Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
96. The campaign of McGovern and Sanders cannot be compared as easily as that
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:45 PM
Feb 2016

First of all, McGovern was principally an anti-war candidate running on Americans' disaffection with with the conflict in Vietnam against an incumbent president. In the end, Nixon got no better deal after the 1972 election to end American involvement in Vietnam than he could have gotten the day he took office four years earlier. Nixon used the power of incumbency to take the war issue away from McGovern. The numbers of American combat forces were steadily being reduced and peace negotiations were ongoing. Nixon even sent Dr. Kissinger to the negotiations in Paris, which lent a greater sense of gravity to the negotiations. In October, Kissinger thought he had an agreement and announced "Peace is at hand." Even though Nixon rejected that particular agreement and resumed bombing North Vietnam after the election, the message received by the American people was one of "Chill, I've got this." Thus the war, which McGovern's supporters (your most humble hare among them) thought would continue to be an issue after Labor Day, wasn't.

Bernie is running for an open presidency. If he is the nominee, there isn't much President Obama can do to undermine Bernie's candidacy without undermining his own legacy. Bernie will be running against the last Republican clown standing, who will only have a chance of winning if the corporatist Democrats revolt and run an alternative Democrat on a third party, a stunt that runs the risk of permanently dividing the Democratic Party. I don't think they really want to do that. I hate to say it (OK, I relish saying it), but if Bernie wins the nomination, who else are the corporatist Democrats going to vote for?

That brings us to the "second of all." Second of all, Bernie is not running against something that is going away or can be easily swept under the rug.

What Bernie is running against isn't other Democratic politicians, but the corporate establishment that foots the bill for their campaigns and has corrupted them in the process. Many of us (including your most humble hare) voted for President Obama in 2008 hoping for a change from the established policies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush the Preppy, which were made bipartisan by Bill Clinton. Bush the Frat Boy took those policies to an ideological extreme and demonstrated how bad they could be. The change we had hoped for under Obama was not forthcoming. Obama continued the same neoliberal policies and got the same results: a widening income gap. Has Obama been a better president than Bush the Frat Boy? Of course he has. My cat, Swashbuckler, would be have made a better president that Bush the Frat Boy. Has Obama been a second coming of FDR? No, he hasn't. Unfortunately, that is what history demanded of him.

Income inequality, political corruption and corporate tyranny are not going to go away between now and November. First of all, these are bigger problems than was the Vietnam War. Second, for eight years President Obama has been a greater part of the problem than he has been part of the solution, starting with his failure to prosecute crooked Wall Street bankers and going up to his negotiating and pushing bad trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the even worse Trade in Services Agreement. The problems that arise from neoliberalism (or supply-side economics, trickle down economics, Reaganomics, voodoo economics, really fucked up economics or whatever name its called) won't be swept under the carpet until election day without the lumps showing, like Nixon did with the Vietnam War during the election campaign of 1972.

Neoliberalism is a monster pig. It's really ugly and no one can just put lipstick on it and pretend it's a nubile young lady named Monique. That monstrous, ugly pig is the pet of some very powerful masters, who paid off the Congressmen and state legislators who are supposed to represent us. Crooked corporatist bribed our politicians. Or maybe bribed isn't the right word since the laws were changed to distinguish a bribe from a generous campaign contribution. The corporatist tyrants have bought our politicians and by doing so have deprived the people of our voice. We know it's ugly and not very many politicians in the last three and half decades have had the courage have been willing to say it, even if we know it. We aren't fooled, but there is no one to tell the truth.

Until now. That is why Bernie Sanders is going to be president starting in January.

And, I voted for him for much the same reason I'll vote for Bernie. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2016 #1
"If only McGovern had been more like Nixon" is the unstated "lesson" here. arcane1 Feb 2016 #5
Totally absurd. Also, More than half the people who voted in that election are fuckin dead leftupnorth Feb 2016 #67
McGovern's VP pick had Bipolar, underwent Electroshock. McGovern downplayed, Nixon Attacked! nt TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #117
Nixon coveted the white house for years, above all-to the point where it clouded his judgment badly. Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #134
I volunteered for McGovern. earthside Feb 2016 #87
Nixon attacked McGovern: Called crazy while VP choice underwent Electroshock for Bipolar! TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #115
If we are stupid enough to assume history always repeats: Clinton lost once, thus she'll lose again. arcane1 Feb 2016 #2
Clinton lost by less than half a percentage point. McGovern lost by 49 states. n/t pnwmom Feb 2016 #4
I'm referring to 2008 n/t arcane1 Feb 2016 #9
Hillary lost to Obama in the overall primary by less than a half percent of voters. n/t pnwmom Feb 2016 #24
Point is, she lost. Your history lesson is irrelevant. n/t arcane1 Feb 2016 #34
And? A loss is a loss. frylock Feb 2016 #40
Bernie has had MANY losses in his career. So? The conservative super pacs pnwmom Feb 2016 #99
What's your fucking point? frylock Feb 2016 #100
What's yours? pnwmom Feb 2016 #101
You're living in the past and allowing fear to rule your life. frylock Feb 2016 #103
Fry, cut it out. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #121
Step off. frylock Feb 2016 #131
It was heart breaking. That was the first Presidential livetohike Feb 2016 #3
I was at the McGovern convention (college press pass). kstewart33 Feb 2016 #122
How much do you make? n/t Wilms Feb 2016 #6
How does that affect what is right or wrong? scscholar Feb 2016 #31
Hoarding? vdogg Feb 2016 #80
so spending one's money is fine, saving is not . . . got it DrDan Feb 2016 #94
Hey Pnwmom, it is 2016 NOT 1972. Different Context!! m-lekktor Feb 2016 #7
Tax hikes have recently come into fashion. Who knew? oasis Feb 2016 #18
Methods and the medium for defeating propaganda have changed. frylock Feb 2016 #43
"Propaganda". Would that include promises of free stuff? oasis Feb 2016 #61
Yes, "promises of free stuff" is a perfect example of the propaganda that is getting it's ass kicked frylock Feb 2016 #69
Nobody is promising free stuff. That's another lie. arcane1 Feb 2016 #75
Bernie NEVER uttered the words "free college" or "free health care"? oasis Feb 2016 #138
If he's hiking taxes then he's not promising free stuff. bunnies Feb 2016 #105
My memory is kind of fuzzy. Was it McGovern's campaign oasis Feb 2016 #109
I wouldn't know. That was before I was born. nt bunnies Feb 2016 #137
Tax hikes on the Uber Rich are only "unpopular" whathehell Feb 2016 #45
You should have been there. The contexts were very similar. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #123
Today's meme is "Taxes". Pass it on! beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #8
Yes. The aspens sure are turning in unison, aren't they? Arugula Latte Feb 2016 #93
This McGovern meme is bullshit! His VP pick had Bipolar, He downplayed it & Nixon attacked! nt TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #118
It wasn't bipolar disorder at all. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #124
Later it was identified to be Bipolar-II disorder. nt TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #127
Redistribution of income? Mortgage Interest Deduction, anyone? closeupready Feb 2016 #10
No We Can't! Ron Green Feb 2016 #11
That was a different time. Vinca Feb 2016 #12
Good thing Bernie isn't running on that platform Paulie Feb 2016 #13
DU needs an enthusiasm award Fumesucker Feb 2016 #14
In 1972 I was wearing diapers. EmperorHasNoClothes Feb 2016 #15
Yes times do change. PotatoChip Feb 2016 #53
History has this nasty habit of repeating itself. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #125
Yes we must always run on Republican policies because 45 years ago a Democrat lost an election Cheese Sandwich Feb 2016 #16
I know, right? It's such fucking bullshit that I could scream. Nay Feb 2016 #108
It's called learning from experience. nt kstewart33 Feb 2016 #126
And Hillary is calling for the continued, or at least the codified, redistribution of wealth upward Schema Thing Feb 2016 #17
This may come as a shock to you, but things have changed radically cali Feb 2016 #19
Much like Hillary, this post is living in the past. nt Joe the Revelator Feb 2016 #20
McGovern never called himself a Socialist, on camera, repeatedly. onehandle Feb 2016 #21
After saying he backed Eagleton "1,000 per cent" and then throwing him under the bus? Puh-leeze. Had KingCharlemagne Feb 2016 #36
You're right! We should be just like Republicans and demand lower taxes! LondonReign2 Feb 2016 #22
You know, for the middle class, that's actually a great idea. nt kstewart33 Feb 2016 #128
More right-wing talking points disguised as "concern"... AOR Feb 2016 #23
"Settle For Hillary!!" AzDar Feb 2016 #25
Different times NowSam Feb 2016 #26
Do we have any stats SheenaR Feb 2016 #27
Richard Nixon meets all three of your criteria and he beat McGovern by 49 states. pnwmom Feb 2016 #32
Message received: McGovern should've been more right-wing like Nixon. arcane1 Feb 2016 #47
Incorrect SheenaR Feb 2016 #49
yep Roy Ellefson Feb 2016 #72
And Nixon cheated. earthside Feb 2016 #88
Nixon had high favorability at that juncture, China and all that.... Bluenorthwest Feb 2016 #81
Yet FDR won so many reelections they had to move mmonk Feb 2016 #28
Income hadn't been redistributed upward for 30 years before McGovern JHB Feb 2016 #29
That was then, this is now. Autumn Feb 2016 #30
A good does of REALITY is always a good thing. NurseJackie Feb 2016 #33
It's not 1972 Kall Feb 2016 #35
*yawn* frylock Feb 2016 #37
Hillary Clinton was against gay marriage and has lost the millennial vote pinebox Feb 2016 #38
Ancient history. DinahMoeHum Feb 2016 #39
...and we're all fucked now because he wasn't elected. cyberswede Feb 2016 #41
If it's truly going to be Trump vs Sanders flamingdem Feb 2016 #42
If Trump is a Dem plant or just a guy who really wants to fuck things Nay Feb 2016 #110
McGovern was correct... Mike Nelson Feb 2016 #44
Do you mean Mondale? - nt KingCharlemagne Feb 2016 #48
Yes! Mike Nelson Feb 2016 #51
Guaranteed Annual Income -- an idea whose time has come and which is long overdue, imo. Just KingCharlemagne Feb 2016 #46
Different times. TheFarseer Feb 2016 #50
My father-in-law said that was a nightmare Iliyah Feb 2016 #52
It's the year 2016. retrowire Feb 2016 #54
THE issue in 1972 was the Vietnam War. The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2016 #55
It was different times, Nixon had a similar tax credit called Family Assistance Program which was Bluenorthwest Feb 2016 #76
You realize that EVERY GOVERNMENT is about "redistribution of income", bullwinkle428 Feb 2016 #56
Nope, I don't buy that. 44 years ago, when McGovern ran, PatrickforO Feb 2016 #57
Pssst it's not the 60s anymore, the Cold War is over gyroscope Feb 2016 #58
George McGovern didn't have THE INTERNET. nt valerief Feb 2016 #59
This current awakening is fresher, and runs deeper & broader than 1972 99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #60
Yeah, and how did that work out for you? tularetom Feb 2016 #62
That was then, this is now. leftupnorth Feb 2016 #63
Abraham Lincoln lost all of the southern states in 1860 election Ichingcarpenter Feb 2016 #64
Hrmm...let me check my calendar.....nope! It isn't 1972. (nt) jeff47 Feb 2016 #65
Definitely a far different situation.... NiteOwl1 Feb 2016 #66
Did you just find out about that? I remember it from my childhood! It was about Vietnam and not Bluenorthwest Feb 2016 #68
Thanks for your incremental fear. R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2016 #70
Different time, different electorate. Avalux Feb 2016 #71
So what...this isn't 1972. Punkingal Feb 2016 #73
In 1970 there was not social media jillan Feb 2016 #74
That was then. This is now. Hiraeth Feb 2016 #77
In 1972, I was 2. nt ScreamingMeemie Feb 2016 #78
The way forward is clear HassleCat Feb 2016 #79
I volunteered for and work on the McGovern campaign Gothmog Feb 2016 #82
They do indeed. Thanks. n/t pnwmom Feb 2016 #83
Nevertheless, they are still irrelevant. longship Feb 2016 #97
And how many times have we heard Bernie say pnwmom Feb 2016 #98
Nevertheless, your historic argument is a non-sequitur. longship Feb 2016 #102
I remember that ad! kstewart33 Feb 2016 #132
Wow. It's almost like BS is trying to EMULATE McGovern. tarheelsunc Feb 2016 #142
It really looks that way Gothmog Feb 2016 #146
And that was a different era The Traveler Feb 2016 #84
McGovern lost because H2O Man Feb 2016 #85
Typical Hillarian ... living in the past. earthside Feb 2016 #86
Sanders polls very well against any of the slugs he would possibly face in the general. Orsino Feb 2016 #89
Bernie Sanders says he polls better against GOP candidates than Hillary Clinton Gothmog Feb 2016 #116
Goldwater strongly called for tax cuts - and lost states 44 to 6. ieoeja Feb 2016 #90
Ooh noes! Socialism!!! 1111!!! Fearless Feb 2016 #91
You do realize that several decades have passed since McGovern? Arugula Latte Feb 2016 #92
Yeah. Because electroshock therapy, Thorazine, and Thomas Eagleton had nothing to do with the loss. cherokeeprogressive Feb 2016 #95
The campaign of McGovern and Sanders cannot be compared as easily as that Jack Rabbit Feb 2016 #96
When did taxes become redistribution of wealth? Dretownblues Feb 2016 #104
By contrast - Reagan and Bush actually redistributed the income upward to the wealthy. They won. EndElectoral Feb 2016 #106
"More than half of our states have Republican governors and most of them rejected free Federal... bettyellen Feb 2016 #107
1972 as many others have stated. More than 40 years ago Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #111
Poor Hillary supporters, grasping at straws! AZ Progressive Feb 2016 #112
Is it just possible that things have changed in 40 years? LoveIsNow Feb 2016 #113
lol 44 years ago during the Cold War and far more promising times azurnoir Feb 2016 #114
Did I go through a time warp and wake up in 1972? Odin2005 Feb 2016 #119
If the same electorate were voting today, Bernie would not stand a chance, either. DaveT Feb 2016 #120
But after free trade and the rise of the service economy.... tokenlib Feb 2016 #129
it didn't help McGovern that his original running mate had seizures 0rganism Feb 2016 #130
Boomers need to move on, already. Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #133
If the election had been held 2 years later, it would have been close to 49 states the other way jfern Feb 2016 #135
George is not Bernie so don't try to conflate the two. OK madokie Feb 2016 #136
Half the electorate from back then is now dead. Half of today's electorate hadn't yet been born. Betty Karlson Feb 2016 #139
We just have to win once. nt bemildred Feb 2016 #140
Republicans don't have a Nixon or Reagan to run against us. Plus, times change. (nt) thesquanderer Feb 2016 #141
Well, that certainly is proof that we should give up and let the rich have it all then. Live and Learn Feb 2016 #143
And McGovern was a WW2 vet, not a conscientious objector who doesn't follow Persondem Feb 2016 #144
2016 is NOT 1972, but it could turn into 1968... John Poet Feb 2016 #145
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»George McGovern strongly ...»Reply #96