A Winner's "Loser"

An old Huffington Post story about Jimmy Carter came to mind the other day as I was longingly watching One Bright Shining Moment, the brilliant George McGovern documentary on the man, the era, and the various "idealistic" possibilities his candidacy represented. McGovern, who, I'll come clean, is a hero of mine, and deserves some serious attention, even studied emulation by today's political breed (Especially considering the current clusterf%$k of an administration and the New DNC-dominated Democratic Party in apparent ascendancy at the moment). So Carter's story must wait.



McGovern, the iconic standard-bearer, who in his defeat represents a death of sorts, inchoate with potential for that long-held long-term GOP ideological imperative: dismantling, and ultimately, reversing a commitment to New Deal liberal Democratic values, policy, and governance. The landslide loss to "Tricky" Dick Nixon, an election in which the Johnson/Humphrey Democratic Wing (with union support no less!) bitterly opposed its own party's candidate, in retrospect appears to be a pivotal moment for protecting The Great Society from the impending ravages of its Vietnam War-induced financial problems, public relations war, and the soon to be neo-conservative barbarians at the gate. That Nixon had to make concessions to a public with clearly liberal sentiments in order to win, and then stay in power (Lip service to ending Iraq, OOOps...I mean...Vietnam, creation of the E.P.A, relations with China, wage-price supports, etc.) perhaps speaks to the kind of progressive support McGovern could have enjoyed had he reached office. And from there? Ahhh, the what ifs...



While imagining the tragedy and grief that would have been averted by a McGovern presidency (most importantly, the escalation into Cambodia and Laos), begin contrasting all the "losers"----those failed candidacies and marginalized office-holders who for whatever reason(s) are unable to carry out their noble agendas----and the "winners"----those who attain office, but by and large, don't do anything good until leaving the political horse race. Obviously, it's much easier once out of office to be "idealistic" like that "Loser" McGovern, a now frightening case study for our tepid and docile 21st Century Democrats. It seems to say, "Check your ideals and the truth at the door if you want to reign. Those McGovernian luxuries would inevitably lead to impeaching a deserving president, exercising congressional oversight and power, or cutting funding for the war in Vietnam, I mean...Iraq." His campaign today would be an anachronism when it should be the model.



It is during many of these unproductively maudlin reveries for times through which I never lived (a regular occurrence unfortunately) that this political phenomena becomes more and more cliche as it does true: Change is more than a slogan. It first begins outside of government and is only co-opted after much rabble-rousing and movement galvanization. In spite of this, Obama not really identifying with a movement is commonly seen as an advantage, as vaguely "rising above partisan politics"(Where's that outdated sober recognition of competing factions vying for influence?). But we all know that movements, as well as factions, do exist out there in McGovernLand---where ideals are a warring reality. And in terms of wisely selecting and embracing those disparate and diverse "agents of change," Obama leaves many uncertain and wary (Ironically, the mantle of reform, McCain's absurdly disingenuous mantra, might better suite Obama's intentions).



Ok, so like '72, we're back to trust: We have to trust him to end a war he's against in principle, but has consistently funded. And now we're back again to the rigours of becoming a "viable," meaning unMcGovern-like candidate again: "You can't become president if you don't fund the troops!" so say all. In contrast to the uncertainty and doubt, McGovern's campaign is a (kind of pathetic, though) cathartic piece of noble-minded nostalgia expressly because he would have seized on, and politically empowered the progressive elements of change had he won. A movement embodied in government at a critical moment in U.S. History! Just think: To be alive for that! True, Barack's one bright shining moment is now, but if Rubinomics and a renewed emphasis on military spending and redeployment is any indicator, an Obama win would look more like a victory for Bill Clinton than George McGovern. Hopefully Obama's overly moderate gestures are only lies (his handlers erroneously believe necessary) for allowing him the opportunity to execute a progressive agenda, an inverted "Tricky" if you will.



If that doesn't happen, or Obama loses the election, would he become like the many who evince the influential aegis of a reactionary, governmental complacency by eventually leaving office to do great things? Vice President Gore's fairly recent transformation easily comes to mind here, who, unlike McGovern, turned "Mr. Awesome" after office. Hell, Martin Van Buren helped found the Free Soil Party and became an advocating abolitionist after a term in office continuing the Jackson administration's infamous gag order on slavery. Even President Carter's stock has undergone a deserved revaluation since losing re-election and embarking on numerous humanitarian missions, not to mention making a courageous stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (what most likely barred him from actually attending the Democratic Convention this year).



So...back to the Huff Post Carter story, another small, if not trivial example of the freedom afforded to those recently departed from mainstream politics: He says here publicly that McBush is "milking" his POW past.* Look at the set of balls on him now!



*Incidentally, much like McCain's former colleague, William Henry Harrison, who also campaigned on his military accomplishments before taking office, and subsequently dying 30 days, 12 hours, and 30 minutes later. However, with fairness to our 9th President, even though his contribution to opening the Northwest Territory to white settlement in the "Battle of Fallen Timbers," quelling the Indian Resistance Movement that merged with The War of 1812, decisively winning the "Battle of Tippecanoe," and later invading and dominating British forces in Canada at the "Battle of the Thames" was hardly as "heroic" as being shot down and taken prisoner before losing planes on five separate occasions---like McVain---Harrison nonetheless deserves the phrase "military accomplishments" somewhere in his biography. Also of parallel interest is "Old Tippecanoe's" vanity in the face of his ever-worrisome mortality, a primary cause of his death: Refusing to wear a coat while giving the longest inaugural speech in American History-----in the freakin' rain! At 68, William Henry Harrison, predecessor of the great president John Tyler, was the oldest president elect until Reagan. If The Maverick can straight talk his way into the White House this November, he could take that honor. But let's hope McCain's history has no more parallels with the "Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too" ticket.








"McGovern was on the wrong side of progress: the progressive side."----Stephan Colbert




Nixon on the '72 election and some of the fun that could've been avoided

This selection from the Richard Nixon Tapes where Kissinger congratulates Dick on his victory is pretty funny and illuminating:

Nixon: You know this, this fella’ [Democratic presidential candidate Senator George McGovern]to the last was a prick, did you—
Kissinger: Oh yes—
Nixon: —see his concession statement?
Kissinger: Oh! He started out—
Nixon: He was very gracious at the beginning—
Kissinger: —and then he went right back to saying that, uh—
Nixon: Yeah. And [speechwriter] Ray Price just sent me in a wire saying that "I look forward to working with you and your supporters for peace in the years ahead." And I just said, "hell, no, I’m not going to send him that sort of a wire."
Kissinger: Absolutely.
Nixon: Don’t you agree?
Kissinger: Absolutely.
Nixon: I mean, I, uh, just arguing with [Chief of Staff] Bob [Haldeman] here about it, but I said, "Ray just doesn’t have the right sense of this sort of thing."
Kissinger: No, [McGovern] was ungenerous—
Nixon: Yeah.
Kissinger: —he was petulant—
Nixon: Yeah.
Kissinger: —he was unworthy—
Nixon: Right.
Kissinger: —he was, he was—
Nixon: Because you probably know, I was responded in a, [laughs], in a very decent way to him.
Kissinger: Well, I thought you were a great statesman.



It's interesting that when McGovern wires the Dick camp saying that he looks forward to working with Tricky and his "supporters for peace," they call him "ungenerous," "petulant," and "unworthy." They must have assumed McGovern was sarcastic because they know their intentions would never be for peace. Also, we now know why his name is Kissinger. Look at the kissing he places on Dick's ass, even struggling to find another intelligent adjective at the end: "he was, he was"...what? Magnanimous in defeat?


The phone conversations are entertaining not just because you hear Dick curse every other second or getting vindictive or feeling triumphant over journalists and intellectuals (Philip Roth's Trick E. Dixon in Our Gang is right on), but because of the political chicanery involved(ratfucking). For example, a shrewd Kissinger tellingly remarks that Nixon made Vietnam "his issue":



Nixon: And you know something...all these left-wing columnists can do now is to piss on the [Republicans] not winning the Senate and the House and building the party, but they couldn’t care less about that. The main thing is, they know, we came up to bat against their candidate and beat the hell out of him.
Kissinger: And came up against their issue and turned it into an asset.
Nixon: That’s right. Don’t you think so? Don’t you feel that?
Kissinger: You made Vietnam your issue—



More great Nixon links on the tapes here, here, and "the abuses of power" section here.



And lastly, McGovern firing back against Dick Cheney's disparaging remarks (One Dick feeling he had to defend another) about his '72 campaign with this response:

There is one more point about 1972 for Cheney's consideration. After winning 11 state primaries in a field of 16 contenders, I won the Democratic presidential nomination. I then lost the general election to President Nixon. Indeed, the entrenched incumbent president, with a campaign budget 10 times the size of mine, the power of the White House behind him and a highly negative and unethical campaign, defeated me overwhelmingly. But lest Cheney has forgotten, a few months after the election, investigations by the Senate and an impeachment proceeding in the House forced Nixon to become the only president in American history to resign the presidency in disgrace. Who was the real loser of 72?

The Vice President spoke with contempt of my '72 campaign, but he might do well to recall that I began that effort with these words: "I make one pledge above all others — to seek and speak the truth." We made some costly tactical errors after winning the nomination, but I never broke my pledge to speak the truth. That is why I have never felt like a loser since 1972. In contrast, Cheney and Bush have repeatedly lied to the American people.

Vote Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too!