Was George McGovern vindicated?

[darklordoftech]

Nixon attacked him for abortion and “amnesty”, yet Roe v. Wade was decided two days after Nixon’s inauguration and then the right to an abortion became the Democratic party line and consensus among secular Americans. Nixon’s own VP pardoned some of the draft-dodgers and the next President pardoned the rest on his inauguration day. The system that McGovern came up with for deciding Presidential nominees (every state having a primary or caucus) democratized the nominating process and the GOP adopted it as well. McGovern’s “wine track” coalition forshadowed Obama’s.

[Alcibiades]

George McGovern is perhaps the most misunderstood man in the history of the Democratic Party. For all the neuroses of Democrats desperately trying to avoid the spectre of ‘McGovernism’ in the following decades, he, probably more than any other person, is the father of the modern Party.

[darklordoftech]

George McGovern is perhaps the most misunderstood man in the history of the Democratic Party. For all the neuroses of Democrats desperately trying to avoid the spectre of ‘McGovernism’ in the following decades, he, probably more than any other person, is the father of the modern Party.

McGovern sacrificed his Presidential ambitions to shape the direction of America.

[Alcibiades]

George McGovern is perhaps the most misunderstood man in the history of the Democratic Party. For all the neuroses of Democrats desperately trying to avoid the spectre of ‘McGovernism’ in the following decades, he, probably more than any other person, is the father of the modern Party.

McGovern sacrificed his Presidential ambitions to shape the direction of America.

The Democratic Goldwater, in more ways than one. (Although, unlike Goldwater, he wasn’t actually an economic extremist relative to the country at the time.)

[Alben Barkley]

George McGovern is perhaps the most misunderstood man in the history of the Democratic Party. For all the neuroses of Democrats desperately trying to avoid the spectre of ‘McGovernism’ in the following decades, he, probably more than any other person, is the father of the modern Party.

McGovern sacrificed his Presidential ambitions to shape the direction of America.

The Democratic Goldwater, in more ways than one. (Although, unlike Goldwater, he wasn’t actually an economic extremist relative to the country at the time.)

Yeah I was just about to say. Both got blown out for being outside the Overton window of their times, but both were really just a bit ahead of where their parties would ultimately end up in many ways. McGovern was the first Democratic candidate to really be unabashedly socially liberal, Goldwater the first Republican candidate to really be unabashedly fiscally conservative. And, at least until Trump arguably changed things a bit, those views would come to largely define their parties. And even forced the other side to shift a bit. Hell, just look at Reagan: Often viewed as the spiritual successor to Goldwater, he also was the guy who signed a major amnesty bill in 1986 and called for open borders! Or vice versa, look at Bill Clinton: Shifted the Democrats to the center on economics, but was unabashedly pro-choice and was considered pretty socially progressive for his time. It’s not hard to see how Goldwater and McGovern were absolutely the forerunners to the modern incarnations of their parties as we have become more polarized and the parties more united around ideology. I don’t think either would get blown out like they did today thanks to that.

[Alcibiades]

George McGovern is perhaps the most misunderstood man in the history of the Democratic Party. For all the neuroses of Democrats desperately trying to avoid the spectre of ‘McGovernism’ in the following decades, he, probably more than any other person, is the father of the modern Party.

McGovern sacrificed his Presidential ambitions to shape the direction of America.

The Democratic Goldwater, in more ways than one. (Although, unlike Goldwater, he wasn’t actually an economic extremist relative to the country at the time.)

Yeah I was just about to say. Both got blown out for being outside the Overton window of their times, but both were really just a bit ahead of where their parties would ultimately end up in many ways. McGovern was the first Democratic candidate to really be unabashedly socially liberal, Goldwater the first Republican candidate to really be unabashedly fiscally conservative. And, at least until Trump arguably changed things a bit, those views would come to largely define their parties. And even forced the other side to shift a bit. Hell, just look at Reagan: Often viewed as the spiritual successor to Goldwater, he also was the guy who signed a major amnesty bill in 1986 and called for open borders! Or vice versa, look at Bill Clinton: Shifted the Democrats to the center on economics, but was unabashedly pro-choice and was considered pretty socially progressive for his time. It’s not hard to see how Goldwater and McGovern were absolutely the forerunners to the modern incarnations of their parties as we have become more polarized and the parties more united around ideology. I don’t think either would get blown out like they did today thanks to that.

You can trace a direct line from McGovern and the ‘New Politics’ of the 60s and early 70s to the Watergate Babies, Atari Democrats and eventually the DLC/New Democrats, which is why I think painting McGovern as being unambiguously on the left of the party is wrong. He was a moderniser who helped to dilute the influence of pillars of the New Deal coalition such as labour and big-city machines, which were both more conservative and more left-wing than him in different aspects. His coalition in 1972 is strikingly modern compared to, say, Mondale and Dukakis over a decade later, the most college-educated Democratic electorate ever at that point, which would not be surpassed in that respect until 1992.

You only have to look at the various personalities involved in McGovern’s campaign and where they ended up to see his influence: Gary Hart was his campaign manager, and Bill Clinton ran operations for him in Texas, and would later pack his White House full of fellow veterans from the 1972 campaign.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

George McGovern is perhaps the most misunderstood man in the history of the Democratic Party. For all the neuroses of Democrats desperately trying to avoid the spectre of ‘McGovernism’ in the following decades, he, probably more than any other person, is the father of the modern Party.

McGovern sacrificed his Presidential ambitions to shape the direction of America.

The Democratic Goldwater, in more ways than one. (Although, unlike Goldwater, he wasn’t actually an economic extremist relative to the country at the time.)

Yeah I was just about to say. Both got blown out for being outside the Overton window of their times, but both were really just a bit ahead of where their parties would ultimately end up in many ways. McGovern was the first Democratic candidate to really be unabashedly socially liberal, Goldwater the first Republican candidate to really be unabashedly fiscally conservative. And, at least until Trump arguably changed things a bit, those views would come to largely define their parties. And even forced the other side to shift a bit. Hell, just look at Reagan: Often viewed as the spiritual successor to Goldwater, he also was the guy who signed a major amnesty bill in 1986 and called for open borders! Or vice versa, look at Bill Clinton: Shifted the Democrats to the center on economics, but was unabashedly pro-choice and was considered pretty socially progressive for his time. It’s not hard to see how Goldwater and McGovern were absolutely the forerunners to the modern incarnations of their parties as we have become more polarized and the parties more united around ideology. I don’t think either would get blown out like they did today thanks to that.

You can trace a direct line from McGovern and the ‘New Politics’ of the 60s and early 70s to the Watergate Babies, Atari Democrats and eventually the DLC/New Democrats, which is why I think painting McGovern as being unambiguously on the left of the party is wrong. He was a moderniser who helped to dilute the influence of pillars of the New Deal coalition such as labour and big-city machines, which were both more conservative and more left-wing than him in different aspects. His coalition in 1972 is strikingly modern compared to, say, Mondale and Dukakis over a decade later, the most college-educated Democratic electorate ever at that point, which would not be surpassed in that respect until 1992.

You only have to look at the various personalities involved in McGovern’s campaign and where they ended up to see his influence: Gary Hart was his campaign manager, and Bill Clinton ran operations for him in Texas, and would later pack his White House full of fellow veterans from the 1972 campaign.

That McGovern is remembered as being a left-winger even today is a sign of just how successful Nixon's 1972 campaign was in casting McGovern in the way he wanted.

[MarkD]

Was his decision to dump Eagleton from the ticket and replace him with Shriver vindicated?

Was his 1980 defeat for re-election to the Senate a vindication of his legacy?

Although you have a few good points, don't treat Roe v. Wade as if that Supreme Court decision is as much a victory for democratic process as the other things you mentioned. Roe had nothing to do with the democratic process. It was judicial activism and the Court's continuing devotion to upholding that precedent still is judicial activism, and still is undemocratic.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Was his decision to dump Eagleton from the ticket and replace him with Shriver vindicated?

Was his 1980 defeat for re-election to the Senate a vindication of his legacy?

Although you have a few good points, don't treat Roe v. Wade as if that Supreme Court decision is as much a victory for democratic process as the other things you mentioned. Roe had nothing to do with the democratic process. It was judicial activism and the Court's continuing devotion to upholding that precedent still is judicial activism, and still is undemocratic.

The point isn't that Roe was a victory for the democratic process or even that it was correctly decided, only that its policy implications have become Democratic Party orthodoxy, as has most of the rest of what Nixon savaged McGovern over.