Remembering the ’72 race

I think this is one of the first pieces, blog or otherwise, coming from a political commentator (historians may have a different take) that I think accurately reflects on the 1972 election — and not just because he echoes something I’ve written before.

Basically, George McGovern was going to lose to Richard Nixon — nearly any Democrat would have. But McGovern faced, as Matt Yglesias points out, a concerted effort on the part of his own party to undermine his campaign. McGovern was “the only Democratic Party presidential nominee to not secure the AFL-CIO’s endorsement,” a snub that came not “because of any failure to support the labor movement on key labor issues.”

He had a solid pro-labor record, and a very solid record of support for the concerns of working people. But the AFL-CIO leadership, including its disastrous president George Meany, was dominated by cultural conservatives and Cold War hawks who decided to screw McGovern over.

He calls this “an aspect of American political history that’s not well-understood.”

McGovern would have lost the election no matter what. Frankly, nobody was going to beat an incumbent President amidst the strong economy of 1972. And you certainly weren’t going to do it by nominating an unusually left-wing candidate. But a big reason McGovern did so extremely poorly was that huge swathes of the progressive establishment — including organized labor — just flat-out refused to support him, often for very bad reasons. Under those circumstances, it’s just impossible to put up a respectable showing.

This 1972 story from Time outlines the kind of things that were at stake during the Democratic primary that year and the convention and just how angry and scared the party’s old guard was of the new McGovern voter. I think there is some evidence, as well, that McGovern was surprised by how he was adopted by younger voters and that he never expected to find himself on the wrong side of this dispute. But he was, with

a stop-McGovern coalition led by Arkansas’ Wilbur Mills continued its last-minute efforts. A small Washington group of strategists bent on heading off the South Dakotan included Humphrey Aide Stan Bregman, Muskie’s Berl Bernhard, Wallace’s Billy Joe Camp and the AFL-CIO’s Al Barkan.

Acrimony. At his summer house in Maryland, McGovern tended his swimming pool and delegate arithmetic. At one point he paid a second courtesy call on George Wallace, presumably to feel out the Alabaman’s intentions. Occasionally McGovern spoke apocalyptically of the consequences if his nomination were “literally stolen in a naked power play.” He did not discount running as a third-party candidate. Said McGovern: “I don’t think people have fully assessed how the party could destroy itself if the reform process is denied after all that has happened in American politics these past few years.”

Many regulars, humbled by the McGovern young and suddenly astonished by their own impotence, already see ruination for the party. St. Louis Dentist Martin Greenberg, for four years the Democratic chairman of St. Louis County, found himself outnumbered by McGovernites in the spring caucuses and defeated for delegate. Last week he contemplated the prospect of a McGovern nomination and said dolefully: “Unless the party comes to its senses, it will destroy all of us. The acrimony and dissension will be suicidal. The disaster this fall will not only be felt on the national ticket but on statewide Democratic tickets as well.”

The party was badly damaged, though I would argue that it may have been inevitable, growing out of the divisiveness of the preceding decade and the recalcitrance of the old guard. Not that a public reconciliation between McGovern and the anti-McGovern forces would have changed the results of the November election. At best, it may have narrowed Nixon’s victory margin.

Unknown's avatar

Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie.

One thought on “Remembering the ’72 race”

  1. The George McGovern of 2008 has jumped the shark and has betrayed unions and Democrats. He\’s against the Employee Free Choice Act. He wrote an op ed against it and he has made TV commercials against it. The commercials are funded by the right wing anti-union, anti-worker Rick Berman. How nice of McGovern to stick up for poor Wal-Mart. This is so sad that McGovern has allowed himself to be used by extreme right wing anti-union ideologues.From firedoglake:\”In Friday\’s Wall Street Journal, former Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern published a fretful op-ed against the Employee Free Choice Act, extolling \’his\’ Democratic Party to \”respect\” the current system to form unions. The claims made by McGovern in the op-ed are the exact same as those made by corporate-funded front groups opposed to the Employee Free Choice Act.The op-ed surprised some on the left, and conservatives and business groups seized the piece as supposed evidence of a split in the party on this key piece of legislation. After all, as the former standard-bearer of the Democratic Party, doesn\’t McGovern speak for Democrats?Well, in case you were wondering why McGovern decided to go off the deep end on the Employee Free Choice Act, it turns out he\’s already been swimming in it for some time.It\’s safe to say George McGovern is a patsy for anti-union lobbyist Rick Berman, the leader of a $30 million front group interfering in key Senate and House races this cycle.McGovern sits on the board of FirstJobs, another pro-business Berman front group, alongside the likes of Bush Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens, the editorial page director of the Washington Times, and the head of Sam\’s Club.And in 2006, around when Berman started his \”Center for Union Facts,\” McGovern took to the LA Times op-ed page to bash both unions and the multiple anti-Wal-Mart initiatives in full swing at the time. McGovern claimed at the time that paying Wal-Mart workers more would \”eliminate jobs,\” but that the fairness of doing so \”is a debate for another time.\” The current frenzy over Wal-Mart is instructive. Its size is unprecedented. Yet for all its billions in profit, it still amounts to less than four cents on the dollar. Raise the cost of employing people, and the company will eliminate jobs. Its business model only works on low prices, which require low labor costs. Whether that is fair or not is a debate for another time. It is instructive, however, that consumers continue to enjoy these low prices and that thousands of applicants continue to apply for those jobs. […]Liberals must never abandon their core principles of justice and equality. But union leaders who still see American businesses as the enemy must update that vision.At what point do we cast off McGovern as representative of any current Democratic Party principles? He\’s just rolling around in corporate cash and happy to sully his name in the process. Most Democrats in office support the Employee Free Choice Act, so McGovern is the one who\’s out of step. It\’s he who no longer represents what even moderate Democrats believe and it\’s time for him to stop trading on what he was yesterday, for cash today.\”

Leave a reply to Anonymous Cancel reply