I loved that true progressive, George McGovern.

[pnwmom]

But whenever I hear DU'ers argue that we can only win if we elect true progressives, I remember what it felt like to watch Richard Nixon take 49 states. George McGovern got Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

So much for the fantasy that the nomination of a "true progressive" will solve the Democratic party's ills.


http://www.mcgovernlibrary.com/george.htm

[MADem]

1. Don't blame me....I'm from MASSACHUSETTS!!!

I had one of those bumper stickers on my 61 VW!!!

[pnwmom]

2. I was in college there in 1972. As bad as that was, at least

I had a lot of companions in misery.

[Master Mahon]

4. George was way ahead of his time

and would have been a great leader. But of course, anyone would have compared to 'tricky Dick'!

[Master Mahon]

3. You are right

but I think we need to get away from labels like 'progressive' or 'liberal' as a sole defining party ideology.
The Democratic party needs to be all inclusive if it expects to win in the future. In the past, conservatives and moderates made up a large part of the Democratic party. And, I would venture to say that the Party is still made up mostly of moderate ideologies.
Unlike the neocons, who require 100% loyalty to their policies, even if it's against your best interests, Democrats and Progressives should not go down that road. We need to unite all ideologies and diplomatically resolve any differences. When it's seen that we can accomplish that and still remain unified then the vast majority of the country will follow.
The question is, can we ever achieve that ideal?

[pnwmom]

7. I completely agree with you, Master Mahon.

I think the whole country was better off when both parties allowed for a range of opinion. We were much more likely to achieve consensus and compromise that way, and I don't think EITHER of those should be a dirty word.

I don't know whether we can go back to that -- given the current polarization, especially with the Repubs -- but I for one haven't given up on the ideal.

[eridani]

31. In the past, the Dems were the White Man's Party

That changed with the Civil Rights Act. We can't really go back there.

[deaniac21]

5. What do you mean 'loved'? He is still speaking truth to power!

[pnwmom]

8. Guess I've lost track of him over the years.

And perhaps grown a bit disillusioned with wonderful people who can't seem to win. . .

[Sapere aude]

6. You have to look at what went on back then. You can't compare today with

then.

People were disillusioned with social programs that did not give the intended results back then. It was easy to say that a progressive social agenda does not work. People were also reacting to the free love, anti war, hippie culture. They were called the silent majority. Today progressives are the silent majority and we are reacting to a conservative era that started with Reagan. We are exactly were we need to be today. I think we are ready for a new progressive movement. People are ready for a change, but all we offer them is DINO's!

[pnwmom]

10. I'm not as optimistic as you that progressives are the majority.

I don't see any real evidence of major change in that respect.

1970-2 was a peak antiwar time, and yet that still didn't help McGovern to win. We don't have "hippies" now per se, but we have the same kind of arguments between moralists and liberals about cultural matters that we had then. (Instead of fighting about hippies, we fight about gays.)

Why should we expect strong progressives to do any better in a national election than they did then? Show me the poll that shows a strong progressive presidential candidate would be supported in this country, and I'd be happy to change my mind.

[Sapere aude]

12. I think that if you left off the label "progressive" and took a poll on

progressive issues such as health care, social safety nets, job creation, minimum wage, day care, educational opportunities, environmental protection, peace, abortion, gay rights, you would see that the majority of Americans support the progressive point of view.

[pnwmom]

13. It would all depend, I suppose, on how the questionnaires were

worded.

But I strongly doubt, for instance, that the majority of Americans are currently in favor of gay marriage.

And, from what I have read, the majority favor some restrictions on abortion -- which isn't the progressive point of view either.

I'm not sure what you mean by the progressive position on "peace." Almost everyone (except for neocons) supports peace, but we mean different things when we say that.

I'm not even sure that the majority would favor government supported day care -- not if someone pointed out it would raise our taxes!

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans have gotten accustomed to voting AGAINST their own self interest. And we don't seem to be doing very well in getting that message across to them.

[Master Mahon]

11. As much as I wish it were so

I doubt progressives are the silent majority.
I would say that the majority is moderate, or a tad left of center, but certainly not progressive.

[skipos]

9. We need a progressive to talks in a way that moderates relate to

And it has nothing to do with being dishonest or calculating either. Some people naturally speak in a way that many identify with, others do not. I think Schweitzer would be a great presidential candidate as, from what I can tell, he does this. Further, he is from a red state he would flip (due to his 70% approval ratings) and is not a senator. Two things I hope we get in our 08 candidate.


Yes McGovern would have been great, but I guess the moderates weren't able to relate. (Presidentelect.org inverts the red/blue scheme we are familiar with by the way.)


Moderates weren't able to connect with Mondale in 1984 either.

[Greyhound]

14. Totally different world.

the sheeple hadn't been really sheared yet.
Life was still free and easy, money and jobs were plentiful, and this is what allowed the hippies to be. By rejecting the consumer trap they learned how little you actually had to do to keep body & soul together. This, in turn, gave them the time to learn, to care, to protest, to get involved, and they did.

The re:puke: (leaders) are many things, but stupid isn't one of them and they learned that the sheep had too much time on their hands. They've been hard at work ever since to ensure that won't happen again.

But back to the point, I'm not sure the sheep are in enough pain yet to make a difference, we're getting closer.

[pnwmom]

15. It won't matter how much pain the "sheep" are in

if they blame their pain on the wrong things.

And that's what the Republicans are so adept at -- shifting blame.

[Greyhound]

22. and the sheep are so used to accepting it.

I'm with Chomsky on this one, it is our fault, you and me and all of us with the voice to stop it, but with no will to do so.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. McGovern simply didn't have what it takes to win a presidential election

Bobby Kennedy, Frank Church, or Birch Bayh were all progressives and would've had a better shot than McGovern. McGovern was a great guy but just not cut out to run for president. I don't see why his loss is an indictment of progressives' national appeal.

[pnwmom]

17. Okay. Show me anyone as progressive as McGovern who has

won the Presidency. The only one who has come close is Jimmy Carter, and in many respects he would be called a DINO (at least by the people who like to throw that term around today.) He also was too nice to get reelected.

Of the three you mentioned, Bobby Kennedy is the only one I think could have won.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Jimmy Carter would never be called a DINO by todays standards

Under Carter's administration, the rich were taxed at 70%. Today, taxing the rich at even close to 70% is like a wet dream for liberals. And I think that all of the people I mentioned below were electable and all very progressive. Maybe they don't come across as progressive as McGovern did, but that's probably because they were better politicians.

[DaveinMD]

19. Carter

was villified by the left during his presidency. Remember Ted Kennedy challenged his re-election and barely lost the primaries.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. Again, that was a different time

Since Reagan, the country has shifted much farther to the right. He may have been moderate back in the 70's but he would be a flaming liberal by todays standards.

[DaveinMD]

21. that is true

however, the point is that he was not a progressive for his time. I don't think a true liberal can win. And that is the point that the thread starter is making.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. So lets settle for what was considered moderate in the 1970's

Because todays progressives are about as liberal as moderates in the 70's.

[adwon]

23. LBJ

Carter was a very conservative Democrat next to any of his Democratic predecessors. LBJ was to the left of Roosevelt and Truman as president.

[On the Road]

28. Here are the 1976 Democratic Candidates

* Birch Bayh, U.S senator from Indiana
* Lloyd Bentsen, U.S. senator from Texas
* Jerry Brown, governor of California
* Jimmy Carter, former governor of Georgia
* Frank Church, U.S. senator from Idaho
* Fred R. Harris, former U.S. senator from Oklahoma,
* Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, U.S. senator from Washington
* Terry Sanford, former governor of North Carolina
* Milton Shapp, governor of Pennsylvania
* Sargent Shriver, 1972 vice-presidential nominee
* Morris "Mo" Udall, U.S. representative from Arizona
* George Wallace, governor of Alabama,

Of those, Cater was arguable more conservative than Brown, Church, Harris, Sanford, Shriver, and Udall. Carter might be grouped with Bayh, Bentsen, and Scoop Jackson as a centrist.

Strange as it might sound, some of Carter's policies foreshadowed Reagan. He supported deregulation in the financial, aviation, and trucking industries, promised zero-based budgeting, encouraged Europe to increase its military spending, did a certain amount of saber-rattling against the Soviet Union. He out-conservatived Reagan by leaving the deficit exactly where he found it.

Carter's integrity, intelligence, and dedication were unquestioned, but in 1980, voters wanted a promoter who sold dreams and told them wanted to hear.

[wisteria]

24. The time might just be right for a more progressive candidate.

It certainly would be about time for this country.

[LincolnMcGrath]

26. Further proof that dlcentists just do not get it.

Never mind the fact that McGovern himself had opposed gun control, had voted against cuts in defense spending, had earned poor ratings from liberal groups, and boasted a fairly moderate domestic record.


The GOP labeled him a leftist, so the dlcentrists, being true to form, run screaming in the other direction without a clue.

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. Barry Goldwater lost by a landslide in 1964 as a true conservative

16 years later Ronald Reagan won the White House. Now people well to the right of Ronald Reagan and way to the right of Barry Goldwater dominate all three branches of government.

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. First they

First they ignored us,

then they laughed at us,

then they fought us,

then we won.

---Mohandas Gandhi

[eridani]

30. What if the official Democratic Party--

--had not been actively working against him and for Nixon?

[Le Taz Hot]

32. Brushing off the old

DLC talking points are we? IIRC, last time those were used were against Howard Dean. All that talk about electability. Tell me, who's sitting in the White House?