Skip to main content

View Diary: "With George McGovern as President"(Dem Hist 101) (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What part was too far left? (0+ / 0-)

    Pro peace?
    Pro women's rights?
    Pro minority rights?
    Pro gay rights (yes in '72, though it may not meet today's standards)

    Pro labor?  (excellent voting record though Meany screwed him because of the war stance)

    Pro poor?

    Just which ones of those were too far left in your view?

    •  Go ask people who voted against him (0+ / 0-)

      Losing 49 states is not just an aberration.  It's not a "football stadium in Ohio."  You have to remember that polls show that for every self-identified liberal there are 2 self-identified conservatives.  Moderates can swing, but they don't swing either far left or far right, McGovernism is just dead on arrival, it simply doesn't have the votes in the country.  That's why Clinton won twice, because he ran and governed mostly as a moderate.  That is also why McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis lost by wide margins.

      So you have to ask yourself, is the goal to win elections, or is it ideological purity.  If the former, McGovernism won't cut it.  

      Also, I think fundamentally, Nixon had it right when he was talking about the "silent majority."  I don't mean it in the sense of whether taht majority is pro- or anti- any particular view.  The point is that majority of American people are not all that fond of demonstrations, sit-ins, etc.  They want quiet.  They want to come home to a safe neighborhood, where they can raise kids, and watch TV.  They do not have much appreciation or tolerance for radical upheavals and immediate social change.  Any movement that is based on demonstrations and such, is not going to be well received by the public.  Just my 2 cents.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site