Good points. And now let me put my hat as

I think people have way, way overrated the impact of foreign policy on both these elections - and it has been primarily done since 9/11.

Especially in the case of McGovern, he was by far the most left wing candidate the Democrats have ever run. He was, in the words of the Nixon campaign, the candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion" - this gives you some sense of the issues at play that the Nixon campaign emphasized. Issues of war and peace were only one amongst a host of issues - drugs, abortion, "law and order," affirmative action, busing, racial strife - that Nixon played on in both of his campaign, as he stood as kind of a sensible conservative as a symbol of assurance in the general cultural and social upheaval of the 1960s. Insofar as the war played in to this, it was more the nature of the war protesters and their association with all of these other cultural touchstones, not simply for opposing the war, which by about 1970 was opposed by a majority of Americans. Indeed, I believe it was until Tet in 1968 that the war had majority support. In a sense, Nixon ran as a "peace" candidate in both campaigns.

Further, I think the attempt to analogize that era with the present fails because it assumes that American society has remained static since then and that the same constellation of issues are at play. And thus that politics will necessarily follow a similar pattern. History isn't physics, with a series of easily replicable scenarios that repeat again and again.

What all of you -including Matt- are ignoring here is the impact of the Vietnam peace talks in 1967-68 on the '68 election. When there was a possibility for peace in 1968, Humphrey was neck and neck with Nixon, and Nixon knew this. This is why he attempted to sabotage the Vietnam peace talks, by working through Anna Chennault, who served as an intermediary to President Thieu of the RVN. Nixon, who was also working through his campaign manager John Mitchell, asked Chennault to tell Thieu to "hold on", and encouraged him to remain obstinate and delay the peace talks until Nixon was elected, with Nixon suggesting to Thieu that he would get a better deal from Nixon than he would from Humphrey. When Thieu backed out of the peace talks, Nixon's stock and standing edged ahead of Humphrey, and Nixon won.

as one who was there, let me say that: a.) i have always believed that had humphrey resigned the vice presidency in december, 1967, to lead the democratic opposition to johnson, he would have won the election, wallace defections or not; b.) i agree that it was certainly in the cards for bobby kennedy to have won the election as well (indeed, i think a humphrey-kennedy ticket would have won big in terms of the electoral college); c.) yes, bobby kennedy did get a lot of blue-collar votes in the primaries he ran in; d.) no, no democrat could have beaten nixon in '72 thanks to the southern strategy, although the dems didn't have to lose as badly as mcgovern did; e.) one of the most interesting phenomena in the '72 primaries was the two george connection - people supported mcgovern and wallace, as "outsiders;" f.) no one ran in favor of the war in '72. mcgovern ran on "out now" and nixon ran on "peace with honor," but no one ran on "stay the course." the country had already made up its mind.

which is, i think, the most important lesson for dems in '06 and '08....

"Nor have I ever been clear on what the Scoopies exact view of what McGovern did wrong was supposed to be. Say a Democratic hawk had won in 1972 and prosecuted the Vietnam War for four more years -- then what?"

Of course, the war was winding down by January '73, and Jackson would have almost definitely taken no more hawkish steps in Vietnam than Nixon did.

"There's no sense in winning elections in order to gain the opportunity to launch and prolong destructive wars."

That's not what Jackson was proposing, nor what he likely would have done.

But, of course, for a writer with a trust fund, I'm sure it can be difficult to understand why it might be important to win elections.

American wages began their 30+ year stagnation in 1973. Economic inequality began to ramp up drastically in the mid-70's. Again, this may not be particularly important if you come from a wealthy family that can send you to elite colleges and pay for you to take unpaid internships.

Pushing the Jackson folks out of the party has resulted in enormous domestic mischief taking place in America over the past 30+ years. That matters.

But Petey, you're overrating the importance of war and peace issues to the politics of the time. Simply, both the '68 and '72 elections had a lot of other issues at stake that were just as if not more important than the Vietnam War. Especially in '72.

To be sure, McGovern was too left wing and he ran a bad, disorganized campaign which compounded his problems. But the choice wasn't between Scoop and McGovern. There was a lot of room in between.

"Simply, both the '68 and '72 elections had a lot of other issues at stake that were just as if not more important than the Vietnam War. Especially in '72."

No doubt.

The economy was strong in the relevant ways in '72, and troops were streaming home. There was a very heavy Republican wind that year, and Nixon would have been the favorite against any Democrat.

But I'm a big believer that political parties have long-lasting brands, and that the McGovern nomination (along with the general Democratic embrace of the anti-war cause) played a significant part in bringing about both the Reagan Revolution and the Gingrich Revolution.

"But the choice wasn't between Scoop and McGovern."

Again, no doubt. The center didn't hold in '72. But the important point is understanding why the falcon couldn't hear the falconer.

In the face of war, the Democratic coalition seems to have trouble getting the center to hold, in part because war makes folks like Matthew think winning elections is secondary to other issues.

JPF311: the popular vote was extremely close in 1968; the electoral vote not so close.

believe it or not, btw, nixon won california and humphrey won texas.

humphrey was closing fast - he had finally distanced himself from johnson on the war - and many at the time felt that if the election had lasted another week, he would have pulled off the comeback, but he didn't.

but then nixon implemented the southern strategy, and that was all she wrote for '72....

artappraiser, i agree with your broader take on mcgovernism being out of touch with the country, but it's worth noting that nixon also favored a form of guaranteed minimum income: it wasn't just the mcgovernites....

"it's worth noting that nixon also favored a form of guaranteed minimum income: it wasn't just the mcgovernites"

Yup. And Nixon was also in favor of Universal Health Care. The center of debate was far to the left of where it is today.

And it's worth reading the history to figure out how we got there. The discrediting of conservatism with the Goldwater nomination in '64 had led to the debate moving drastically to the left eight years later, much as the discrediting of liberalism with the McGovern nomination in '72 led to the debate moving drastically to the right eight years later...

well, petey, we agree that the center used to be further left than it is today, but i'm afraid we disagree on your other couple of points.

that is, it wasn't the defeat of goldwater that resulted in mcgovern 8 years later; it was the combination of the civil rights legislation (sending the most conservative faction of the democratic party looking for a new home) and vietnam and, as i noted above, dirty tricks taking out muskie that moved the center.

and it wasn't the defeat of mcgovern that led to reagan, who very nearly snared the nomination in 1968....

mcgovern was a poor candidate and not really qualified to be president, but let's not exaggerate his importance in the scheme of things. just because a few formerly liberal professors invented neoconservatism as a reaction to mcgovern doesn't make him the desicive figure in the decline of the american middle class...

artappraiser, living as we do in a period where parents think the worst thing in the universe is that there might be a "generation gap" between themselves and their offspring, it's easy to forget how bitter the generational culture wars were in the late '60s and early '70s. as someone mentioned up above (was it you?), nixon ran against "acid, amnesty, and abortion," not in favor of "safety and calm."

this is a good time to cite my favorite piece of political prognostication from the era: gazing down upon the mayday, '71 protestors in washington d.c., john mitchell told a time or newsweek reporter (can never remember which): "this country is going to move so far to the right you won't recognize it."

how correct he was....

The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog can outwit the fox because he knows one big thing.

I thought it was the good looking fox who only knew one trick?

(Sorry, couldn't resist going along with the theme of the title.)

It rather puzzled me, at a time when people in the Army used demolitions rather frequently, how often the radical bomb-makers blew themselves up. Perhaps not, since there tended to be rather few radicals in engineering or hard sciences, where one has to learn precise experimental technique, and how to control every possible variable. The Army folk had a book they were trained very, very emphatically to follow until they understood when they could vary things.

Mind you, when we worked with reactions that could get away in the lab, you used minimum quantities and plenty of protective equipment, and yes, there were accidents -- but people were prepared for it. I remember a small explosion that scattered some white phosphorus, and, given some of the reports I hear today, wonder if we are talking about the same element.

[assumes Austrian accent] You think your parents were strict about dating? Consider that Ah-nold now has teenaged daughters. How would you feel if you were Miss Schwarzenegger's accent, and daddy growled "You'll be back. By Midnight."[end Austrian]

One could say it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. As an example of the angst of looking backwards, I can fondly remember the skirt lengths of the time...and then realize I'd have to wear a polyester leisure suit. Drawing from 1970, would you believe the agony and the ecstasy, chief?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"...resulted in mcgovern 8 years later; it was the combination of the civil rights legislation (sending the most conservative faction of the democratic party looking for a new home) and vietnam and, as i noted above, dirty tricks taking out muskie that moved the center."

Sure.

Big movements in political coalitions always have multiple causes. The causes you list here are certainly valid ones.

"just because a few formerly liberal professors invented neoconservatism as a reaction to mcgovern doesn't make him the desicive figure in the decline of the american middle class..."

Well, with that phrasing, it's hard to disagree. But I'll repeat the somewhat different formulation I previously offered:

Pushing the Jackson folks out of the party has resulted in enormous domestic mischief taking place in America over the past 30+ years.

With hawkish elements of the electorate having no home in the Democratic coalition, all kinds of right-wing mischief find themselves swirling through the halls of power.

Plus, younger Americans have no sense whatever of what the year 1968 was like. The assassination of JFK was our generation's 9/11 and with the King and RFK assassinations coming in the first half of '68 it was like being attacked again. Add to that, the Chicago police beating college kids on a split screen with the Democratic Convention ignoring it inside the hall - you had a "generation gap" like nothing seen since. Then you had Kent State in 1970 which resulted in serious unrest at 400 colleges bringing the National Guard into many, including mine. When the National Guard is protecting the citizens of your state from YOU, you get a somewhat different perspective. Then you had race riots in cities across the US, the alienation of blue collar workers from both draft-age college kids and anyone supporting risking their union wage with competition from minorities and women. Add to that, Catholic ethnics who had worked their way up the class ladder through the GI bill now seeing their kids bused back into the urban schools they'd fought to leave. Well, you had the perfect storm.

What infuriates me now are the revisionist Democrats who think this was about Scoop Jackson. Yes, that is a hoot. It was about huge domestic issues, violence, social change that had been repressed for hundreds of years, and yes it was about kids being drafted into a war that was never in the national interest at all and took 58,000 of their lives and fills VA hospitals today with men in their 50's and 60's still suffering from that mistake.

It was about big stuff, stuff that could never have been triangulated away. The bean counters at the DLC who see the world as a focus group to be spun, wouldn't have been up to it then and they aren't up to dealing with social change or international chaos now.

You have to be able to tangle with the generational issues to become a great generation and somewhere along the way we sold all that out.

What I wish I'd see is a younger generation willing to take such issues on not one that believes its enough to engage the world with blogs alone. Maybe protesting in the street isn't the answer but keyboarding isn't either.

As someone still proud to wear the McGovernite label, I'll happily continue to stand for constitutionally guaranteed rights for women. That we've "progressed" to a place where even Democrats would rather work for constitutionally guaranteed rights for flags is a commentary on our times.

Yup, social change is tough and what a wonder that it was that Greatest Generation who fought WWII who were still the ones in Congress passing legislation like the Civil Rights Act.

We were a proud party once and a country able to confront big issues. What on earth do we stand for now!

"which is a little different than saying if the neocons had hung around in the democratic party, maybe the republicans wouldn't have been so insane...."

My concern is not for the neocons. My concern is for hawkish elements of the electorate.

And the historical narrative that makes the most sense to me is that if the Democratic Party had done a better job of remaining viable to hawkish elements of the electorate in the late-60's and '70s, insane elements of the Republican Party never would have been able to entrench themselves in the halls of power.

"because you chastised matthew for not recognizing that mcgovernism's defeat was a considerable contribution to the decline of the middle class."

I chastised Matthew for viewing politics through the sole lens of the hawk/dove spectrum.

I actually like George McGovern. He was the wrong man for the job of nominee, but otherwise, a good lefty politician. I reserve my scorn for the Eugene McCarthy's of the world - politicians who think that standing for their holy moral cause is more important the entire health of the Democratic electoral coalition.

Economically challenged Democrats have always stood in opposition to the McCarthy wing of the party because they understood that their very livelihood has some dependence on the electoral health of the Democratic Party being strong enough to have it play a strong part in governing.

The McCarthy folks are much more likely to be in favor of a small-tent Democratic opposition party that speaks truth to power, instead of a party that makes compromises to govern. And not at all coincidentally, the McCarthy folks are much more likely to be upscale.

One thing that really killed the Democratic Party was the "soft-on-crime" image - in fact, the general feeling that they sympathized with the criminal elements of the underclass and hated white middle class people.   The Great Society produced a generation of the underclass (yes, particularly blacks) who had no fathers, and who became much more criminally inclined than previous ones.

While the Warren court's concern for civil liberties is laudable, when a crime wave begins to hit, people start looking askance at those whom they see as getting violent criminals off on technicalities. 

And the liberal solutions to crime - more welfare, take away a person's gunsso that law-abiding citizens will be helpless, did not appeal.  A lot of people felt like they were supposed to rely on the police to protect them, but the police were not allowed to do so.

In response to another post about America's "original sin": of racism: sure, race is a big part of the political realignment - but it isn't the simplistic "Republicans are racist and play on white people's fear of blacks" that the leftists want to believe.   Rather, the Democrats often seem to be full of hatred for white people, so a lot of whites decide to take their votes elsewhere.

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

This is a very important point. I say that from studying history and polls (not to mention