1968 or 1972 DNC which was worse?

[Badger]

1972 was a disaster when it happened due to the cosmetics of the convention.  Minorities, young kids, and Wokesters of the day displacing the Democratic polls, displaced delegations (due to the new McGovern-Fraser Commission rules), all looked terrible to Mr. and Mrs. America in 1972.  The demonstrators saying "Stop Bombing the Dikes!" were upsetting to ordinary citizens.  I remember my Republican neighbor talking to my Republican stepdad in 1972 saying, "This is WAR!  If bombing the dikes will hurt the enemy, then bomb the dikes!".  There was an excellent chance that viewers of that scene was a middle-aged man who was a combat veteran during WWII or in Korea who had, indeed, heard a shot fired in anger.

The best way to describe it was Wokeness before its time.  Young hippie types, black men in dashikis, college student types were present not just in the hall, but on podiums.  Democrats, including many who would, for the first time, vote Republican in November (for Nixon) watched George Meany and I. W. Abel (President of the Steelworkers Union) refuse to endorse McGovern.  They got to see the elected Chicago delegation, led by Mayor Richard J. Daley, unseated in favor of a delegation led by Jesse Jackson and Alderman William Singer.  (Local Chicago TV saw Chicago Democratic Alderman Vito Marzullo calling McGovern a "no good son-of-a-bitch" and vowing to campaign for Nixon's re-election".  One station got a shot of George Meany commenting on the situation:  "They've got six (6) open (gays) out there and only three (3) labor people.  Representative, huh?"

Oddly enough, one of the more rational moments was the speech made by George Wallace before the convention.  Wallace made no bones about his disagreements with the platform; he specifically called for "more defense" and "less welfare", which went directly to McGovern's two (2) main policy positions (defense cuts and a guaranteed national income), but he was not inflammatory.  Wallace made it clear that he was a Democrat, and he wanted to help the Democratic Party becomes the party of the average working person as it once was.  Wallace did not endorse McGovern, but, at his direction, the Alabama delegation, while its leader emphasized their disagreements with the platform, pointed out that if Wallace had been the nominee, he would have wanted the convention to ratify his choice for VP, and, in that spirit, the entire Alabama delegation voted for Eagleton for the VP slot.  There was not hostility toward Wallace (although the NY and NJ delegations did not stand and applaud as he was carried to the podium), but his speech was respectfully listened to, if only because people were glad Wallace wasn't making it tougher for his own purposes.  They were more helpful than the lunatic delegates who voted for Mao Zedong. (Yes, they really did!)

1968 was chaotic, but America saw the Democrats stand up the to the whack jobs and not cave.  1972 was a bit of the kids taking over the school and running it.  Little of what people saw in the 1972 convention would be off-putting today, but at the time, it caused the Democratic Party to look like it sold out to Hippie and Feminist Kooks.  And there was no structure to the convention.  I watched and listened to George McGovern entreating people to "Come Home, America!" at 2 AM, the time slot running over because the convention managers could not manage the time well.  To be sure, not all of McGovern's problems stemmed from the convention.  When your first choice for VP is later revealed as a mental case that concealed a history of psychiatric hospitalization, that never looks good.  But the 1972 Democratic National Convention made the Democrats look like something other than a serious party.  I watched almost all of it at age 15, and all I could think of at any number of points was how some of the stuff going on there would make the adults I knew that voted cringe.

This is why I love this website. I learn so much from random posts. I am a history teacher who taught classes on the 1960s. 1968 always interested me. Yet you taught me so much about the 1972 DNC!

What exactly was in the 1972 platform that was so radical?

Let's look at the actual platform:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1972-democratic-party-platform

It seems kind of mild by today's standard, but it had let to three (3) features that McGovern got hit over the head with.

One was McGovern's proposal for a Guaranteed Annual Income.  Now this isn't radical today; the Earned Income Tax Credit essentially provides this.  But it was radical back then, and a concept that was foreign to most Americans.

War and Defense were other issues.  The people were tired of war, but the wording of the platform, and McGovern's own words made it appear that McGovern's plan would be Peace At Any Price.  While many who voted for Nixon in 1968 because he had a "Secret Plan" to end the Vietnam War were tired of waiting, the was WAS coming to an end, and McGovern's plan appeared to be a surrender, and while McGovern said he would not abandon POWs, the argument that he would got a lot of traction.  The sister argument to this was McGovern's defense cuts.  This was a feature in many "Democrats for Nixon" ads; the discussion of McGovern's proposed cuts and it's impact on national security.  (What wasn't said was the union jobs that would be lost with McGovern's defense cuts; that's the big reason why Meany and Abel and other key labor leaders did not endorse McGovern. 

When you read the 1972 platform, you have to keep telling yourself:  This is 1972.  This is 1972.

Most of Nixon's ads in New York in 1972 were as "Democrats for Nixon".  This ad was pretty devastating; it spoke to lots of folks that were Democrats and union workers, but who also fought in WWII and Korea.

"Negotiatefor peace, from strength" is a very powerful message. Americans want peace, but the strength to protect ourselves if needed. Its why Reagan was so successful.

Didn't McGovern promise to pardon all draft dodgers? I know Carter eventually did but I can imagine that would have been very unpopular while the war was still ongoing.

Yes, that too.

Most of the Draft Evaders were cowards.  I have more respect for Joan Baez's husband and Muhammed Ali who faced jail than I do for cowards who fled to Canada or Sweden.  I met two (2) such individuals in real life after Carter pardoned them, and they were cowards, sad to say; the military has always had exemptions and non-combat roles for REAL conscientious objectors.  These were my impressions when I was a liberal Democrat; I didn't take them on last week.

Did you enlist? Did these two men you met have a big c for coward and Blaze another forehead? Did you ever read about biblical injunctions against war, or did your trumpet preacher tell you it's okay as long as it's worse against non-white people?

How presumptuous and obnoxious. This is an OK Boomer and STFU post even by your standards