“People are selfish, but they can also be compassionate and generous, and they care about the country. But not when they feel threatened. That’s why this is such a crucial time. We can go in either direction. But if we don’t make a choice soon, it will be too late to turn things around. I think people are willing to make the right choice. But they need leadership. They’re hungry for leadership.” – Robert F. Kennedy
By all reports, RFK made a broad and profound political journey after his brother’s death. Whatever his political journey, he might have profoundly changed the direction of this country, if he’d lived. How did that happen? How did it become possible for such a coalition: anti-racism, anti-war, anti-poverty, how did it become possible for that coalition to be formed?
The movement, the activism, came first, and the politician followed.
Why did it fail? It failed because after the figurehead was killed, we fractured again, forgetting that it was the people who were the power.
willing to hope: Liberal Street Fighter
We buy into personality cults too easily in this country. Leaders arise, they are chosen by the people, not the other way around. This works for ALL sides of the equation. Reagan was lifted up. It wasn’t some trick. There were many people who believed what he believed, wanted what he wanted, and they lifted him up. That he and his allies cement power by withholding information, but even that is desired by his followers. Remember that: the people first, not the leaders. Bush is BELOVED by people who support them. He seems to make real the world they desire: rigid, controlled, top-down leadership.
It’s time to realize that most of the leadership of BOTH parties are tied intrinsically to the current order. It does NOTHING to yell at those on the right: this is their world, their wish. It helps some to put pressure on the Democrats; perhaps some of them can help fight the ongoing disaster, but many of them won’t. It’s too hard now to see which will, for the most part. We all know the ones who do, and the best thing we can do is to organize and keep the pressure on so that they have a well of political energy to draw on, volunteers to use. However, we need to recognize that politicians FOLLOW. They aren’t leaders by nature, though some could be, provided that there are independent sources of political will, money and energy that they can draw on SEPARATE from the party, separate from the beltway money machines.
Leadership is the ability to find those wellsprings for change and direct them, but the wellspring has to be there first. I think that we are at a point where we’re starting to drill those wells, tap that sweet water of hope, though it’s hard to tell sometimes in these dark times.
The conversation is spreading. More and more Americans are finding their political voice, though again it’s hard to hear them over the din of the media and the political establishment, but it’s there. Women, minorities, workers, liberal intellectuals and writers … those of us who hope for real community, real change … we are starting to realize that no one is coming to save us. It’s past time for us to replicate what the religious and corporate right did years ago. We’re building a network, and the strange things about these networks is that you can’t see them until after they are built.
We can build a political movement for human rights, women’s rights, workers rights. We can change the conversation away from law-and-order, shock-and-awe, but it will take time, maybe a long time. Best now to take that to heart. However, with time, we can turn this slide to the right around.
- We can have universal health care, but only if we agitate for it.
- We can only have peace, but only if we demand it, demand it in a spirit of love.
- We can have a clean environment, but only if we are willing to sacrifice a way of life that is unsustainable.
- We can have living and fair wages, but only if we are willing to look at every other worker as an equal, as necessary and not some expendable cost center.
- We can have a world where women are truly free to make their own destiny, but only if we stop thinking of women as incapable of making informed choices.
- We can educate ourselves, our children and each other, but only if we return to the center of American life a belief in human reason, and the possiblity that learning and debate can help us all to do better, to make a better life for ourselves.
We can do all of these things, but only if we believe we can, if we’re willing to believe in each other. We don’t need leaders to do that: leaders will appear when they are necessary, when someone is brave or crazy enough to focus all of this political energy we have within ourselves, if only we’d have faith in the one true real thing we share: each other.
We need to do that hard work first. It seems that the national party is all but lost to us, though we should do all we can to support those who are there fighting for our ideals. Lets not be limited to that. Work locally, in whatever way you can. Some of us are writers, some of us are activists, some of us have strong and willing hands to get dirty. All of these contributions have their place. Build new parties, new movements, but don’t forget to talk to those in other movements. To steal the one good idea the corporatists have, network. Find common ground, and work with others.
It seems dark now, but it has before. If we remember to build the connections first, perhaps the next time the Hobbsian hoards on the other end of politics kill one of our leaders, there will be more to take their place.
We can do better. We can be a true community, a true We the People, if only we’d have faith in each other.
Many have already started this work. Many denigrate it as impractical, but they say that to dreamers throughout time. At the very least, we will introduce a new voice back into the political conversation.
We can do better. We can make ourselves better. We can live up to our highest hopes.
Keep marching. Keep fighting. Keep writing. Keep the conversation going. The path will become clearer as we continue.
I swear Madman, if one more person calls you ‘pure minded’ as a criticism when you echo the philosophy of RFK I think I’ll reach through the computer screen to grab them by the throat.
Beautifully said, and there is so much work to be done.
Will not just appear in some blinding light to take us into a glorious future, we have to give them a base to lead. At the moment I feel we are too fractured a base for anyone to lead. Many times we discount our fellow progressives as special interests or not worth worrying about. Just watching discussions on Jerome a Paris’ diaries at dKos degrade into “your idea sucks, mine is the right idea” is disheartening. Even worse are the diaries cheering for the end of the American car companies. Being from Detroit, those just piss me off, plus they piss off probably the largest groups that would support a progressive cause.
Even Obama’s post on dKos and here got decimated. WTF.
Crap, just got a call from some Grassroots Dems group wanting money.
Never mind, lost my train of thought.
we’re at an early stage. Marisacat likes to say we’re at 1966, and that seems about right to me. Things will gel, as long as we have a vigorous debate on it.
I have a recurring fear that we’re at 1880 with almost 50 years to go until we get another Roosevelt.
And a long, long way to go before we get there.
It is a two-way street. There are good people out there trying to lead, but are getting shouted down by some on the left who use the same manner of thinking as the right-wing fundamentalists (my way or the high way, black/white, you’re either with us or against us).
I am still in shock at the response to Obama’s DKos diary. The response has left me tentatively concluding we are screwed for a long time to come.
Aside from Barak Obama, who else do you consider a leader? And where are they trying to lead us?
Almost every Democratic senator is trying to lead us back to a majority, they just have different perspectives on how to get there. Some I agree with, and some I don’t.
Barbara Boxer is a great example. Dick Durbin is another.
I get seriously pissed at Feinstein frequently but the bottom line is that she’s light-years better than having someone like George Allen represent me.
Well, of course they are trying to lead the democrats back to a majority — that is in their own self-interests as polticians. I have no quibble with that assertion. But then what?
My question is (as above, or below, I never can be sure), what is it that you think they will then DO with that majority? Assuming democrats control congress after 2006 — waht changes between then and 2009?
Yes. The record shows that Democratic majorities will not enact progressive policies unless pushed to do so by grassroots hell-raising.
The root of the problem here is that paul seems to assume that a Democratic majority is both a good thing and all anyone could ask for. It never seems to occur to him that we want a government that will actually enact progressive policies, rather than the conservative disasters that the present Democrats seem all to eager to take part in.
There does not seem to be any consensus from the base on a direction in which to lead. Until we have a critical mass that can be led and not just herded like cats there is no support for any potential leader, and we’ll continue to get “safe” candidates.
?? did you post this in the wrong place?
If not, how does it answer my question?
Also, how big is a “base”? I hear this word thrown around all over the place, is there a specific number in politics where a group of people can then be called a base?
For a party and/or movement of “tolerance” we seem to be rather intolerant of ideas and methods that don’t dovetail perfectly with our own.
I agree, and that’s my main point. Some on the left have become as bad as those on the right (my way or the high way, black/white, you are either with us or against us). There is no tolerance for anything other than the straight, far-left party line.
What is that?
kick-ass diary! You said it all.
Oh crap- if we are at 1966, then we have to look forward to Nixon again?NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOpleease NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
at the rate the democrats are going …
I realized when I wrote my “Oh Canada!” diary today that some may take it as gloating because we actually have some things, like universal health care, that the US is still striving for. Besides waxing nostalgic about where I live though, I think it’s important to know that we’ve also come through some very dark times and have made it through to the other side. Our country almost split apart with the Quebec referendum. That was one of the most stressful times I’ve live through as a citizen.
I hope that my diary gave some of you hope. Things can be different. You have a massive amount of progressive – truly progressive- energy in the US. Leaders may fail you but don’t ever let that make you stray from your ideals. Become a leader. Cindy Sheehan did it. Speak about your passion. Act on it in whichever way you can. Find a niche and make it yours. Know your mission in life and grab onto it. There is nothing less satisfying than a life spent pretending. Never give up. You never now how that one small thing you do will affect someone else and, when it all comes down to it, that interdependency is what it’s all about.
</late_nite_motivational_type_speech>
Excellent ideas!!
Please consider the following;
Gene Sharp has done extensive research covering the past fifty years on methods used to implement regime change.
Many of these are already in play here in the US. Why not implement a few more? Links to this information Here
It seems like I’m seeing a lot of people come to the same place from different directions. Have you read eugene’s diary over at MLW? And it was something like this that was beginning to take shape in my own thinking when I wrote this last July. Which really was about my disgust with the Democratic-Party-as-it-is, though some seemed to take it a defense of the DP . . .
But I think we’re all saying, we don’t like what we’ve got – and the answer is “WE can do better.” Now let’s get busy, figure out how to do it, and get to work. A coup that takes over the DP from within, at the grass roots level? Eugene’s progressive caucus? Working with non-party groups for progressive change? A third party? All of the above? Let the conversation continue . . . .
But don’t you agree that the single, most immediate impact we can have is to take back Congress and the White House? If so, why focus our energies all over the place instead of like a laser on these goals?
For all our faults as Democrats, do you REALLY think there is not much difference between a Kerry or Gore along with a Democratic congress vs. what we have today?
Breyer vs. Roberts?
Ginsberg vs. Miers?
No Iraq vs. In Iraq?
The list could go on. It’s frustrating to me to see the repeated writings here that assume there is not much difference between the Dems and Reps.
These are frustrating times. But damnit let’s not lete our frustration fracture us and make things even worse for a much longer time.
Just working from the list that you do provide here, and as someone who is not a member of the democratic (or any) party — I really DON’T think that Kerry wold have gotten us out of Iraq, I may consider that Gore wouldn’t have gotten us IN in the first place, but I really don’t know with any conviction.
I wish I could have your faith that if dems. controlled congress things would change, but I just don’t see it….
So in your opinion it was just as likely that Gore would have gotten us into this mess in Iraq?
So in your opinion there is no difference between Justice Breyer and Justice Roberts? Justice Ginsberg and soon-to-be Justice Miers?
I may consider that Gore wouldn’t have gotten us IN in the first place, but I really don’t know with any conviction.
Maybe yes, maybe no — I have no idea either way, I’d like to THINK that he wouldn’t have, but….
I didn’t say anything about the justices at all.
I said I would like to believe that things would change with democrats in control of congress, but honestly, what exactly do you think will change?
I am open to listening to the reasoning behind your convictions — that is why I ask.
I gave you specific examples of why I have convinced things are VERY different between the parties. What’s your response to the Supreme Court issue?
The reason I voted for Kerry last year was precisely BECAUSE of the SCOTUS nominees — I think, yes, that his nominees would have been nominally better — that isn’t to say that I think he would have gotten us out of Iraq by now — or that I necessarily think that his nominees would have been confirmed by a republican controlled congress…
I ask in the future tense, not the past — what will change? Where do you see the democrats leading TO after they regain the majority?
A Dem White House with a Dem Congress would certainly lead to a different Supreme Court, the importance of which cannot be overstated.
The other differences are so numerous and obvious I will just give a few examples:
*increased access to, if not universal, health care
*more progressive, responsible tax policy
*more humble foreign policy
*responsible, qualified persons in positions of important (Bolton, Brown, etc.)
*no “tort deform”
The list could go on.
Hmmm – thanks ofr answering.
On the health care issue: not obvious at all. Most dems are jsut a beholden to big pharma and the insurance industry as repubs, so I’d have to see some specific proposals that are ready to roll out before I buy that one (again)
I might be willing to believe in the tax policy stuff, even if it only came in the form of rolling back Bush’ tax cuts, that would be something, but I do not think eithr party really wants to address the underlying problems of our tax code, which are systemic and won’t be fixed piecemeal.
Foreign policy is another thing I’d have to see to believe — yes, I think dems would be less abrasive and arrogant than Bush (but that isn’t saying a whole lot is it?), but interms of really looking again, at systemic issues as regards foreign policy (we have no public transportation, we need to spend money on RandD for new energy sources), I don’t see dems being a whole lot more gung ho than repubs on this…but if you have evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it!
Maybe, on the better people in govt. positions, but it isn’t like cronyism begins and ends with Bush….
Tort reform in the way that repubs define it is corporate welfare without accountability, I’ll give you that — but I would hate to see the entire idea thrown out — there are some reform to tort law and out-of-control litigation that would be quite useful in our attempts to return to common sense.
So, I guess the bottom line for me is: show me (if you want to that’s great too, but I mean democrats mostly). I hear the words, but I don’t see the action, I don’t hear the conviction and I don’t trust that just ’cause they say so now, they won’t take the “safe” way out later.
It seems like you are trying real hard to limit the differences between the parties, which is what I just can’t comprehend. To me Bush is so outrageous that the distinctions are obvious and important, yet to you they are minimal and unimportant.
I guess it must come down to my outrage meter over Bush/GOP being so much higher than yours. Otherwise, I can’t comprehend where you are coming from.
Believe me — I agree with you about Bush to the Nth degree — I live in Texas and tried to warn everyone I know about Bush when he announced that he was running — I give you EVERYthing that you are saying about Bush, his adminstration, the long-term affects of his policies (such as they are), his blunders, etc. etc. I conceed those points and am not arguing them.
I totally see where you are coming from with the “anything is better than this” in terms of the dems, as well. All I’m saying is that I am not there any more. I have been there, and it isn’t working for me any more. I am not trying to convince you to change your mind, I am trying (and have been, it’s not just you that I pose these questions to) to get democrats to change MY mind….
There are millions out here like me, some just as informed, some more, some less, but we are the disillusioned, the non-voters, or the considering ‘saying fuck it’ voters — believe me, I WANT democrats to change my mind, but so far, no one has been able to show me anything that allows me to trust that it isn’t just more of the same old, same old. Does that help in understadning where I’m coming froma t all?
I understand your frustration. But to give in is to implicitly endorse the policies of Bush/GOP in my book. It’s frustrating enough that so many people won’t take the time to understand what is at stake, but when people who clearly DO understand what’s at stake still look the other way, that’s really disappointing.
If you don’t like the Democratic Party work to change it from within. We do have primaries, after all. It’s not going to become more progressive overnight, but will over time if people like you dig in and make it so.
This is the part I disagree with, paulucia. I don’t think they will ever change from within. The civil rights movement changed them. The Vietnam protests changed them. The women’s movement changed them. Progressive change always comes from outside the party, which absorbs those positions when enough pressure is brought to bear on them.
Paulucia said: We do have primaries, after all.
Not sure if you’re aware of this, but the Democratic party has been trying to do away with that pesky little bit of democracy here in PA. Can you say “Casey annointment”?
I aprreaciate your steadfastness, I do. But my trust has been broken, this is a big deal to me in both my personal and political life — “digging in” for change in the Dem party is a HUGE investment of anyone’s time, I don’t see it as a wise one for me — I am not telling anyone esle what they should or should not do.
I know I have the power to “make things so” in a very small way in my immediate universe, and for me, that is where my energy will be focused. I am not waiting for a leader to fall down from on high to lead me out of the darkness, I just light candles here and there where I can. Politicians won’t save me or my kids, but neither will they bet us down.
I am sorry to disappoint you, really, but I am at the point where my own disappointment with this country and its so-called government (both the people and the politicians) cannot even begin to be described.
what do you mean by “giving in”?
And I’m sorry if you think that my owning of my own vote (or, perhaps for the first time, my non-vote) is an edorsement of Bush, that is wrong-headed, in my case particularly. I understand what’s at stake, you bet I do, but I’m the kind of person who would rather see something fall apart quicky, even if it is full of violent pain and chaos than watch the low-level pain become the status quo and have it drawn out over decades.
I’m sure that isn’t a populr view, and believe me, it doesn’t come from a “fuck everybody else I’m taking care of mine” mindset either. It’s just that “head meet wall thing” that I cannot do any more.
As I have said, I am not trying to change your mind, or tell anyone what they need to be doing. I am just describing where I am and where I’m coming from.
brinnainne, we don’t have to like the Dems to vote for them when the alternative is neo-con fascism. But we also don’t need to keep bashing our heads against a brick wall like some unrequited lover. Or burn their house down.
It’s time to get some distance. Vote for Democrats nationally, because it’s the only sane choice. Support progressives in state and local elections, and join the effort that I think Madman is talking about: finding a collective progressive voice that can keep the Dems moving in the right (left) direction.
Given the realities of American culture and politics, I think that’s the best that can be hoped for.
no
to do that is to enable them in refusing to change.
We tried that, and we got Kerry.
No more.
to limit the differences — that’s my point! Remember, this is the PS, so read it last! π
paulucia, I agree that Democrats are significantly better than neo-fascists, which is the alternative we face. On a national level, therefore, I would not favour third-party candidates who would take votes away from Democrats. (I am old enough to remember 1968, and practical enough to realize that Hubert Humphrey would have been a damn sight better for everyone than that maniacal crook, Nixon and his Rasputin, Kissinger.)
I would, however, favour supporting local progressive candidates against mainstream Democrats. And I would love to have an organized voice to give hell to establishment Dems and nudge them towards progressive policies.
This is a perspective I completely understand. In 1996 I heartily worked for the Nader campaign, and would have even if I knew it would result in Dole winning. I felt the Dems needed a swift kick in the ass and were too complacent. However, I realized watching the Reps in Congress and how they treated the Clinton presidency that I was wrong, that there were HUGE differences depending on who was in power.
In 2000 I enthusiastically supported Gore. For all his personality defects, I thought he would have made a very good president. Watching Nader take the presidency from Gore and hand it to Bush broke my heart. Nader is a large part of the reason I am an attorney (and currently practicing consumer litigation). It was devestating to conclude that one of my heroes had installed Bush in the White House.
I watched over the next four years and realized that Bush was ten times worse than I thought he would be (and I thought he would be pretty bad). Still, Nader ran his little quixotic campaign again in 2004. I went from sadness to anger with him. How could he watch the last four years unfold and STILL honestly think we need to put our individual issues aside and work toward what’s clearly the best choice for the country?
I continue to be amazed by this mentality. This redirection of the frustration and anger that should be focused on the GOP and Bush onto Dems just confounds me. I feel like the left has given up and is just going to throw a temper tantrum at every one.
This is why I am so pro-Dem right now. There may be a time again to push the Dem Party to the left by forces from without. But for me, the place to push, if any, during these horrific and perilous times is from within the party. This is not the time to tear our fellow Dems down, it is the time to stand with them and take back this country from the neo-con fascists that are currently running things.
I think we could get along just find in the same tent.
I understand where you are coming from, I really do — and this same sort of conviction drove me until last year — Bush and his greedy bunch of theives are a nightmare for the country and the our relations with the rest of the world. But I still haven’t gotten a single answer to my question of what you think will change if the democrats take back controll of the congress.
Yes.
paulucia, you can stop feeling guilty about this.
I don’t feel guilty in the slightest. I supported Gore, remember? I feel disgust and anger at Ralph, still, though.
If Ralph hadn’t run, Gore would have been President. This is indisputable.
I also was and am seriously pissed at the Supreme Court and my view of jurisprudence in this country took a heavy blow by Bush v. Gore.
By the way, how can you look at Bush v. Gore and say that it doesn’t really matter whether Dems or Reps are in charge of nominating and confirming Supreme Court justices?
If there was a liberal majority on the Court in 2000, we wouldn’t be in Iraq, we wouldn’t have had these ridiculous tax cuts, we wouldn’t have been staring the dismantling of social security in the face, etc.
If this is addressed to me–I’m not sure–I agree with you entirely, and as I said before I’m all in favor of booting the Repugs from national office.
But once they’re in, I don’t expect much from them. I do expect that they will be significantly more benign than the Repugs, but I do not expect any truly progressive policies.
So the progressive’s best hope is to work for local candidates and form a national organization that can hold the Dems’ feet to the fire on peace, justice, privacy, etc.
at the bottom of the thread.
I don’t agree that it is indisputable, but it has been argued to death here and elsewhere, so can we just agree to disagree on that one?
I want third parties. But realistically it will take years for any third party to gain enough support to really challenge the dems let alone the republicans, so I do understand the reality here, and if a bunch of us are that frustrated with the dems lack of action that we bail now and attempt to build a nationally competitive third party then the country will suffer for a time as the republicans will continue to hold power. Whether or not this is inevitably what needs to happen in order for the dems to get off their asses is debatable. But let me ask you this, are you honestly content with the efforts of the dems to regain control of government? What exactly are the dems doing that is realistically moving us toward that result? Because what I see is one capitulation after another. What I see is a party that has forgotten, or worse, turned their backs on those of us who do know what a true opposition party is supposed to look like. You do at least understand why so many of us are frustrated and at our wits end with the dems don’t you? How exactly do you propose to get the dems to listen to us progressives and begin to fight back?
How exactly do you propose to get the dems to listen to us progressives and begin to fight back?
Nationally, support the Dems in elections but unite in a national progressive organization that puts pressure on the Dems by raising hell on issues that matter.
State and local, support progressive candidates. Demonstrate on the state and local levels that progressive policies work.
But see, I can do the latter without the former….and these days, in plenty good conscience too. Still waiting for someone to convince me otherwise!
And no, d52boy, calling me insane isn’t convincing, it’s gotten me this far!! π
read that closely. I said “the only sane choice”. First, sane people make insane choices every minute of the day. Second, the crazy people in America are a large group that does NOT include you.
Anyone as heartsick as you are about the state of the nation is certifiably sane.
No worries, I was mostly kidding!! Insanity, like everything else is all a matter of perspective! No certificates either way for me, thank you!
But why should I vote for democrats at the national level again??
The lesser of two evils, m’dear.
Significantly lesser.
It’s the shits, I know, but there it is in a nutshell.
And a Repug victory will not hasten real improvement. It will only kill a lot more people than a Dem victory would. On average.
But if I keep voting for them as a matter of course, and they know I will out of fear, then no matter how much I pressure them after I voted for them, there will be no incentive for them to change and that is the crux of what Madman is saying here, I think. Progressives are being jettisoned from the party right now. At the very least we are being told to shut up and get with the program so that the dems can win back the congress and the W.H. We are being asked to trust that when they win they will return to our needs and grievences. Sorry, but that’s just bullshit. They are not only not doing anything to be an opposition party. They are acting as if we are an embarrasment while they ask for our vote, again. All the while moving the party further and further right, leaving us behind.
I will no longer go along for the same old depressing ride with them. The only thing they will understand is losing votes.
The pressure exerted on establishment Dems by the civil rights movement, the Vietnam protests, and the women’s movement had little or nothing to do with votes or the threat to withhold them.
It had much more to do with creating such a public outcry that the party had to move left to preserve its credibility. Ultimately, this might have been about splinter groups, third parties, etc., but it never reached that point.
We have more power than we think we do. Obama dkos post is a good example.
Obama dKos post is a good example of how speaking up and threatening to leave the party works. The minute we go back to the status quo by keeping quiet, they will go right back to doing what they do best, nothing.
When are you announcing your campaign for Congress?
Seriously.
Events are proving once again, for anyone with eyes to see, that the Democratic Party is hopelessly tied to the status quo. Progressives who want to work for change should forget about trying to gain influence from within the Democratic Party: it’s a losing game.
I don’t know if we need a third party, or just a movement, but what the Dems need is an independent progressive force pulling them in the direction that Madman outlines.
Freed of party politics, such a movement wouldn’t have to worry about sucking up to the moderates or not alienating anti-abortionist Democrats. It could concentrate on making a clear case for justice, for peace, for diplomacy, for privacy, etc.
It could also concentrate on local politics where real change can be implemented and demonstrate the success of progressive policies.
The Democrats won’t change from within: they will only be shamed from without.
“Find common ground, and work with others.”
You are so right.
What we need is a great coalition of progressives, of people of conscience. When GLBTs are threatened, ALL straight people, all people of colour, all labour unionists, all environmentalists must stand up, step up, and speak out. When women’s reproductive rights are threatened, I want to see men shoulder to shoulder with us. When people of colour are marginalized, decent white people MUST come out and demand justice for everybody. And when our earth is being immorally destroyed for profit, we all have to scream to high heaven. I know we have only so much time and energy to devote to political work, and have to pick our battles, but this is for all the marbles. We can’t afford to sit them out.
You forgot McGovern.
This alliance didn’t end with the death of RFK, the fractured ’68 convention, and the sad spectacle of Hubert Humphrey, once the leading white voice on racial justice in the Democratic Party pimping for a war he half believed in.
Four years later, for perhaps the only time in the party’s history, the left wing of the Democratic Party came out victorious.
Yes, McGovern got spanked in November. But so did Goldwater in ’64, and that was the beginning, not the end, of conservative dominance in the GOP.
McGovern had a lot going against him. He was running against a still popular incumbent, who expertly played the political business cycle. His campaign was ineptly managed, e.g. he didn’t properly vet his first VP nominee, Sam Eagleton, who had to leave the ticket when a history of mental health problems became public, his convention was so poorly run that he gave his acceptance speech at 3 am EDT. And he had Nixon playing dirty tricks on his campaign.
Still, the 1972 McGovern campaign, not the 1968 RFK campaign, was the high water mark of progressive forces in the Democratic Party. And progressives, especially those who unlike me are still commmitted to that party, should remember all that was good about it, not just the crushing results in the general election.
And Madman is absolutely correct: what’s most important here is the movement, not the leader. McGovern is a more impressive guy than he is usually given credit for. But the failure came not with his defeat, but with the movement’s capitulation following it.
It was crazy busy today, and had class tonight, so I apologize for not being able to check back, and I have NO idea if anybody will see this.
However, I dismiss paulucla’s simpleminded insistance on either/or’s. Life is more complicated than that, and if we only choose between level of beholden-ness to the status quo, nothing will change.
I’ve had it with the national party. It’s a tired game, like choosing the sweet talking con man over the thug, but either way you still end up robbed. Maybe fewer bruises, but still without hope. Either way, victim of the shakedown.
Like someone said in the thread, pressure needs to be applied, either from independent blocs or from a third party.
Thanks again for starting this off, Madman: it’s an important conversation.