One of the things that we kept being reminded of during last year’s primary was “McGovern”. That became the single justification for every Clintonian misstep, that establishment Dems know better because McGovern.
I didn’t set out to make Clinton/McGovern comparisons. I really don’t like them, because I’ve now backed the “McGovern candidate” twice in a Democratic primary. (The previous one was Barack Obama. I wonder whatever happened to that guy...)
So, it’s time I actually discussed why George McGovern lost.
McGovern mistakenly believed in demographic inevitability. This was the original sin of the McGovern campaign. McGovern believed that younger people were born Democrats, if he just dumped economic and labor issues. Why people who hadn’t lived through the Great Depression and World War II would be more likely to vote for the party that got us through those things, I’ll never understand. (In fact, the Baby Boomers were Generation Dubya. It’s something everyone denies, but it’s true. And now they gave us Trump.)
McGovern never unified the party. However, it was the reverse: Clinton was an establishment Dem who never really won the support of most Democrats, and McGovern was a far-left Dem who...never really won the support of most Democrats, including the establishment. I never want to hear the name David Brock again. Seriously, everything associated with him, it was more like he was trying to get Jill Stein up to 2% than trying to beat Trump. (Several Facebook groups I belonged to had been the victim of a David Brock trolling operation. I’ll spare you the details.) Interestingly enough, they both went against labor.
McGovern was the victim of his supproters’ hubris. This was the real problem right here. Realism is required. Creating a circle jerk about how awesome you all are? That just makes your downfall entertaining, even to people who would’ve supported you. (And honestly? I had issues with Clinton going into this, but at this point, I have no feelings about her personally, but I absolutely loathe New Democrats in general.) And I should mention I’m not a fan of the self-esteem movement; Nathaniel Branden was as intellectually honest as any other Ayn Rand fanboy.
But enough about losers. My next article in this series will focus on a winner, one who redefined the political order for decades. In it, we’ll discuss why you can potentially break some Republican voters out of the Matrix, but the “social liberal, fiscal conservative” types, the ones New Democrats insist are just going to stop voting Republican any day now (Dope springs eternal, I guess.), are the AIs running the Matrix. Before I get to that, though, I want to discuss what kind of Republican Trump is. Because after the first 100 days, I have an idea.