|
...some self-inflicted, some not.
-- When McGovern came out on top in the winner-take-all California primary, thus locking up the nomination, his opponents (primarily Humphrey and Muskie) got their allies at the top of the California party to change the rules after the fact and award the delegates by proportional representation instead, thus leaving McGovern slightly short and raising the possibility of his opponents uniting behind a compromise candidate and defeating him at the convention. (The fact that, before the primary, the McGovern campaign had moved that California change to proportional representation and the very same opponents had blocked it was not lost on observers.) In any event, California sent two slates of delegates to the convention, and the first night was basically a massive floor fight over which would be seated. McGovern's side prevailed in a close floor vote, but the general impression for television viewers was that the Democratic Party was in disarray.
-- This was amplified by various other controversies that followed. In the days when many states simply had the party bosses select delegates to convention, bypassing the result of primaries or caucuses, several states had packed their delegations with old-guard, pro-war pols. In Illinois (and I believe one other state) civil-rights activists likewise brought their own slates based on primary results, and demanded similar floor votes. They prevailed in Illinois, thus kicking powerful machine delegates like Mayor Daley out of the convention. Those ousted broke from the party and either sat out the November election or switched sides and worked for the Republicans. Most damaging, the entrenched leadership of the AFL-CIO took the latter path, vowing to come back only when the "McGovern radicals" had been purged from the Democratic Party. (This was really the beginning of the end for organized labor as a political force in this country.)
-- On the final night of the convention, incredibly poor management by the McGovern team allowed several dozen alternative VP candidates to be nominated, with the result that McGovern didn't get a chance to deliver his (very good, BTW) acceptance speech until after midnight on the east coast. This was a major problem -- unlike today, news sources were very limited, and many people knew little of McGovern himself at that point. However, most adults watched the conventions, and this would have been the best chance for McGovern to present himself in a positive light. However, by the time he got that chance, most of America had switched off the set and gone to bed.
-- The whole Eagleton fiasco. I don't know what I can add to this, but it essentially sapped every possible bit of momentum the campaign could have accumulated. It basically filled almost every news cycle between the end of the Democratic convention and the stage-managed "four more years!" Republican event.
-- The Republicans successfully exploited the "culture war." Beginning in 1970, they had demonized "young people" as being traitors to America, and spread fear of blacks (under the guise of "law and order") in the years before that. Now, they bundled those together with other aspects of social change (primarily reproductive rights) to portray the Democrats as the party of "acid, abortion, and amnesty" as opposed to their upholding of "Middle-American values" (the predecessor of "traditional family values"). As one other poster remarked, by that point, the '60s counterculture had lost its sheen, and generated a negative reaction in vast numbers of voters.
-- However, I think the main feeling was that McGovern was fighting a battle that was already over. As I just mentioned, the counterculture was thought of as a thing of the past, and "Vietnamization" had gotten far enough along that it seemed America's involvement in Vietnam would be over soon no matter who won (as, indeed, it was -- American combat involvement ended two months after the election). The draft was ending, so young men didn't have to fear being sent off to war against their will. And, with Nixon having made overtures to China, and established the first steps of "detente" with the Soviets, it hardly seemed that the choice was between an anti-war Democrat and a warmongering Republican making the situation worse. And the economy was going along fine, with the first oil shocks another year away. I think most people felt like things were "under control" enough that there was no sense in shaking up the status quo just for the sake of change -- especially when they hadn't seen enough of McGovern's positives to justify trusting him with the country.
Now, all those are rational reasons why so many voters would choose Nixon that November. However, to speak from a personal viewpoint, however solid some reasons may have been for "staying the course," the damage that election did to America is incalculable. For progressives, it was really the last chance we've had to move our nation along toward a goal of making it better and truer to its ideals than it was. Even though Nixon was to be brought down by Watergate, that missed chance has yet to be regained. It seems like every election since then has been a rear-guard action, trying to repair the damages inflicted upon our country by yet another group of conservatives. To repair the damages, yes, but never to take us back to the time before those damages occured.
Ironically, the theme of McGovern's wonderful, little-heard acceptance speech was "Come Home, America." We're still waiting. And it seems, every year, we're further and further away from home.
:-(
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
