]

15. And going too far to the left has ALWAYS lost at a national level

Tis nation simply is not that liberal.

Period.

So if you want to lose, go left.

[think]

21. "So if you want to lose, go left." Did you really just post that here?

[MohRokTah]

23. Yes. I did.

It is a fact, being too far to the left ALWAYS loses on a national level.

Barack Obama is the most liberal president in US history. That's bout as far left as you can go and still win.

Hillary's just about the same level of liberal as Barack Obama.

McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis were way to the left and all three suffered humiliating defeats.

Ignoring facts about national electoral politics will not alter the dynamic.

You can only get the level of liberalism you seem to desire in certain states and Congressional districts.

[leveymg]

66. On the issues, the American people have long been more progressive than their government.

That's been a near constant for decades. I remember discussing that during the Nixon Administration.

The problem is the American political system gamed by the Money Party. That's the party that always seems to stay in control.

[MohRokTah]

68. That sort of polling is 100% irrelevant.

The American people may poll that way on individual issues, but voting for a president is a collective act and collectively, the Americn people have always been center-right.

That is why Barack Obama is the most liberal president in history. Go further to the left than he is and the Democrats ALWAYS lose.

[leveymg]

70. 100% irrelevant? Johnson and Carter were both way to the Left of Obama on economic issues.

The Rightward shift in Presidential politics is a legacy of Reagan and his brain, Bush, Sr. Neither party has completely recovered from those catastrophic failures of American politics. But, you probably don't remember the 1980, 1984 and 1988 elections that way, if you do at all.

[MohRokTah]

71. Now you're just re-writing history.

[leveymg]

72. What are the new Great Society programs? Any Mideast Peace initiatives, akin to Oslo Accord?

Those were solid accomplishments of Presidents Johnson and Carter. There's nothing of similar scope and imagination in the Hillary Clinton agenda.

If what Hillary says is what Hillary does, what we're going to get is more neoliberal restructuring and more neoconservative regime changes and intensifying New Cold War conflict.

I'm not re-writing history. I'm merely reminding you that past Democrats were way to her Left, economically and in foreign policy matters.

[bvar22]

87. FDR got elected 4 times.

Obama?...Liberal???
He describes his policies as "Moderate Republican Policies from the 80's".
I fought hard AGAINST "Moderate Republican Policies in the 80s because I was a DEMOCRAT in the 80s and believe in Democratic Policies.

[Chathamization]

27. Democrats won the House and the Senate in '72. N/T

[vintx]

74. Thank you for pointing out that very important fact nt

[HughBeaumont]

9. Oh how far America's come since 1972, right?

There's even a "Right to be Different" thrown in there. How magnanimous of them.

And of course, in 1972, George McGovern lost to Richard War Criminal HMO Failure Fucker Nixon by over 500 electoral votes.

You would think America would have grown up and wised up by now, right? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Now it's "Slightly to the right of Eisenhower" versus "Slightly to the Right of George Lincoln Rockwell" . . . versus "All of the shitty poor-fisting, grandma-starving economics plus 'teh freedums' (theoretically; swaths of libertarians are anti-choice and don't seem to get that one man's rugged individualist is another man's ruiner) plus LEGAL WEED!!!" . . . versus, albeit minimally, "FDR Democratic Values, known to most 'muricans as 'SOSHULIST COMM'nism' . . . and alienzzz!"

The first three choices are the most well-funded and, by proxy, the most prominent.

This is one really awesome menu, let me tell you . . . . where the most sensible choice remains miles removed from the economic malaise and fears most Americans have and the worst choice is akin to asking your 83 year old neighbor to give you breast augmentation.

[mountain grammy]

25. Great post!

[PSPS]

10. It should have been Bobby's second term.

And it would have been if they hadn't killed him.

[andym]

17. The world and America would probably look very different if RFK had survived

and elected President in 1968.

[former9thward]

91. Who is the "they"?

Sirhan was a Palestinian fanatic who was upset by Kennedy's support for Israel.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

16. I am proud to say I voted for George

though I don't remember much of the platform. But that was a long time ago.........

[FreakinDJ]

18. And they still haven't closed the loop holes that export jobs

Fucking incredible

And Bernie is the radical pushing pie in the sky fairytales

[Recursion]

32. Because that's a meaningless phrase, though it has polled well for 50 years

You can't actually keep somebody from hiring someone in another country. But you can pretend you're going to, and get support from voters. And we have, for nearly a half century now.

[Eric J in MN]

24. 'Abolishing capital punishment'

I had been under the impression that the 2016 platform would be the first to advocate abolishing capital punishment. But it was in the 1972 platform.

[Phlem]

31. K&R! Thank you for this excellent post.

So far from that today it's in a different plane of existence.

Literally.

[andym]

34. Yes indeed.

I'm not that even Bernie was going as far as McGovern in some of his policies, but he is closest.

[pnwmom]

39. Which is why his chances would have been so dismal in the general.

That platform lost by 49 states.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

47. I heartily disagree with your assessment based on a variety of factors.

We are not supposed to rehash the primary though...

I will say this and then leave it alone.

Sanders was in prime position to throttle Trump, because pretty much anyone could throttle Trump. Favorability ratings are an actual thing that hold predictive powers and of all candidates Sanders held by far the best favorability rating (in fact the only candidate with a positive favorability rating at about +10% net favorability rating, meanwhile Trump and Clinton both are holding negative favorability ratings among the general public).

Clinton was tremendously helped by a primary system which focuses on democrats, while independents get the shaft until general election time. It's kind of a screwed up process that is really broken if you think about it. You have two parties, democrats and republicans, whom hold a minority of the votership and yet they write all the rules in their favor. That's a recipe for corruption.

I think far too many people here are wearing rose-tinted glasses, for better or worse.

To say Sanders' platform would have tanked in a general election seems especially misguided considering his fundraising numbers. The guy was obviously tapping into something. It might've been honesty.

[andym]

48. That candidate lost by 49 states mostly for other reasons

Nixon was going to win anyway, but McGovern ran a woeful campaign-- dropping his VP shortly after saying he was behind him 1000%.
Nixon triangulated many of his positions like a form of universal healthcare and ending the war. Nixon literally stole pieces of the platform. McGovern was painted as a weak pacifist and supporter of hippies, even though he was a decorated WW2 vet. The platform was the least of his worries. But many mainstream Dems concluded as you that it was the platform that contributed mightily to his defeat and acted accordingly. Interesting that Bill and Hillary Clinton worked on McGovern's campaign.

[senz]

53. Some like to compare Bernie with McGovern

but they're very different people and their situations were different, too. Bernie would have stood a much better chance than McGovern -- Bernie consistently polled very strongly against the Republicans, attracted independents as well as Democrats and Republicans, drew massive, enthusiastic crowds, and had extremely high likability and trustworthiness numbers, along with low negatives.

But that 1972 Democratic platform sure shows how far we've fallen as a nation. We've lost so much since Reagan.

[840high]

35. yes +1000

[pnwmom]

37. That platform was off the scale in 1972, also -- and our candidate lost in 49 states.n/t

[progressoid]

86. He didn't lose because of the platform.

People didn't vote for the platform. Hell, most voters don't even know what their parties' platforms are.

[pnwmom]

90. Almost everyone knew about the guaranteed income plan. That was a key element

that was out of touch with the voters.

[progressoid]

92. Meh. Hadn't Nixon already proposed a variation of that a couple years earlier?

Granted, my memory of that time is more of mowing lawns and trying to figure out girls.

But it seems there were a lot of other issues that worked against McGovern. Nixon had a weirdly decent approval ratings in the summer of 72. The economy was doing OK. The war was scaling back. The contentious Dem convention. His VP choice debacle. etc.

[Uncle Joe]

43. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, andym.

[The Second Stone]

52. A platform that got demolished in the general election

and was a dead letter on arrival, and gathering dust in an archive today, not even a footnote.

You might want to consider that politics is not about fine words gathering dust, but about getting good people elected.

[BlueMTexpat]

55. men to that. eom

[progressoid]

88. We gained two Senate seats.

And held control of both houses.

[beachbum bob]

62. and this platform led to the greatest defeat of a democratic nominee

.....not sure what the point of the post is...except when democrats stray too far to the left they get their butts kick?

[alarimer]

69. Certainly better than wholly owned corporate one we have now.

Sad, how far this party has regressed. They lost that year for other reasons, yet blame the progressive positions as usual for losing.

And now they don't even have to guts to oppose fracking.

[Uponthegears]

73. A thank you for all of our Third Way friends

For a number of months now, we have been debating whether our nominee is a progressive or whether she is the candidate running on a platform which gives us the best chance of taking control of not just the White House, but also possibly even both chambers of Congress.

(Before turning to the answer to that question, let me first say that whether one prefers "progressivism" or "Democratic control," your values are, at least for this poster, beyond question. Aspirations and principles are doubtless noble things, but they are just "things" if you don't have the power to enact them.)

The responses to this OP have settled this debate. Not a single poster has argued that "liberal-ness" of the 2016 Democratic Platform is on the same continent, much less the same ballpark, as the 1972 Democratic Platform. In addition, not a single poster has argued that any item in the 1972 Democratic Platform does not reflect what should be a policy of the Democratic Party. Instead, poster after poster has pointed to the Electoral College drubbing received by Senator McGovern and argued that liberalism is the path to defeat.

(Aside: If GOPers had taken that same attitude following the Electoral College drubbing administered to Barry Goldwater in 1964, we would have never seen the 20 years of Reagan/Bush oppression through which we all suffered, and their 2016 candidate would have been closer to Colin Powell than Attila the Hun. But the fact is that the transformation of the Republican Party into a lynch mob while still maintaining political power took time and we don't have time.)

I can accept the argument that Hillary Clinton is a dynamic candidate espousing a platform (which is not in any way, shape or form hostile to liberal values, even if it does not espouse liberal values) that will almost certainly lead the Democratic Party to perhaps a historically-large victory. That is reason enough for me to work and vote to see to it that is exactly what happens.

But, can we at least stop calling the 2016 Democratic Platform "progressive" for doing no more than seeking to prevent us from regressing?

[alarimer]

75. Exactly.

And people wonder why there are so many independents. Of course people won't identify as Republicans, because they suck. But they ALSO do not want to be associated with Democrats either. And it isn't because of elected officials; We expect those people not to keep their promises and to compromise everything to death. I will vote for the lesser of the evils yet again. What I didn't expect was how much avowed progressives really are not progressive at all. They don't want single-payer health care. Fracking is okay. Free college is not good (although it used to be almost free years ago). Etc. Etc.

The popularity of Bernie Sanders (the hate from Hillary supporters notwithstanding) is an indication that there are deep structural problems and that winning this time against an easily beaten opponent won't solve our problems. Donald Trump will lose. But a more charismatic, smarter demagogue may win next time, unless the Democratic Party and its supporters actually decide to do something about these issues besides nibbling around the edges.

[arcane1]

84. +1,000

My principles aren't subject to a popularity contest. I wish I wasn't in the vast minority in that regard

[emordnilaP]

89. Very well said. nm

[tonyt53]

77. I remember it well. That platform was just one of the reasons Nixon won in a landslide.

[tonyt53]

81. Me to.

[Kurovski]

79. K&R

This is why Sanders is still in the "race".

A little push-back to where we belong.

[andym]

96. That's why I think Sanders played such a positive role

during the primaries. I think his continuing to push the platform leftwards will only help in the general election. Hopefully, Hillary chooses a strong outspoken progressive as VP-- the country really needs someone to forcefully state the liberal point of view.

[A Little Weird]

93. That's the kind of platform I could support

It's a shame it happened before I was born.

[andym]

99. Times were very different then

Socially we have come a long way, but the right has dominated the economic discussion since Reagan -- that's why the Democratic Party is so moderate now-- many of the most progressive have grown old or died, and the electorate has been under the sway of Reagan and his fellow travelers for far too long.

[forjusticethunders]

97. "McGovern lost because he's too liberal"

Massive over-simplication. First off, the Dems would never stab their nominee in the back the way several interest groups stabbed him. Even the unions deserted him (and we've talked at length about how the white working class deserted liberal politics, well there you go, if anyone thinks a more moderate program was going to bring back all those racist/sexist queer-hating "Godfearing" "Law and Order" white people I have beachfront property near Stone Mountain to sell you).

Obviously Eagleston fucked him over too, and Nixon did things in that campaign that were the prelude to the Bush/Cheney years. And of course, the country wasn't brown/black enough to offset all this (remember that McGovern, with a perfect storm of factors against him, STILL would have given Nixon a run for his money if 1972 America was 32% nonwhite)

[andym]

98. I never said that McGovern lost becase he was too liberal

Here's my thinking
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027962755#post48
The VP thing was big. If Ted Kennedy had accepted the VP, which he rejected twice, polling indicated it would have been dead even.

[GulfCoast66]

100. The country moved right for 2 reasons

1. The new deal worked. By the 70's and 80's most people no longer depended on government initiatives and it is human nature to take credit for your success in life. My family is the perfect example. In 3 generations moving from poor rural southern to mainly upper middle class suburban southern. And from solidly democratic to mainly republican. That story is repeated by millions of families. And closely tied into reason number 1 is reason number...

2. Civil rights for African Americans. By the 60's most white folksy had moved into the middle class. But damned if they wanted the government to expend resources to help people of color do the same. And throw voting right on top of that and you have the Southern Strategy.

I know this is oversimplified but all I want to do on an iPhone. So all you young progressives cussing the third way, it was either that or continue losing. Perhaps some would have preferred WJ Clinton run as far left as McGovern, but I am glad GHW Bush only had one term.

[liberal N proud]

101. How did the Democrats fare that year?

Yeah!