General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe socialist revolt that America forgot: A history lesson for Bernie Sanders
In 1978, the Left was fed up with Jimmy Carter and looking for an alternative. If only they had followed through.
Bernie Sanders is a singular figure in modern U.S. politics, the lone self-identified socialist to serve in Congress, at a time when mainstream American attitudes, if not actively violent towards socialism as they have been in the past, remain nonetheless fundamentally suspicious. As such, his plans to run against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primaries represent something of an anomaly. What bears mentioning about Sanders run, however, is that it is not the first time a prominent socialist has considered a bid for the Democratic nomination. To understand the significance of Sanders candidacy, its worth flashing back to the summer of 1978, as liberal Democrats were growing increasingly disillusioned with Jimmy Carters presidency.
Jimmy Carter was never going to be the lefts favorite candidate. On the eve of the 1976 elections, Michael Harrington, the leader of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee had called on leftists to vote for Carter without illusions. We expected very little and thats exactly what we got.
In his lone term in office, Carter failed to pass a national health insurance program, failed to reform labor laws, and disappointed liberal Democrats on a wide range of issues in particular, full employment.
So as the 1980 presidential election drew near, many were hoping that Senator Edward Kennedy would step in, as his brother Robert had done a decade before, and run against a sitting Democratic president. But Kennedy was cautious, despite some polls that showed him with a significant lead over Carter.
At the time, Harrington, a social critic and author of The Other America a book widely credited with convincing President John F. Kennedy that poverty was still an issue in America was trying to build up an explicitly socialist wing of the Democratic Party. Harrington and his supporters had won over the venerable (and tiny) Socialist Party a decade earlier to the view that if they were serious about politics, it was time to stop running independent candidates. Their argument was a simple one: The Socialist vote had declined from a peak of around a million in the years around World War I to just a couple of thousand by the 1950s. If socialists were ever going to leave their mark on the country, it would have to be done through the Democratic Party.
By 1978, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) was growing in numbers and in influence in the liberal wing of the party, having successfully organized two major national conferences of progressives, called Democracy 76 and Democratic Agenda. The latter was successfully challenging Carter from the Left, and at the Memphis Democratic mid-term convention in 1978, its resolutions were supported by a very large minority of delegates.
DSOC was recruiting new members in places across the country where a young New York radical such as myself would never have expected to find an organized Left, such as in Texas and North Carolina. In just a few months, the DSOC would hold its national convention in a motel outside of Houston. The hotels billboard sign proclaimed Welcome $ocialists. (They actually did use a dollar sign.) To young and inexperienced activists like myself, it looked like we might be on the cusp of a breakthrough.
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/08/the_socialist_revolt_that_america_forgot_a_history_lesson_for_bernie_sanders/
This was before my time & all new & interesting information. Almost afraid to post over what sort of flame war to expect but it is a good read.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Oh yeah, Reagan.
JHB
(37,160 posts)...if you don't mention the words "hostage crisis" or "Desert One", the discussion is not really about the 1980 election.
Edited to add: I've found this applies across the board: to crowing Reaganites, to scolding "centrists", and to "woulda-shoulda-coulda" leftists like the Salon article writer.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)The Republicans have been running a crooked game for a long time. Reagan's gang (GWHB) just copied what Nixon did in '68 with the Peace Talks.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)JHB
(37,160 posts)...because if you mention it to someone who hasn't really absorbed some of the background, it can sound like "left-wing conspiracy theory". There are no "smoking guns", you need to build a case about it, including dealing with some of the debunked parts (e.g., the guy who claimed he flew Bush to France in an SR-71, but couldn't answer basic questions on how to fly one). That takes time.
Also remember that Carter's go-to guy on the subject, Gary Sick, at the time thought it was just the Iranians just doing it out of spite for Carter, which they were perfectly capable of. He didn't become convinced of active sabotage until about a decade later when he learned some information he didn't have before.
And, regarding the election, in some ways it's moot. To have been stopped, it would have had to have been exposed while it was happening. At a time when a lot CIA personnel had big chips on their shoulders from Carter's firings, and a former DCI who'd been popular with them was on the other ticket. Kinda cut into the odds of someone blowing the whistle in time.
However, the big shift in favor of Reagan happened late, once it became clear that Carter wouldn't pull off an "October surprise" hostage deal, that it would just drag on, and a lot of people in the middle decided maybe a new approach was needed. Every other factor in the election (and there were a lot of them, from inflation & taxes to "Ed Koch voters" who broke for Reagan or Anderson over Carter's Israel policy and comments) are a lot more open to debate, and pointing to any one of them as "the reason" Reagan won is just myopic.
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)Does anyone remember the Roger.Muff interview? I knew then and
there that Teddy had blown it.
Ted Kennedy: The Day the Presidency Was Lost
In August of 1979, Kennedy was the overwhelming favorite to seize the Democratic nomination for president. The incumbent Jimmy Carter staggered by soaring gas prices and a hostage crisis seemed poised for a knockout by the last surviving brother of America's storied political dynasty. And then, all of a sudden, Kennedy's aura of inevitability was unexpectedly shattered.
As the cameras rolled, Mudd popped the now-famous question: Why do you want to be president? Even if he had not been a Kennedy, what followed was stunning: a hesitant, rambling and incoherent nonanswer; it seemed to go on forever without arriving anywhere. Mudd threw another softball, and Kennedy swung and missed again. On the simple question that would define him and his political destiny, Kennedy had no clue.
When it was over, Mudd took off his microphone and wandered down to the seawall alone. I followed him. To my amazement, the man then considered Walter Cronkite's heir apparent seemed convinced his interview was a bust. "You really think it went all right?" he kept asking. "I don't know. Kennedy's tough. He just doesn't give you anything."
I told him I was sure that Kennedy's stunning incoherence on the eve of his presidential campaign would be a huge story. (And, I realized to my chagrin, it was a story only television could capture; I couldn't possibly convey in print what had just happened on videotape.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TedKennedy/story?id=8436488
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)On Reagan, I don't understand the myth myself but too many people give too much credit for that one hit wonder with the US economy. I had something typed out but choose to delete it but with the embargo crippling the US economy as a top importer, plus Nixon removing the Gold Standard leading to the immediate inflation & so many issues that were simmering exploding by the time he got there. Things rebounded plus a Roaring 20's style economy got out just in-time for the Bush recession which was already impacted people with poverty increasing & African-Americans in a recession since the Reagan administration. Aside from the slick marketing ad commercials Mondale walked right into the "tax and spend" label.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He wasn't that great a "presidenting" at a very difficult time, but he was definitely very liberal. Yet he still wasn't liberal enough for the purists. As the article demonstrates.
Look at DU - Obama wasn't in office for a year when the purists who previously touted him as a demigod started shredding him. That's what they do - and then call it a revolution. They don't accomplish anything positive, but they sure do know how to tear our candidates down.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)That's not very liberal.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)A moderate at best, and most said conservative.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)http://www.salon.com/2011/02/08/lind_reaganism_carter/
I believe it's safe to say he's a more liberal ex president but his views on choice and same sex marriage, marijuana legalization are to the right of many Democrats.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)around with The Allman Brothers during the primaries,they were all full fledged junkies at the time.
I read Gregg Allman's autobiography recently, the first time they met Jimmy Carter was when Carter called them to the Governor"s mansion late one night and they found him sitting on the steps of the mansion,shirtless. I think Carter was a liberal who knew how to play to Southerners and Midwesterners on their own field.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)The line, "He who is not busy being born in busy dying" is popular with politicians. Jimmy Carter used the line in his acceptance speech at the 1976 Democratic Convention.
Carter said "America is a country busy being born, not dying."
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)presidential candidate to so blatantly cozy up to the rock and roll crowd.He regularly showed up at Allman Brother concerts and did a 3 minute speech before they started playing.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)In some ways he was a very adroit politician and realized that would give him credibility among young people...
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)appeal to middle America,how far they can be lead and where they're willing to go,I feel the same about Bill Clinton.It's no coincidence that they're both from the South.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I remember I supported Mo Udall in the Primaries.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)He actually came in late and won a few primaries.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Memories of that era. Governor Moonbeam, Linda Ronstadt, Jerry's simple digs instead of the Governor's Mansion--
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... to suit the purists.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)The "purists" have found a candidate. His name is Bernie Sanders and he represents traditional liberal values and fights for the working class, i.e. all the people who get a paycheck. The "purists" on this board are pretty happy about it too.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)In 2007. Then he started governing and of course they hated him. That's how they roll.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)to block the release of torture photos in contrast to his day 1 memos in favor of transparency & the idea that things should be hidden because it may embarrass or various other reasons including "subjective fears" which he uses routinely. I didn't start becoming really bothered until I heard about Bagram and arguing against detainees using Habeaes Corupus to challenge their detention -- indefinite detention facilities being. I was legitimately upset over this & more and now worried it will take years to walk back from Bush era policies but I was feeling torn down with pony, purists, 3D chess, all kind of nonsense. I know what you mean like when I posted that Obama took his daughter to school and someone was slamming him for the secret service guzzling gas but that poster was banned.
Carter was great but so many weren't purists just not happy with the present situation so they became Reagan Democrats who Obama chooses to white wash for some reason, maybe to capture some of that Reagan aura I don't know but Obama in his own words
"He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s, and government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people just tapped into -- he tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.
"I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times.
"I think we are in one of those times right now, where people feel like things as they are going, aren't working, that were bogged down in the same arguments that weve been having and theyre not useful. And the Republican approach I think has played itself out.
"I think its fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, youve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies that are being debated among the presidential candidates, its all tax cuts. Well, weve done that. Weve tried it. Its not really going to solve our energy problems, for example
so some of its the times.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/21seelye-text.html
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Whatever happened in the 70s has no application to today in terms of Bernie's viability. The pendulum has swinged the other side, and its starting to swing back.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)I just thought the article was a good read and don't feel it applies to today because I almost included a full disclaimer detailing my thoughts on McGovern because I've seen so many landslide predictions as triangulation is the only way to win when the religious right, tea party, and the crazies destroyed the party. I'm not sure what pendulum means but if its anything like momentum I don't believe in it, the demographic trends are slipping particularly in southern states including Arizona who still has a long way to go but the west coast & northeast are locks. Ohio or Florida victories clinch it Mountain & Pacific Time zone ballots close in terms of odds & probability. Bernie Sanders isn't the kind that tries to come across as honest in a way that's phony & a lot of things -- he favors policies that most Americans do as well.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)At the time he was seen closer in fiscal policy to Clinton today.
His long history as an elder statesman has brought him many fans who do not remember his administration or the events of the day.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The pendulum doesn't just swing to the right.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Then it starts to swing back.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And now it's swinging back. Some Democrats seem upset by this.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)A long time ago.
So now more and more states are red and redder, they have both the Senate and the House, the Supreme Court is right-wing, you're telling me the country is swinging back to the left?
No worries?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The country has taken a hard turn to the right because the Dem party has been overrun with right wing Stockholm Syndrome.
Once these quazi Republicans are marginalized/shunned out of the party, the country can start swinging back to normalcy.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Or does it just apply to the primary?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)....in the face of the right wing.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Carter served one term, the OP is arguing if we had gone all the way socialist we could have snatched victory from defeat. This is what you are now proposing, and you actually have a "socialist" candidate in the race.
You are telling me this country is ready to elect - even if only a perception - a more left-wing candidate than ever before? And now is the time to ditch the Democratic frontrunner.
I hope your right. But I'm gonna need proof. Not there yet.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)This is very basic, standard stuff. It isn't 1979, it is 2015. I will never understand Democratic defeatism.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)When was the last time we had a Democratic president? You all are confusing me.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)A lot of people are concerned that someone like Bernie can't win in the general, but IMO a shift away from centrism could invigorate rank-and-file Dems.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Republicans control every branch of government except the presidency. And they may soon get that too thanks to the purists who think it's cool to tear down our candidates.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Once that happens the electorate will follow.
I will never understand Democratic defeatism. Defeatism is the acceptance of defeat without struggle. In some it has metamorphosed into a form of Stockholm Syndrome.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Response to MaggieD (Reply #18)
AZ Progressive This message was self-deleted by its author.
djean111
(14,255 posts)People have real concerns about candidates. You know, it was not gonna be like -
Hillary - I want to be President!
Bernie, Martin, every other candidate - Oh, okay!
What is a purist to you - someone who does not want Hillary as a candidate? Someone who cares what she stands for? You are the purist, only driven by personality and not issues.
Plus - there is nothing anyone can say about Hillary (or any other candidate) that the GOP does not already know. And they are going through the same process.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Who has never run a negative ad in his life? Oh the irony of his supporters here. They spend day in and day out tearing up Dem candidates on behalf of a guy who has never run a negative ad in his life. And no matter how much evidence we have that that sort of thing depresses turn out for democrats, the purists just keep at it.
What is a purist? Some one who never found a candidate in their own party they couldn't bash. Remember when Obama was the demigod of choice here? I do. But he hadn't been in office one year when the purists started trashing him here.
Hell, there are posts in this thread going on right now where posters are claiming Carter was not liberal enough. Some people live in la la land when it comes to politics.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Used by defeatists as an excuse to do nothing.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And that is exactly what purists do. The extreme left in this country has never accomplished anything of note.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You are complaining that folks who disagree with you are 'tearing down' other Dems, then you bash them, aka tear them down.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... that if we libs are intolerant of bigots that makes us bigots. LOL!
Look, there is nothing to be gained by "liberals" tearing down Democratic candidates. Just nothing. Not one fucking thing. Can you show me how that has EVER been a viable strategy?
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I'm always interested to read that part
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Ad hominem attacks cut both ways: they might convince your listener that X is bad, or they might convince your listener that you have no arguments of substance and are dishonest.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)I've been trying to get that point across but it's not working. Same whine, different thread.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Nothing personal, he keeps it focused on idea. I never bashed Obama over Rezko, Bill Ayers, or Jeremiah Wright which is something I can't say the same for Hillary Clinton. I also favored the ideas of candidate Obama over those of President Obama. Outside of school privatization, it wasn't like the open & transparent turned out to be open & transparent.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)The former of which JFK credited for informing his thinking about poverty.