Dean supporters, I have a question for you...

[aldian159]

Please don't take this as flamebait, or Dean bashing. Just an honest answer an indy friend of mine asked me (before he found out I worked for the Kerry campaign).

If Dean is nominated, why won't the general election be like '72? You know, the McGovern comparisons and such.

Please don't think this as flamebait, just a legitamate question.

Thanks

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aldian159]

4. Ok, here goes

I think the '72 comparison is valid because you have two anti-war candidates who are precieved far left (McGovern was, Dean is perceived to be, but is left by all indications).

Also, the popular support and grassroots organizations are similar, considering McGovern had no Internet.

I hope that works.

[slinkerwink]

5. Dean is only anti-Iraq war....not the previous war in Iraq or the one in

Afghanistan....

[aldian159]

6. McGovern was only Anti-Veitnam

He served in WWII, so I doubt he was anti-war in general, but thanks for clearing that up, slinkerwink (no sarcasm)

[slinkerwink]

12. Dean is no McGovern....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50126-2003Nov16.html

The rest can be found at the link above

Dean has been portrayed, especially by Republicans, as the new George McGovern. But judging by Dean's public statements at least, there is a big difference between the nature of his antiwar critique and the anti-Vietnam critique offered by McGovern and his followers three decades ago.

At the heart of the anti-Vietnam critique was a wholesale rejection of anti-communist containment, the reigning American foreign policy paradigm in those years. Vietnam was not just "the wrong war at the wrong time." It was, McGovernites believed, the logical culmination of two decades of misguided and immoral Cold War strategy. The problem was not just Richard Nixon but the whole foreign policy "establishment," Democrats and Republicans alike, from Dean Acheson through McGeorge Bundy, all of whom who had taken America down the wrong path. And the answer was not just withdrawal from Vietnam but a complete reorientation of American foreign and defense policy. America was on the wrong side of history; its power and influence in the world were a source not of good but of evil. In the McGovernite view, any war was the wrong war. Americans needed to "come home" both to save themselves and all who suffered from their nation's oppressive global influence.

In this respect, at least, Howard Dean is no George McGovern. He opposed the Iraq war, he says, because it was "the wrong war at the wrong time," not because it was emblematic of a fundamentally misguided American foreign policy. Dean has not, in fact, challenged the reigning foreign policy paradigms of the post-9/11 era: the war on terrorism and the nexus between terrorism and rogue states with weapons of mass destruction. "I support the president's war on terrorism," he told Tim Russert this summer. He supported the war in Afghanistan. He even supported Israel's strike against a terrorist camp in Syria because Israel, like the United States, has the "right" to defend itself. (European Deanophiles take note.) Dean does not call for a reduction in American military power but talks about using the "iron fist" of our "superb military." He talks tough about North Korea and at times appears to be criticizing the Bush administration for not addressing that "imminent" threat more seriously. And he especially enjoys lacerating Bush for not taking the fight more effectively to al Qaeda, a bit like John F. Kennedy criticizing Eisenhower in 1960 for not being tough enough on communism.

Of course, all this tough talk could be hot air. Maybe Dean is doing a great job controlling and hiding his inner peacenik. If so, that in itself tells you something about the current state of the foreign policy debate. Even Mr. Speak-My-Mind thinks he has to talk tough. George McGovern didn't.

Another possibility is that Dean's opposition to the Iraq war has been over-interpreted by his supporters on the Democratic left. They think he rejects the overall course of American foreign policy, just as they do. But maybe he doesn't. They think he's one of them, but his views may not be all that different from those of today's Democratic centrist establishment. When Dean criticizes Bush's foreign policy "unilateralism," he sounds like a policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, not a radical. "There are two groups of people who support me because of the war," Dean told Mara Liasson a few months ago. "One are the people who always oppose every war, and in the end I think I probably won't get all of those people." The other group, Dean figures, simply "appreciates the fact" that he "stood up early" and spoke his mind and opposed Bush while other Democrats were cowed. Dean may not be offering a stark alternative to Bush's foreign policy, therefore, so much as he is simply offering Democrats a compelling and combative alternative to Bush himself. The Iraq war provided the occasion to prove his mettle.

If so, that has two implications, one small and one big. The small one concerns the general election: The Bushies are planning to run against a dovish McGovern, but there's a remote possibility they could find themselves running against a hawkish Kennedy. The bigger implication, which the rest of the world should note well, is that the general course of American foreign policy is fairly stable and won't be soon toppled -- not even by Howard Dean.

The writer, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment, writes a monthly column for The Post.

[Selwynn]

15. I'd like to point out that McGovern was 100% right too.

Kind of scary.. I wonder if "right" people are electable.

[Hep]

28. And the response is:

It isn't 1972 and Dean isn't Mcgovern.

Next question, please!

[whirlygigspin]

2. electro shock thearapy--

(I can't stand revisionist history)

that is all.

[DemBones DemBones]

9. Are you referring to the Eagleton complication?

Or just being cryptically sardonic?

[slinkerwink]

3. because McGovern really didn't have much of an organization to get him

into the general election after getting the nomination. Dean does have that organization and in all likelihood, he's going to be different than McGovern---the McGovern comparison is just a charge being floated by Republicans...

[frustrated_lefty]

7. Forgive me, but it sounds like you're saying Dean can't win

because he's left of center.

The democratic party can't win by appealing to the centrists, we have to appeal to a belief in human dignity. Sadly, that's a leftist stance. But, that's where Dean is going to win. We've had a reign of neoconservative idealogues, it's time for a change.

[Vikingking66]

8. well..

We've already lost both houses of Congress and all the major governerships, so there's really nothing left to lose. We've
already at war in a third world nation we can't get out of,
the government is corrupt and cares nothing for the problems
of ordinary people.

I say we make this election one a real knockdown, dragout
fight between a party that believes government can make people's
lives better and a party that believes government is evil.
If we win, that's great and we can start turning things around
that have been going wrong ever since 1994. If we can't, we haven't lost a damn thing that we haven't given up on already. Barry Goldwater
got crushed in 1964, and the whole Republican party went with him.
But the Republicans took their time in the wilderness to create
an effective critique of the Democratic agenda and to make a compelling agenda of their own, and they got Nixon for five years, Ford for three, Reagan for 8, Bush I for 4, and now Bush II for at least another 4.

That's a pretty effective domination of the executive branch, even
though they almost never had the Congress at that time.

The left of center is starting to organize like the conservatives did in the 70's, with new think tanks like the American Majority Institue and the Center for American Progress (founded to counter the Heritage Foundation), the American Constitution Society (founded to counter the Federalist Society), Wellstone Action and the Center for Progressive Leadership (founded to counter the Leadership Institute, COPAC, and the American Legislative Exchance Council), new advocacy groups like MoveOn.Org and True Majority, new media institutions like Gore's unnamed cable network and the two nascent progressive radio networks (in order to combat Fox News, MSNBC, etc), and new big doners like George Soros (to combat Scaife).

I think Dean could use the power of his presidency to kick this movement off in a big way. His campaign is already offering valuable tools and techniques in fundraising, voter outreach and mobilization, message delivery, all through the internet and the initiative of volunteers. Dean's rhetoric which phrases a lot of liberal arguments in "tough, masculine prose" will be a valuable precedent for future left-of-center democrats looking to take on conservative Republicans - especially if they are more left than he. Although they don't mean this positively, Dean's campaign is something of a cult- speaking as a Dean supporter, a lot of us are more than usually motivate both to the cause as well as the candidate. The neocons started with a lot less than 500,000 supporters, imagine what a progressive movement could do with all the power, prestige, and influence of the White House behind it.

Even if Dean loses, his candidacy will serve as a flash point for the progressive movement. We'll have to go through the growing pains of being in the wilderness, but we'll get strong and get tough and come on like gangbusters in '08 or '12. But imagine the good we could do for the party and for the nation if we didn't have that time in the wilderness.

[frustrated_lefty]

10. Very, very

well said. (eom).

[WillyT]

24. Most Excellent Viking, Spot On !!!

:bounce::toast::bounce:

[dkf]

11. Iraq was the hugest mistake we made in this "war on terrorism"

because now we are completely overextended in Iraq and can't clean up Al Queda in Afghanistan like we need to.

In addition, we now have no way to leverage against N. Korea because we don't have manpower.

We are too scared about financial consequences to get Saudi Arabia to stop funding hatred of the US.

We have scared a lot of countries into accelerating their nuclear weapons programs.

As we get on in this campaign, the war in Iraq will be increasingly seen as a tactical error in the war on terrorism and Dean will make sure everyone knows it.

The phrase of choice will be "the wrong war at the wrong time".

[stickdog]

13. Why would it be like 1972?

I really don't see any valid comparisons.

[madfloridian]

14. This statement gives it away.

"Please don't think this as flamebait, just a legitamate question."

[Selwynn]

16. I agree - it does give away that it is a legitimate question .

[unfrigginreal]

17. McGovern campaigned as a peacenik...

Dean doesn't come close to that description. He supported the 1st Iraq war, he supported the action in Afghanistan and he supports the war on terrorism. The war that he opposed was the Bush politically motivated war, a fact which is becoming clearer by the day.

[drfemoe]

18. You want us to do the research

for Kerry's next Dean bash campaign?

What a classy guy.

[drfemoe]

19. Don't forget

1972
With McGovern comparisons occassionally flying around the mediasphere nowadays I think it's worth pointing something out that I had (rather naively) regarded as obvious, namely the fact that Nixon cheated in the 1972 elections. He cheated, as readers will recall, rather massively as part of an even more massive pattern of abusing the powers of his office and violating the constitution. I have no idea whether or not McGovern would have won (or even would have been the nominee) had Nixon not been cheating, but I take it that CREEP didn't do everything it did for no reason at all, so clearly the cheating was something of a factor in the '72 landslide. Considering the fact that most people around today were actually alive during the Watergate hearings I find it truly baffling that no one seems to consider this fact when tossing comparisons around.

Posted by Matt Yglesias at August 5, 2003 05:10 PM | TrackBack
http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/001107.html

And we are sure we can count on 'cheating' this time around .. after all the admin was caught bugging the UN offices for cripes sakes.

[drfemoe]

20. Will House Democrats Allow History to Repeat Itself?

Citizens for a Sound Economy
December 3, 2002
Pelosi, like George McGovern, will shift the Democrats leftward.

When asked to identify the most salient leftward shift of the modern Democratic party, today’s political historians may cite the nomination of George McGovern as its presidential candidate in 1972. Come January 7, 2003, this assessment may change if, as expected, Nancy Pelosi is elected by recorded public vote as the Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

McGovern’s liberalism was toxic for his party, as he was able to capture only 17 electoral votes and barely 38 percent of all ballots cast in the ’72 election. McGovern’s platform was unapologetically liberal: he campaigned on an immediate end to the Vietnam War, socialized medicine, and a guaranteed national minimum income. The radicalism of the 1972 Democratic platform was caused partly by a sense inside the party that its defeat in 1968 was caused by a failure to articulate adequately the differences between the Democrats’ agenda and that of then-candidate Nixon.

It easy to understand why this was the case. In the ’68 campaign, Nixon favored a “negative income tax,” which became the earned income tax credit and an expansion of the welfare programs begun during the Great Society, creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the Clean Air Act, dramatic increases in social service spending, and interventionist economic policies ranging from dollar devaluation to wage and price controls. During his presidency, many of these proposals became law, particularly those that could be accomplished without Congressional approval.
...
So perhaps Congresswoman Pelosi deserves some latitude for her record. But at the same time, it is perfectly valid to wonder if her role as the Congressional voice for a socialistic and detached political culture lends itself well to the job of party leader. It would take almost superhuman mental dexterity for a San Francisco liberal to relate to the day-to-day lives, sensibilities, and economic concerns of an average family in middle America. Perhaps Congresswoman Pelosi is up to the challenge, but it sure seems far-fetched.
http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_template.php/1193.htm
*warning rw content

[drfemoe]

21. Original 'McGovern Democrat' wants to know what the term means

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2003-07-18-raasch_x.htm
Posted 7/18/2003 12:38 PM
WASHINGTON (GNS) — What exactly is a "McGovern Democrat?" The man himself wants to know.
"I'm being held up as some kind of warning to Democratic candidates," 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern wrote in a guest column this month in the Los Angeles Times. "Don't be too liberal. Don't be too outspoken."

"It may not surprise you," the former South Dakota senator wrote, "that I regard this as political baloney."
...
The point? Labeling someone a McGovern Democrat in 2003 may be about as relevant as labeling someone a Hoover Republican. Both are wicked political slams, thick with negative history. But each is as relevant to current events as Ho Chi Minh or FDR's fireside chats.

Yet the name McGovern is being invoked by Republicans and even some moderate Democrats, directed at Howard Dean and other Democratic candidates attempting to differentiate themselves from George W. Bush.

The world is far different from the one McGovern left in 1980, when he was defeated for re-election to the Senate by Republican Jim Abdnor of South Dakota. It is even further in light years, politically, from 1972, when McGovern was wiped out by Richard Nixon in a 49-state presidential landslide.
...
McGovern has often said that if everyone who has since told him they voted for him actually had, his '72 election wipeout may have turned out differently. Invoking his name is clever political semantics, but it no more informs the debate of 2003 than putting flowers in your hair.

[drfemoe]

22. tip: google: mcgovern 72 election

http://iht.com/articles/116450.html
McGovern reflects on '72 and Democrats in '04 campaign

He expects Senator John Kerry "to be a very strong candidate," though Kerry "hasn't caught on as quickly as I thought he would."
.
The principal problem with the senator's campaign, in McGovern's view, is the vote he cast in favor of the congressional resolution that authorized use of force against Iraq.
.
"If he's having second thoughts now, as he seems to be," McGovern said, "he should say straight out that he was deceived."

[Zynx]

23. Dean is nowhere near as far left as McGovern was.

Also, he hasn't said he wants to get on his hands and knees and beg to the Iraqis, not for POWS as was the case for McGovern in Vietnam, but maybe for peace or something like that. Dean has said he is perfectly willing to go to war in the event that a country poses a serious national security threat. McGovern didn't even say something like that.

[RetroLounge]

25. Go do your own research

It's not our job to debunk every meme you can come up with.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

26. did McGovern ever say: "We won't always have the strongest military"?

of course not, because McGovern was a veteran and understood the military. Dean is out to lunch on national defense. He makes McGovern look like Dr. Strangelove.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

27. Looks like the heat's now being applied to the good Dr. Peacnik:

Dean Must Show Strength, Iowa Governor Says

[Hep]

30. Even when he's right he's wrong

I love it!

Bottom line, we won't always have the strongest military is Bush's foreign policy continues. DO you agree or disagree?

[Scott Lee]

37. He should have, because it's true.

Are you still totting that rusty old horn? Why should Dean LIE to his supporters and say that the US military will eternally be the strongest in the world?

[Zynx]

42. McGovern did say he would get on his hands and knees and beg to the NVA

to get our soldiers back. A far worse statement IMO.

[bearfartinthewoods]

44. oh jeeeze.....i forgot about that one

that quote will make a nice tv spot.

[Hep]

29. The most legitimate answer:

I said it above.

It isn't 1972 and Dean isn't McGovren.

[mmonk]

31. I think it would go

more like the last one with Bush squeeking out a win with the electoral votes.

[Hep]

32. Also, Ask McGovern

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/25/dean/index.html

[Patriot_Spear]

33. Your post misses the obvious...

More Americans voted Democratic that republican by half a million votes last election.

-Before Bush* ruined the economy and put 9 million Americans out of work.

-Before Bush* killed 415 American Soldiers, Wounded 9000, as well as killing thousands of Iraqi's in what no reasonable person will now dispute was an unjust invasion and occupation.

-Before he squanderd the good will of other nations and turned it into near universal revulsion.

Will anyone who voted against Bush last time turn around and vote for him now? No, of course not- their worst fears have been more than realized.

So starting from a baseline of losing the election by 500,000 votes- how many MORE Americans are going to vote for a Howard Dean?

-A man with a proven record on fiscal responsibility.

-A doctor who provided coverage for nearly 100% of Vermont's children.

-A down to earth leader who received an A+ rating from the ultra-conservative NRA.

-A man who is gaining sweeping endorsements from America's Unions.

The Bottom line? Howard Dean is not McGovern, this is not 1972 and he will kick King George's ass to the curb come next November!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

34. That totally ignores the 9/11 equation

which makes 2004 a universe apart from 2000.

[Patriot_Spear]

35. You mean that 911 occured on Bush's* watch?

I think it will have the reverse effect of what you're implying. People want to return to a time of safety- unfortunately for Bush*, he has become a universal symbol of insecurity and failed war.

I think 911 will be a HUGE factor in voting, as in-

Three years later -Where's Osama, George?

Three years later -Where's the Anthrax Killer, George?

Nine months later -Where's Saddam, George?

Mission Accomplished, George?

You let them get away, didn't you George?



Bush has failed in the 'war on Terror'- it's time for him to go.

[Scott Lee]

38. Is Ariel Sharon's diving popularity a harbinger for Bush?

Look at the signs.

Both Sharon and Bush had built (in different ways) a political reputation as being tough on national security and thwarting terrorism. But what has happened while they got their shot?

The USA got the worst terrorist attack on its soil in history.

US soldiers and civilians are being attacked and killed regularly.

A growing army of anti-US fighters is swelling around the world.

American citizens are living under a greater terror threat than they were four years ago.


The attacks on Israeli citizens has drastically increased.

The number of Israeli dead, mostly civilian, has ramped up.

Animosity between Palestinians and Israeli Jews is at an all time high.

The Intifadah has not been stopped, in fact not even slowed.


In a nutshell, the Sharon/Bush Doctrines have added up to LESS security, LESS freedom, LESS hope than when they went in.

Will the voting public(s) respond accordingly?

[Scott Lee]

36. McGovern was too passive. Dean is aggressive.

Dean recognizes and utilizes current technologies and realities to his campaign's best advantage. He knows that floating on grassroots anger is not enough. That is one big reason why he is not a modern McGovern, and is the front runner.

Let me throw in that McGovern was not a bad guy, nor wrong. He just didn't have the fire and organization that Dean has.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

39. My take

This is a fair question --- I'm a Dean supporter and I don't consider this flamebait in the slightest.

One thing that is important to keep in mind in the Dean/McGovern comparison is that any Dem candidate who gets the nomination is going to be demonized as "soft on terrorism" and "too liberal" and so forth, no matter how they voted for the IWR, if they served in the military or not, etc. This has been an easy fiction for the Republicans to sell; if they can somehow cast a guy who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam as somehow not patriotic enough, but make it appear as though the many "chickenhawks" have what it takes to deal with them Ay-rabs, then the larger point is that we're dealing with a large portion of the Republican electorate who have already bought into the fictions and will not be swayed, no matter what.

NewYorkerfromMass also raises a valid point about the "9-11 factor". This is going to be very difficult for any candidate to handle correctly, no matter who it is that gets the nom. Bush was able to make it appear, to a large number of people, as though he was "the right man at the right time." I think it's going to be very difficult to dissuade his stronger supporters on this issue, although in all probability they are already on board with him and wouldn't even consider voting for anyone else anyway.

I agree with the theory that a lot of people have put forth that this is a 50-50 country right now. I don't really know how much "middle" there is any more. From what I've been able to tell, at least half of each party's base is made up of hardcore loyalists who would as soon vote for the other party as they would douse themselves in gasoline and light a match. Then you have people who are able to get beyond that type of thinking. I would love to tell you that I know exactly how to reach them and tip the scales in our favor, but I don't.

I think we're at a very unique point in American politics, so I've had to give up the prediction business altogether --- there's just been too much off-the-wall shit that's happened in the last few years. I don't know how 9-11 is going to effect the larger arc of history. I don't know how the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor can be closed. And I certainly can't predict how average voters (not political junkies like us here, but the people who won't even realize there's an election until July) are going to react to Howard Dean. I don't know how the situation in Iraq is going to affect things. I don't know where the economy is really going to be in six months. But if a lot of people are angry, out of work, and seeing 19-year-olds coming home in coffins every day for the next six to nine months, well... then it may be easier to start making predictions.

I hope this helps.

[ulysses]

40. why *would* it be?

Dean is not McGovern (although McGovern isn't a half-bad thing to be) and 2004 is not 1972. Maybe you could shore up your premise.

[eissa]

41. I admit Dean's anti-war stance drew me in,

especially given the timing of it -- absolutely no one was speaking out against the war at the time (that I had heard of at least). The time just before and during the war were really stifling. I remember having to choose my words very carefully so as not to appear "unpatriotic". And here comes this guy, running for POTUS no less, who has the huge cajones to stand up to shrub and question the war. WOW!! Usually people running for office shun taking such controversial positions (John, Dick), but this guy just walked right into it! I'm not a Dean supporter just because he's anti-war; I'm a Dean supporter because the man takes risks and stands up for what he believes in, even if it's not popular and even though he gets flamed for it. AND, his opponents have done nothing so far to convince me that they will fight in the same vein that he does. I don't believe McGovern tapped into the passion of the democrats as much as Dean has.

[quaker bill]

43. because this is different

Having been there, I don't even get where the McGovern comparison comes from. Dean may be anti the "palm tree in the breeze" centrists, but he is by no means anti-establishment. You have to go with Kucinich or Sharpton to get there. Listen to the liberals here and they will be quick to tell you Dean is not of the tribe.

A little article with comment on this issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38530-2003Nov13.html

<snip>

Dean's signature exclamation to his supporters is: "You have the power!" It is a revivalist's promise. While the other candidates build themselves up, Trippi says, Dean builds up his supporters by saying: "Look at you. Aren't you cool? Aren't you amazing?"

Battered Democrats are hungry to hear that. So were the conservatives, then isolated from power, who flocked to Barry Goldwater in 1964. It is the Goldwater campaign, not George McGovern's 1972 antiwar crusade, that Dean's movement most resembles. Goldwater was not about "new ideas." He was about preaching the full conservative gospel and giving his followers a vehicle through which they could organize and put it into practice. Goldwater had his share of verbal gaffes. His supporters found them endearing. "Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue," Goldwater said. You could imagine a Dean supporter saying that.

<snip>

The difference between the Goldwater / Johnson contest and the potential Bush / Dean match is that we can clearly identify who is the crazy man with his finger on the button. It certainly would not be Dean in this case.