Democrats' Reaction to McGovern '72 vs. GOP Reaction to Goldwater '64

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://newrepublic.com/article/130737/democrats-still-dont-get-george-mcgovern

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I certainly agree that, over time, there was a very different response to McGovern from the Democratic Party than there was for Goldwater from the GOP.  I think that there were logical reasons for this:

One reason for the different reaction was the status of the parties in 1964 and 1972.  The GOP was in the status of being a permanent minority in 1964; it has majorities in Congress for only 4 years since 1930, and those were bare majorities that were quickly lost each time.  They had only elected a President (Eisenhower) who was almost a non-partisan President who had broad popular appeal, but who was in constant conflict with the conservative Republicans in Congress.  McGovern, on the other hand, was a member of a majority party, and that majority included Governorships and State Legislatures.  The Democrats were somewhat baffled by their loss to Nixon in 1968, but they viewed it as a fluke that would correct itself, and an event that was separate from downballot races that wouldn't affect them much.

Then, too, Goldwater carried new states and helped elect Republicans in those states.  It's possible that a wave of Southern Republicans would have been elected from the Deep South had the GOP bothered to put candidates up; where they DID put up candidates in AL and MS, they won.  McGovern lost 49 states; that's pretty bad.  McGovern uniformly shrunk the Democratic Presidential vote; nowhere did he increase it.  At the same time, Democrats held their edge in Governorshops and in Congress in 1972, increasing their seats in the Senate.  A case can be made that had the Democrats nominated a candidate other than McGovern, 1972 might have been a Democratic year, with a Democrat improving on Humphrey's 1968 showing and pressing Nixon.

Goldwater added a constituency to the GOP (white Southerners) at the expense of the support of Northeastern moderates, but this loss was not immediate.  The Northeast (save MA) swept for Nixon in 1972, and for Reagan in the 1980s.  Indeed, the Northeast went for Bush 41 in 1988.  McGovern did begin the practice of identity politics, but he alienated a defining constituency of the Democratic Party:  Organized Labor.  McGovern is the only Democratic Presidential nominee not to be endorsed by the AFL-CIO.  (And, in truth, McGovern was never a "labor Democrat".  After politics, McGovern went into the hotel business, where he became somewhat anti-union, having had to deal with the kind of union issues business owners deal with.)  There are those who believe McGovern went down as big as he did because he was seen as anti-labor, and, in fact, many unions were NOT for McGovern.

It can be argued that 1966 was a Republican year because the GOP followed RNC Chair Ray Bliss's advise to nominate any winner who would say they were a Republican.  Moderate Republicans WERE the big winners in 1966.  Some of the new stars of 1966 were Sen. Chuck Percy, Gov Winthrop Rockefeller, Sen. Howard Baker, Gov. Claude Kirk, Gov. Raymond Shafer, Gov. Spiro Agnew, Sen. Mark Hatfield, Gov. Ronald Reagan, Sen Edward Brooke, Gov. Tom McCall.  Rep. Charles Whelan.  Gov. Paul Laxalt.   Most of these folks were Moderate Republicans, and even Liberal Republicans.  This, however, was temporary.  The Democratic Party's shift toward the center continued, arguably, through 2004; folks today even describe Barack Obama as a moderate.  But the GOP survived because they advocated a full-bore conservative agenda on economics, military, and social issues.  The Democrats chose Republican Lite on economics, rejecting McGovern populism, and did their best to keep the neocons Democrats.  (indeed, neocons may be a growing part of the emerging Democratic base, as they are rather unwelcome in the GOP these days.)

Would the Democratic Party be different if they reacted to McGovern as the GOP did toward Goldwater?  Discuss.

[darklordoftech]

What's interesting about McGovern is that he was a Clintonian misunderstood as a hippie and today misremembered as a socialist. Economically, Lyndon and Humphrey were to the left of McGovern, but the social issues of the time made people ignore that. Bernieism wants to bring back the economic ideals of Lyndon and Humphrey. McGovern was the beginning of Clintonism.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What's interesting about McGovern is that he was a Clintonian misunderstood as a hippie and today misremembered as a socialist. Economically, Lyndon and Humphrey were to the left of McGovern, but the social issues of the time made people ignore that. Bernieism wants to bring back the economic ideals of Lyndon and Humphrey. McGovern was the beginning of Clintonism.

Evidence?

[HisGrace]

It should also be noted that LBJ was way more popular in 64 than Nixon was in 72. LBJ had around 70 percent approvals while Nixon's were just solid in the mid 50's or so. Nixon was going to win regardless, but Muskie or Humphrey could have performed much better against him in 72 and would not have caused problems downballot. LBJ was going to win in a landslide no matter what. A moderate like Rockefeller would have won some states Goldwater didn't and maybe done a little better in the overall PV, but wouldn't have won those southern states so Johnson's margin would have been about the same.

[Ye We Can]

The GOP also turned to tepid centrism after Goldwater-Nixon broadly governed as a center right Republican. The Democrats, like the Republicans, saw their President's centrist foreign and domestic policies fail them after McGovern (Carter). They went back to new deal liberalism in 1984 and 1988 but saw it get crushed as the overton window had already moved right. The rightward turn of the nation and Nixon's issues caused the R's to move rightward in the long run.

[Sumner 1868]

They went back to new deal liberalism in 1984 and 1988

Not really, although they weren't as right-wing as they would be under the DLC.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The main difference IMO between Goldwater and Reagan was the fact that Goldwater was a Senator while Ronald Reagan was a Two Term Governor of the Biggest State in the Union. This gave Reagan more credibility than Goldwater, as when Reagan was attacked as being to far right he could just point to his record as Governor while with Goldwater he could not which made Goldwater much easier to attack.


To have a Ideological Realigning President you have to have that President be a Governor or they will fail to realign the electorate ideologically

[junior chįmp]

What's interesting about McGovern is that he was a Clintonian misunderstood as a hippie and today misremembered as a socialist. Economically, Lyndon and Humphrey were to the left of McGovern, but the social issues of the time made people ignore that. Bernieism wants to bring back the economic ideals of Lyndon and Humphrey. McGovern was the beginning of Clintonism.

Evidence?

How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul

In the 1970s, a new wave of post-Watergate liberals stopped fighting monopoly power. The result is an increasingly dangerous political system.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What's interesting about McGovern is that he was a Clintonian misunderstood as a hippie and today misremembered as a socialist. Economically, Lyndon and Humphrey were to the left of McGovern, but the social issues of the time made people ignore that. Bernieism wants to bring back the economic ideals of Lyndon and Humphrey. McGovern was the beginning of Clintonism.

Evidence?

How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul

In the 1970s, a new wave of post-Watergate liberals stopped fighting monopoly power. The result is an increasingly dangerous political system.

I’m not in a position to read the included link(s), but I think it interesting to note McGovern’s involvement in the Democrats’ shift. It was George Meany and the AFL-CIO that turned against McGovern, as I recall, and not the other way around. He had made an anti-Labor Senate vote on a bill whose fate was predetermined—we are told, in order to curry favor in his very Republican home State—but this was used against him in the primaries. Conversely, McGovern’s young volunteers did not even try to appear part of society, as McCarthy’s had four years prior, and were self-consciously alienating. As well, an obvious example of McGovern’s followers in power was the “Atari Democrat” Gary Hart. Nevertheless, I feel it’s interesting, if not questionable, to portray McGovern as the fulcrum that pushed the Democrats away from New Deal politics.

[junior chįmp]

What's interesting about McGovern is that he was a Clintonian misunderstood as a hippie and today misremembered as a socialist. Economically, Lyndon and Humphrey were to the left of McGovern, but the social issues of the time made people ignore that. Bernieism wants to bring back the economic ideals of Lyndon and Humphrey. McGovern was the beginning of Clintonism.

Evidence?

How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul

In the 1970s, a new wave of post-Watergate liberals stopped fighting monopoly power. The result is an increasingly dangerous political system.

I’m not in a position to read the included link(s), but I think it interesting to note McGovern’s involvement in the Democrats’ shift. It was George Meany and the AFL-CIO that turned against McGovern, as I recall, and not the other way around. He had made an anti-Labor Senate vote on a bill whose fate was predetermined—we are told, in order to curry favor in his very Republican home State—but this was used against him in the primaries. Conversely, McGovern’s young volunteers did not even try to appear part of society, as McCarthy’s had four years prior, and were self-consciously alienating. As well, an obvious example of McGovern’s followers in power was the “Atari Democrat” Gary Hart. Nevertheless, I feel it’s interesting, if not questionable, to portray McGovern as the fulcrum that pushed the Democrats away from New Deal politics.

It was the McGovern and his commission that removed Labor Unions from their structural position within the Democratic Party and thus beginning the slow dismemberment of the New Deal coalition. Furthermore, it was Jimmy Carter that presided over the beginning of dismantling labor unions in.private companies. Relevant article:

JIMMY CARTER AND ORGANIZED LABOR’S DECLINE


Jimmy Carter was the first Democratic president that began to view labor unions as a constituency he could ignore while simultaneously taking advantage of their vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's stuff like this why you have this current battle within the Democratic Party between the Sanders and Clinton factions. This long overdue reckoning of the Democratic Partys faliure at being a proper left wing party and not this centrist charade that treats it's voting coalitions as nothing but a body to pull a lever in the voting booth

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Interesting. Should your case be correct, however, it seems as though Carter bears the brunt of responsibility here. And I fail to see why any particular constituency deserves a “structural” position in the nominating process.