Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe 1972 decision by organized labor…to destroy McGovern
Joan Walsh wrote a very nice piece about McGovern that's well worth reading. This excerpt speaks to my point above and, I think, may explain to some younger folks the dynamic that created so much of what we see today:
We now bemoan the loss of the labor movement in America and for good reason. But the rift between labor and the left during that earlier era deprived both of a necessary ally. Labor thought perhaps in those days that they were powerful enough that they could ally themselves with the right on cultural issues without weakening their political clout. And after the defeat of their idealism, the left thought they could co-opt business and industry for their own aims. Both were completely deluded about the reactionary nature of the American Right.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/george-mcgovern-too-decent-to-be.html
When I asked labor historian Jefferson Cowie in an interview whether he could identify one crucial moment in the Democratic Partys post-60s unraveling, I expected him to fudge like a good academic, but he surprised me; he had one: The 1972 decision by organized labor to destroy McGovern. Because that solidified a moment. It said, We cant work with the unions, to the left and to the womens movement and the rest. It said organized labor is just about guys like George Meany, and Mayor Daley, its really the same monster, we cant deal with them. And that creates a natural alliance between the New Left and the New Democrats, who were much more sympathetic to important issues of diversity than to labor.
McGoverns campaign manager, Gary Hart, would pioneer the idea of New Democrats who owed no allegiance to labor. When he ran for Senate in 1974, Hart titled his stump speech The End of the New Deal. That same year he proclaimed that his new generation of Democrats were not just a bunch of little Hubert Humphreys, slandering labors longtime champion. A young Bill and Hillary Clinton got their start on the McGovern campaign, and its hard not to see the impact of McGoverns defeat on Clintons careful centrism and Democratic Leadership Council politics. The DLC was formed in direct reaction to Walter Mondales 1984 loss, which was even more lop-sided than McGoverns. But it was designed to eradicate McGovernism from the party to define Democrats as tough on crime and welfare, friendly to business, hawkish on defense everything McGovern supposedly was not. It also involved the party running away from its proud New Deal legacy, and defining itself more as what it wasnt than what it was.
We now bemoan the loss of the labor movement in America and for good reason. But the rift between labor and the left during that earlier era deprived both of a necessary ally. Labor thought perhaps in those days that they were powerful enough that they could ally themselves with the right on cultural issues without weakening their political clout. And after the defeat of their idealism, the left thought they could co-opt business and industry for their own aims. Both were completely deluded about the reactionary nature of the American Right.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/george-mcgovern-too-decent-to-be.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 1252 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (20)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The 1972 decision by organized labor…to destroy McGovern (Original Post)
phantom power
Oct 2012
OP
George Meany killed Labor's influence more effectively then Republicans could ever hope to.
Ikonoklast
Oct 2012
#3
BeyondGeography
(39,380 posts)1. Reading Cowie's book on the 70's (Stayin' Alive) right now
Corrupt unions finished off the postwar working class every bit as much as the greedy owners with whom they were in bed.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)3. George Meany killed Labor's influence more effectively then Republicans could ever hope to.
He ignored the declining industrial membership, and refused to acknowledge the rise of minorities and women in service unions as equal to trade unions.
Also, was enamoured of being inside the Beltway.
BeyondGeography
(39,380 posts)4. Had Vietnam all wrong, too
A total disaster.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)5. Meany ignored what people outside of the executive council were telling him for near twenty years.
He refused to understand or acknowledge that the struggle for Labor was not won, it was still continuing, but he acted as if there was no need to put money into organizing those he felt weren't 'worthy' of being unionized.
He got to be one of the influential people in D.C., and forgot who put him there.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)2. He sure had his revenge, though.
Speaking out against EFCA. Gross.