Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Have Democrats Lost Their Liberal Spirit?

By Bruce Miroff, University Press of Kansas. Posted November 14, 2007.


A new book explores the McGovern campaign and what Democrats have -- or have not -- learned from it.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Bruce Miroff

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Intro written by Colin Greer: The following excerpt is from Bruce Miroff's book on the 1972 McGovern Presidential campaign, The Liberals' Moment. This is the first history of that epochal event in progressive politics. The book is rich in detail and its path takes us to the recognition that, for two or three generations, the leadership of the Democratic party and its guiding centrist message derives from politicos, DLC luminaries including Bill Clinton and John Podesta, who cut their teeth in the McGovern campaign and learned the wrong lessons from it.

In 1972 the American Left, -- and there was then a Left in America -- was destroyed in the same way the Right seemed to be destroyed in 1964. The Goldwater defeat was actually replicated on the Left by the McGovern defeat. The McGovern defeat was so devastating that professional politicians basically cut themselves off from the base of the people who make political life real at the local level and whose needs would push toward progressive policy if the public interest were a public priority.

Miroff shows that it is largely the McGovern campaign alumni who shaped what's legitimate and doable in Democratic Party politics since that time. They have been convinced that there is a fixed center in American political life, that this is a centrist nation and that successful politics can only occur close to that center.

This group badly misread a series of elections after McGovern. They thought Carter had been thoroughly rejected by the American public and forgot that Carter was actually rejected because of the Iranian hostage crisis, -- and lost only marginally. They thought that Ronald Reagan and the market economy defeated the Soviet Union, and so sacrilized the idea of a hawkish conservative electorate. But in fact it was the mobilized resources of the state -- large-scale public spending on the war and espionage machine that triumphed.

They also misread the Clinton victory; seeing the election of a centrist demo-republican seemed to confirm their story. In fact, Clinton won marginally in a three-way race. Throughout, as Miroff shows, the McGovern campaign alumni spawned and reinforced the demo-republicanism of the Democratic party. They saw, following their 1972 defeat, the upward swing of Republicans, the new role of big funders in the political game, and set about looking like the enemy. Miroff reports that Robert Strauss turned down the offer of McGovern's grass roots fundraising directory; the new party was looking in a different direction for its finances -- and its accountability.

Becoming the party of new professionals and new entrepreneurs, Democrats were now defined by social progressivism and economic restraint. Miroff argues this is exactly what the Republicans want them to be and why so much effort went into defeating Clinton's health care initiative; if the Democrats delivered big time to working people, they might win. Unfortunately, that was only a Republican strategic understanding.

The fact is, McGovern campaign alumni have lost any idea what really is possible in America. They keep using polls to predict and limit the future, forgetting that polls only really tell you about what is immediate. They're useful in tactical election campaigns. They're nearly useless in building a future.

**********

The Liberals' Moment
by Bruce Miroff

Despite the landslide defeat, the McGovern campaign bequeathed to the Democrats a talented, youthful cadre of strategists, organizers, and wordsmiths who as they aged would largely shape the evolution of the party over the following decades. [...]

The McGovern insurgency was an initiation in presidential campaigning not only for later Democratic leaders like Gary Hart and Bill Clinton but also for future Democratic strategists like Bob Shrum and John Podesta. It marked the coming of age for a new breed of Democratic activists, beneficiaries of the postwar explosion in higher education and alumni of the great causes of the 1960s, civil rights and the antiwar struggle. The 1972 campaign was the last time Democratic activists could wear their hearts on their sleeves all the way up to Election Day; the hopes they entertained, and the devastating disappointment they found in the end, were formative experiences whose reverberations are still felt in the politics of the Democratic Party. [...]

Vulnerable in electoral contests on matters of patriotism, strength in defending the nation, connection to working-class constituencies, and identification with unsettling cultural change, liberal Democrats have been branded as surefire losers by their centrist adversaries in the party. Leaders of the Democratic Leadership Council thus continue, almost as often as Republicans, to bring up the McGovern campaign as a warning of the electoral debacle facing the Democratic Party if it lets liberals back into its command. Yet centrists should not be too quick to read the story of the McGovern campaign as a validation of their philosophy and strategy. The centrist record since 1972 is only marginally more impressive than that of the liberals. Counting Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton as centrists, that wing of the party has only elected a presidential candidate under highly favorable circumstances -- against weak opponents and when the economy and international events were strongly in its favor. Moreover, the Democratic Party as a whole can hardly be said to have thrived during the administrations of these centrist presidents. The McGovern campaign, derided for its failures, provides in its successes some clues to the continuing electoral (and governing) weakness of Democratic centrists -- to vulnerabilities that centrists have evaded just as liberals have evaded their own.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: democratic party, mcgovern

Bruce Miroff is a professor of political science at State University of New York at Albany. He is the author of Icons of Democracy: American Leaders as Heroes, Aristocrats, Dissenters, and Democrats and most recently of The Liberals' Moment: the McGovern Insurgency and the Identity Crisis of the Democratic Party.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Democrats have lost more than their liberal spirit
Posted by: vox persona on Nov 14, 2007 12:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrats have also lost:
: their spine (see Iraq occupation)
: their hearing, if they don't start listening to the American people
: their mind, for electing Nancy Pelosi (see: impeachment is off the table)
: their will....they should stand up to this dictator, keep sending up bills that box the rupugs in to either supporting the legislation or looking bad to the electorate (alternative energy bills, single payer universal health care, etc)
: the next election, if they nominate Billary
: their burning in the belly for supporting and defending the US Constitution....see expanded presidential powers (domestic spying, unitary executive, etc). Is there nothing they won't lay down for?
: their status as the opposition party
These things they have lost can be regained with new leadership. Still, I'd vote for any Dem before I'd vote for any Rethuglican. One thing they haven't lost yet is my vote. GET IT TOGETHER PEOPLE!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You are what you write Posted by: skoog5600
» Oh, Ya got me Boss,.. Posted by: matti
» yeah but... Posted by: skoog5600
» Here, Here! Posted by: matti
» There is another way! RP2008! Posted by: CUnknown
» RE: You are what you write Posted by: Lector
» RE: I second that motion Posted by: peacelf
» Thanks TD Posted by: vox persona
This is a no-brainer!
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 14, 2007 3:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats don't even remind me of the party of FDR anymore! Are you kidding me? So far into the sewer have they managed to sink, they're about to nominate the one candidate who can't possibly win next year. They are also stupidly inviting another third party uprising at the polls next year. Count on it.

Ask yourselves this question: Why has Rupert Murdoch been holding fundraisers for Hillary Clinton? Do you think for one minute that the ownder of FOX Noise and the New York Toast wants her to be the next president of the United States? He only wants her to be the nominee because he knows she's doomed to be defeated. And yet these stupid fucking Democrats are totally blind to what can only be described as an obvious political ploy.

Look to the primary season next year. What we need to do is nominate liberals.....er, I mean, progressives...For more on this subject, please have a look at the dandy little piece I posted on my blog the other day. Here's a link:

With Democrats Like These....

Cheerio!

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is a no-brainer! Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: This is a no-brainer! Posted by: Basenjis
» Good one, peacelf! Posted by: Tom Degan
» Ever heard of Paul Wellstone? Posted by: johngary66
» RE: This is a no-brainer! Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
I don't see a difference anymore
Posted by: messedup on Nov 14, 2007 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrats and Republicans are the same to me. At least a republican will look at my bumper stickers and occassionally react to them (yell at me or try to pick a fight), vs. liberals who say nothing. Complacency and cronyism is the problem in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So why isn't Kucinich taken more seriously?
Posted by: sausage on Nov 14, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is taken from an October 23, 2007 column by The Des Moines Register's Marc Hansen:
Kathleen Ferguson of Des Moines says nothing has changed four years later. She found one of those surveys on the Web site of WQAD-TV in the Quad Cities. She answered the 11 multiple-choice questions and decided how important each issue was to her.

The topics were Iraq, immigration, tax cuts, stem cell research, health care, abortion, Social Security, a line-item veto, ethanol, same-sex marriage and the death penalty.

Ferguson clicked "select a candidate," and up popped Kucinich.

"We're not all that liberal," Ferguson said. "Several of us are former Republicans. It's astonishing to see what we want was labeled too far-out liberal."

You can read the rest of the column here.

Hansen concludes the column with an observation by University of Iowa political science professor David Redlawsk, co-author of How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns., that people often do not vote their own best self interests. Anyone who knows a friend or relative who works in a unionized industry and consistantly votes Republican knows this to be true.

What I think Miroff is missing;--and since we're sampling only an introduction of a longer work, and not having read the book--is that many of the generation who first voted for George McGovern in 1972 were raised in fairly conservative Republican families and only became Democrats in opposition to the Vietnam War. I think Hillary Clinton is a case in point.

The status quo of the American economic system was good to centerist Democrats, both growing up and in their post-college professional life, so why change it? Maybe a little tweaking around the edges, throw a few crumbs the way of the $9-an-hour crowd to keep their mouths shut, but keep the stock options and dividends flowing! The DLC gang, I think, truly subscribes to Milton J. Friedman's line:"The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem."

So even though rank-and-file Democrats yearn for a Kucinich-like party platform and programs, as long as the Rockefeller Republicans-in-donkeysuits control the party's marketing acumen and policy agenda it ain't gonna happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since the 30's, democrats have moved toward collectivist policies...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 14, 2007 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that run antithetical towards the liberal, constitutional guidelines this republic was founded under.

Don't worry, though, as much as democrats seek to race us to the lowest common denominator in every aspect of our lives by imposing their arbitrary, fantastic view of "equitability", recent republicans haven't done any better with their direct assaults on our rights and liberties. Specifically, both parties are emerging as increasingly antagonistic of our citizens living life in a liberal society.

"Don't be a party puppet!" Don't vote for the party of power, and don't vote for the party of money. And remember, they flip-flop on their two MOST important issues (money and power) regularly.

Oh, and don't expect your opinion to matter to either of the Superbowl Parties unless you've got a fat campaign check to support it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Did you know Abe Lincoln was a Whig? Posted by: ABetterFuture
They didn't lose it, they DISCARDED it and sold out to the motherfuckers on Wall Street !
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 14, 2007 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now don't get me wrong. They still have a "liberal" touch. It just isn't for us working/lower/middle class folks. Then again, there were no real conservatives or liberal in Washington for nearly 30 years and any who has tried has been WIPED out !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ralph Nader
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Nov 14, 2007 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A couple of deflections ago [somehow election seems a misnomer], Nader correctly indicted both political parties as dung from the same heap. Had they any sense at all, the Democrats should have nominated the "people's choice" and in my judgment he would have won handily and the ship of state would be in far steadier and better hands today. Didn't happen and the current "people's choice," Dennis Kuchinich will meet the same fate. Two things are available to evoke change: 3rd party movement; people's revolt in the streets. I think the latter has more likelihood of being productive Failing that, sit back, eat more popcorn, swig a few brewskies and revel in internet porn before that is gone too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ralph Nader RALPH NADER ?! Posted by: aka_bozo
» RE: alph Nader RALPH NADER ?! Posted by: MobileSucks
THE DEMOCRATS DON'T NEED ENEMIES
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 14, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They have each other to destroy any chance of winning back and running the country. Being in agreement is not the same as being "sheeple".Criticism is not a strategy. It's getting boring. Everybody has glaring faults whether they do or not. That's not "critical thinking"as some call it. It's time to be serious before we get another bible thumping war monger, dictator runing our lives. This is probably the most important election we'll ever participate in. And 'no' Ron Paul is not the answer. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» well, Hilliary is no answer Posted by: MobileSucks
The Dems are Drooling over Red Sports Cars
Posted by: wilty on Nov 14, 2007 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Identity crisis - Miroff raises some very thought provoking
points and questions, but backs off from a pointed suggestion.

When he mentions using "thrapeutic excercises" as a way to
discover what is really at the core of what a democrat is, I
immediately thought of self-pandering of boomers by driving around in a red zip of a car - but seriously, right now, and for quite some time, I have been damn angry, with this Bush Monarchy, and at the Democratic Congress for letting this Neocon assault to continue.

Go back to McGovern, to FDR, says Miroff - then explains what is wrong, but goes nowhere near as to what, or how a liberal is to think solution.

Think core values, well, at least that is a start. I believe the time has come, as our forefathers saw and acted upon, to think in terms of a clean sweep, and that means certainly getting the dust off the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We should read these instructions first, reacquaint ourselves about what we really think America should be, as to how it really is, right now, under King George.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, that we have been building a huge house of crap, that is falling all over itself, mainly because we forgot about those old blue prints.

I invite all people, and not just those of a particular party
persuasion, to sit down alone, at first, and reach deep into their hearts and souls, and examine, just what it is, that is at the core of their beliefs about America, about what she could be.

I know I want freedom, liberty and the opportunity to live fully alive.

Is that Patrick Henry I hear, summoning me?

Some, and many, many things to reflect upon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberalism does not mean change...
Posted by: peacelf on Nov 14, 2007 1:41 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a political philosophy, Liberalism has never proposed real change in america. Liberals and now neo-liberals have always believed the system works; it just needs a tweak here and there.

Yet, the power and money that influences their campaigns and politics is just...What? part of the system!

Every institution in america is designed to benefit the rich and powerful, from education to the military to corporate welfare, and even welfare for children ultimately benefits the rich. Who owns low income housing? Who owns grocery stores where food stamps are spent?

Dems have done nothing to change that system. Indeed, they love america [lower case "a" in america is not a typo]! the land of the greed and home of the depraved.

peace

Vote Kucinich!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Need Instant Run-off Voting (IRV)
Posted by: Jim Shaw on Nov 14, 2007 2:01 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of these posts seem to highlight the basic problem with the current election system - that its winner-take-all nature screws alternative candidates.

If we could establish IRV as a standard, people could vote for whomever they want and not worry about unintentionally aiding the candidate they most loath.

Probably most Alterneters are already familiar with IRV, but here's a brief description: it involves ranking the candidates 1 through whatever. If there aren't enough number 1 votes for any single candidate to constitute a majority of the ballots cast, the candidate with the least number 1s is eliminated, and all his number 1s are reallocated to whoever was number 2 on those ballots. If these votes aren't enough to give any candidate a majority, the process continues with the candidate having the next least number 1 votes, and on-and-on until somebody achieves a majority.

With IRV, Floridians in 2000 could have specified Nader as their number 1 and Gore as their number 2, and thereby not run the risk of allowing Bush to get close enough to Gore to steal the election.

Of course, the major party establishments and the money behind them don't want anything to do with IRV, because it would expose the limits of their support and possibly allow an alternative candidate to win, so it would be hard to enact. But if we could make it happen, it would certainly be a boon to our democracy (or what's left of it).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

look in the mirror and say
Posted by: Missing Piece on Nov 14, 2007 4:32 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in a country that would rather kill people than learn to live without oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» projected your own bias Posted by: aka_bozo
NAFTA Shrugged!!
Posted by: SweetEarth on Nov 19, 2007 3:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pseudo-democrats need to quit alibing they're "social" liberals. They're not liberal anything-- The only thing distinguishes them from the f-a-r right mean, stingy, heartless bastards in the companion (not alternate) republican party is they bristle at the word "Jesus" and ridicule all things Christian. I'm no Christian but their mean Ayn Rosenbaum - author of "Atlas Shrugged" and the celebration of greed vs. Jesus' philosophy and way of life --I mean, give! me! a! break! Maybe we oughta start a "Monsters Club" reserved for victims! unpleasant enough to identify their rapistS!! from among the companion Republican (Clintonian) lineup

In the parade of extinguished life forms inextricably connected to our own, we can ill afford the current Global-Shrug. Trashing the *living! gifts of creation for hyper-indulgence & frivilous consumption isn't simply cruel & uncivilized its uniquely unforgivable. We're stripping our descendants-- those we claim to "value" somewhat above a buck--of a sustainable home on THEIR! Planet, Earth.

The egregious loss of the sacrosanct bound up with us, the tragic loss that assures the end of Earth was the loss of our Respect For Life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A little late, but maybe still interesting ...
Posted by: halg on Nov 24, 2007 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I realize this is a very late post, sorry. But here are my reactions:

[Democrats] need to articulate and elaborate core convictions that can be counterpoised to those of the Republicans: economic justice, social equality, a more multilateral and multifaceted strategy for national security.

And maybe ecological wisdom, grassroots democracy too? Geez, this sounds like the Green Party platform! Hmmm, could this be (at least a part of) the solution to disenfranchised McGovern-type Dems?

... a Democratic Party liberal wing that witnessed presidential candidates who stood by its core convictions might become less rigid and uncompromising about their applications. The twenty-year-old debate between liberals and centrists in the Democratic Party, now grown sterile and tiresome, might be superseded by a more fruitful discourse in which liberals and centrists unite around core convictions and struggle over the most pragmatic ways to get them across to the electorate.

Once again, I ask exactly how one will unite liberals with "centrists" (Republicans, DINO's) -- this goes back to the premise of this article in the first place. If the author really believes the solution may lie here, then why didn't they just offer that in the first place?

This is one of those "duh" conversations that don't merit further analysis. Either provide the framework for that very discussion (meaning, provide a theory we haven't already beaten to death), or find something else to write about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]