Why was Hubert Humphrey so great?

[DevotedDemocrat]

I see a lot of my fellow Democrats praise him, some even have sigs on here dedicated to him, and in polls about "could've been great Presidents", he consistently is listed among those who could've/would've been great if they'd been elected. Around here, he seems like some Liberal idol. My question is: Why?

I'm not questioning the man or his merits or his talents--I don't know all that much about him other than he was probably more fit to be President than Nixon...But other than that, I know little to nothing about the man, so I'm earnestly asking:

What was Hubert Horatio Humphrey so great, at least in the eyes of the Democratic and Liberal posters here?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

He was the frickin' shiat, man.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

He was a champion of the addition of the Civil Rights plank to the Democrat's 1948 platform which caused some defections to Thurmond, and fought hard for a lot of liberal economic legislation.

He was a true liberal in that sense, but I think retrospective is the reason he is practically idolized.

If he'd won the 1968 election, there would be no Nixon and Watergate which was the nail in the coffin for the people's trust in government, after Vietnam(in 1964, the government was the most trusted institution in the nation, more than churches, businesses,etc.).

Depending on how he handled his Presidency, the Conservative Ascendancy might not have happend leading to Carter and Reagan and such. He could've continued to push liberal policies. The Vietnam War could've ended in 1969, instead of 1973, saving an additional 20,000 - 30,000 or so lives and billions in money to be spent domestically.

Probably being the man who barely lost to Nixon by 500,000 votes is the reason he's idolized.

[Dr. Cynic]

Humphrey is an idol of mine for all the reasons listed above as well as a few others. Not only would he have been a great President, he was also a good and decent human being. He had none of Nixon's deviousness and with him what you saw was what you got.

[nolesfan2011]

He was a champion of the addition of the Civil Rights plank to the Democrat's 1948 platform which caused some defections to Thurmond, and fought hard for a lot of liberal economic legislation.

He was a true liberal in that sense, but I think retrospective is the reason he is practically idolized.

If he'd won the 1968 election, there would be no Nixon and Watergate which was the nail in the coffin for the people's trust in government, after Vietnam(in 1964, the government was the most trusted institution in the nation, more than churches, businesses,etc.).

Depending on how he handled his Presidency, the Conservative Ascendancy might not have happend leading to Carter and Reagan and such. He could've continued to push liberal policies. The Vietnam War could've ended in 1969, instead of 1973, saving an additional 20,000 - 30,000 or so lives and billions in money to be spent domestically.

Probably being the man who barely lost to Nixon by 500,000 votes is the reason he's idolized.

Pretty much this

[barfbag]

Humphrey would've made a decent president.

[Cory]

I honestly believe that as far as the 20th Century is concerned Hubert Humphrey is the best President America never had.

[Oakvale]

The answer is that he wasn't.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Aside from civil rights, he wasn't.  In 1968, he was essentially the candidate of the drug-smoking hippie potheads and anti-war protesters (as was McGovern in 1972.)  Say what you will about Nixon, but we were a lot better off with him than we would've been with Humphrey, Wallace, or McGovern.

[H. Ross Peron]

Aside from civil rights, he wasn't.  In 1968, he was essentially the candidate of the drug-smoking hippie potheads and anti-war protesters (as was McGovern in 1972.)  Say what you will about Nixon, but we were a lot better off with him than we would've been with Humphrey, Wallace, or McGovern.

You do realize Humphrey was the candidate of labour and the Establishment in the Democratic Party over the antiwar people and the "potheads" who mostly went for McCarthy or Kennedy?

[barfbag]

Aside from civil rights, he wasn't.  In 1968, he was essentially the candidate of the drug-smoking hippie potheads and anti-war protesters (as was McGovern in 1972.)  Say what you will about Nixon, but we were a lot better off with him than we would've been with Humphrey, Wallace, or McGovern.

There's no comparison to Humphrey and McGovern. Hubert Humphrey would've done a decent job as our president. In fact he's closer to Reagan and Bush's ideology than McGovern's or even Obama's. His base consisted of blue collar Democrats and moderates. Had someone other than Nixon run with the exception of possibly Reagan, then Humphrey would've won. What hurt him was that Nixon was just as moderate and on top of that a brilliant politician.

[MATTROSE94]

He was a champion of the addition of the Civil Rights plank to the Democrat's 1948 platform which caused some defections to Thurmond, and fought hard for a lot of liberal economic legislation.

He was a true liberal in that sense, but I think retrospective is the reason he is practically idolized.

If he'd won the 1968 election, there would be no Nixon and Watergate which was the nail in the coffin for the people's trust in government, after Vietnam(in 1964, the government was the most trusted institution in the nation, more than churches, businesses,etc.).

Depending on how he handled his Presidency, the Conservative Ascendancy might not have happend leading to Carter and Reagan and such. He could've continued to push liberal policies. The Vietnam War could've ended in 1969, instead of 1973, saving an additional 20,000 - 30,000 or so lives and billions in money to be spent domestically.

Probably being the man who barely lost to Nixon by 500,000 votes is the reason he's idolized.

This^

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Aside from civil rights, he wasn't.  In 1968, he was essentially the candidate of the drug-smoking hippie potheads and anti-war protesters (as was McGovern in 1972.)  Say what you will about Nixon, but we were a lot better off with him than we would've been with Humphrey, Wallace, or McGovern.

Huh? Don't tell that to McGovern fans. I'd advise a quick read-through of "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail: '72" if you think that Humphrey or McGovern were the same. And while policies didn't necessarily have to differ on everything, supporters did, and "drug-smoking hippie potheads and anti-war protesters" weren't the biggest fans of ol' HHH.

And I'm not entirely sure about Nixon's less-bad-than-the-others legacy, given how both his domestic and foreign policies basically constituted scams.

[Miles]

Because he went to LSU, duh.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Because he went to LSU, duh.

So you wish Sherman had run for President then?

[Peter the Lefty]

Aside from civil rights, he wasn't.  In 1968, he was essentially the candidate of the drug-smoking hippie potheads and anti-war protesters (as was McGovern in 1972.)  Say what you will about Nixon, but we were a lot better off with him than we would've been with Humphrey, Wallace, or McGovern.

There's no comparison to Humphrey and McGovern. Hubert Humphrey would've done a decent job as our president. In fact he's closer to Reagan and Bush's ideology than McGovern's or even Obama's. His base consisted of blue collar Democrats and moderates. Had someone other than Nixon run with the exception of possibly Reagan, then Humphrey would've won. What hurt him was that Nixon was just as moderate and on top of that a brilliant politician.

Lolno.  He was well to the left of Obama.  Medicare and the Peace Corps, were all pretty much his idea (and let's not forgot this absurd and fearmongering speech Reagan gave against Medicare), and he was ultra-pro-labor.  He was pretty much the rising star of the liberal wing of the party in the 50's.  And in '68, the only reason why moderates backed him was because the alternatives were RFK and McCarthy.  In 1960, he was the main liberal candidate in the Dem primaries except for Wayne Morse until he pulled out.  He continued to be the great liberal crusader of the Senate until he became Veep. 

[Beet]

One of his under-appreciated accomplishments at the very end of his life, when he seemed defeated and spent, is lending his support to the Humphrey Hawkins full employment act. It is in this bill that we find the origin of the Federal Reserve's "dual mandate" of balancing full employment needs with inflation fighting needs. This last hurrah of Sixties Keynesianism endured through the monetarist counterrevolution which, for instance, guaranteed that the European Central Bank (ECB), unlike the Fed, has no employment mandate, only a price stability mandate. The 27% unemployment in Spain is no skin off their back. Those like Bernanke and Yellen however, can argue that the U.S.'s ~7.5% unemployment rate is a violation of the Fed's goal of full employment. This divergence has played a critical role in the economic and political history of the past 3 years.

[The Mikado]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Famous Mortimer]

Hunter S. Thompson hated Humphrey. He said if Humphrey had won the nomination in 72, he would have voted for Nixon. I forget his reasoning though.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Well...he was pro life...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Progressive, solidly pro-labor, one of the firsts who seriously pushed for Civil Rights.

[Хahar 🤔]

Aside from civil rights, he wasn't.  In 1968, he was essentially the candidate of the drug-smoking hippie potheads and anti-war protesters (as was McGovern in 1972.)  Say what you will about Nixon, but we were a lot better off with him than we would've been with Humphrey, Wallace, or McGovern.

You do realize Humphrey was the candidate of labour and the Establishment in the Democratic Party over the antiwar people and the "potheads" who mostly went for McCarthy or Kennedy?

labor

[Oakvale]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56dBfyeH2DM

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56dBfyeH2DM

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

[TDAS04]

Civil rights. There's no need for further justification.