What was so crazy about McGovern?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't know why people still bash him and talk about how he was so horrible and how Nixon was better even with Watergate.

He wanted to pull out of Vietnam. Yeah, that's not loony, that's what I call sanity and common sense. There was nothing crazy about that at all.

[Dr. Cynic]

McGovern wasn't really crazy. Quite moderate by today's standards. But it isn't hard to win, when you know the opponent's strategy, lol.

[A18]

McGovern wasn't really crazy. Quite moderate by today's standards.

Uh, no.

[Dr. Cynic]

Uh, yeah. He was made to look crazy because he opposed the war, and was pro-choice (He has stated that he only favored abortion if it were a danger to the mother, a mostly center-right reaction to abortion today).

He was also from a farming state, and felt strongly about middle America. I don't really see him from most of his views as much different than traditional center-leftists.

[opebo]

Nothing, BRTD.  You know how the right-wing extremists like to label moderate liberals as 'crazy', when really they are the crazy ones.

[Jake]

His Vietnam position. Nothing would've been better for America than a mass shooting of war protestor trash like him.

[A18]

I don't really see him from most of his views as much different than traditional center-leftists.

You are a fool. McGovern supported a minimum income for all Americans, and sharp cuts in defense spending during the Cold War.

[opebo]

I don't really see him from most of his views as much different than traditional center-leftists.

You are a fool. McGovern supported a minimum income for all Americans, and sharp cuts in defense spending during the Cold War.

Prefectly reasonable and moderate positions, Philip. 

In the first place, a minimum income is a compromise between laissez-faire, which your side supports, and elimination of the privileged status of the rich, which actual leftists support.

In the second, the cold war was mostly manufactured by the right for domestic political purposes.  We would have been perfectly find with a defense budget half as large as we had.

[A18]

Prefectly reasonable and moderate positions, Philip. 

Shut up.

To add to my other post, didn't McGovern also support wage and price controls?

[opebo]

Prefectly reasonable and moderate positions, Philip. 

Shut up.

Your retort is feeble, Filip.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So?  Nixon did too.

[minionofmidas]

And Nixon too ran on something of a moderately antiwar platform in 1968.

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So?  Nixon did too.

And? We're talking about moderate leftism today.

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So?  Nixon did too.

And? We're talking about moderate leftism today.

Yes, today is the day we are talking about it, but it hasn't changed since 1972, Philip.

[A18]

I can't think of many prominent liberals who support price controls today, other than the minimum wage.

[opebo]

I can't think of many prominent liberals who support price controls today, other than the minimum wage.

The political spectrum doesn't change just because certain people move up and down on it.

[Emsworth]

The political spectrum doesn't change just because certain people move up and down on it.

The "political spectrum" is not absolute; political views cannot be measured on an eternal and universal scale. Rather, they can be measured only relative to the views of others.

[Dr. Cynic]

"I can't think of many prominent liberals who support price controls today, other than the minimum wage."


Proves the point that his views compared to today were moderate. You're turning your own arguement against you. His views were moderate to traditional center-left. Sure, he was radical in 72. But, in 2006? Hardly.

[A18]

What are you talking about? Price controls are a far-left idea today. They were a central element of liberal ideology back then.

And a minimum income for all Americans and deep cuts in defense were extreme even back then.

[Dr. Cynic]

Minimum income was not extreme, as it had already been championed by Hubert Humphrey, who came before McGovern. McGovern advocated only moderate cuts in defense spending, an idea that many moderates and independants supported. It was the work of the Nixon campaign that made McGovern, a traditional liberal, look like a radical. Not something that wasn't fair... It's politics after all.

[Joe Republic]

The political spectrum doesn't change just because certain people move up and down on it.

The "political spectrum" is not absolute; political views cannot be measured on an eternal and universal scale. Rather, they can be measured only relative to the views of others.

Exactly.  For example, support for gay civil unions is a pretty moderate view these days.  But back in 1972, even the idea probably would have got you exiled from society.

The political spectrum is moving all the time.

[A18]

Minimum income was not extreme, as it had already been championed by Hubert Humphrey, who came before McGovern. McGovern advocated only moderate cuts in defense spending, an idea that many moderates and independants supported. It was the work of the Nixon campaign that made McGovern, a traditional liberal, look like a radical. Not something that wasn't fair... It's politics after all.

I'm glad you dropped your laughable assertion that McGovern's support for price controls is moderate by today's standards.

But now you contradict your earlier claim that, "Sure, he was radical in 72." The man supported about a 40% cut in defense... not exactly moderate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It wasn't so much that McGovern's views were regarded as crazy (frankly most voters didn't know much about them) it was what he was seen as representing that was seen by the majority of the electorate as "crazy".

[opebo]

The political spectrum doesn't change just because certain people move up and down on it.

The "political spectrum" is not absolute; political views cannot be measured on an eternal and universal scale. Rather, they can be measured only relative to the views of others.

Exactly.  For example, support for gay civil unions is a pretty moderate view these days.  But back in 1972, even the idea probably would have got you exiled from society.

The political spectrum is moving all the time.

No, Emsworth and Joe, the spectrum does not move, people move upon it. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He was a US World War II war hero. Clearly that made him be anti-American.

[angus]

Price controls are a far-left idea today. They were a central element of liberal ideology back then.

I agree with you.  Ideas which were mainstream Democrat in the 70s are decidedly far left today, what with the Democrat party's rightward shift under Clinton.  The GOP, meanwhile, has gone steadily left, at least in terms of bigger Big Brother, over the past two decades or so.  Jfern's graph also provides evidence to this effect.  It's hard to say, though, whether our republic would have been "better off" had mcgovern won.  On the one hand, the effect of such economic leftism is plain to see, just take a look at Germany's massive unemployment, on the other, the circumstances surrounding Nixon's resignation, and the reporting of those circumstances, left Americans very distrustful of the government.  It's probably a wash, except that we shouldn't underestimate Nixon's China policy.  The Diplomatic triumph with Zhou Enlai alone probably tips the balance.  On the other hand, race relations between blacks and whites may have fared better had Nixon lost.  In any case, I don't think McGovern was crazy, just unpopular.  Perhaps the most unpopular major party nominee in modern history.  Maybe the subtext of the question is "Why was he so unpopular?"  That's a bit more difficult to answer.  I think he ran a very poor campaign, for one reason, and for another I think people were ready for a move away from Great Society.  Clinton once called him "one of the greatest humanitarians of our time.  He still imparts to us the power... and the courage of his convictions."  Maybe that's fluff, but a case can be made that he was a stand-up guy.  He continues to work against hunger.  But then, that doesn't make for a good president.  Just look a Carter:  exceedingly intelligent, humanitarian, contrarian, etc., but a lousy president (double-digit inflation, hostage crises, gas lines, etc.)  Maybe you're not giving the american people enough credit for seeing McGovern for what he really is, a nice, smart guy who has no business being CEO of our nation.  Seems that the Peter Principle doesn't always apply, n'est ce-pas?