Support NeoGAF

[Inuhanyou]

Four decades ago, Richard Nixon lived out the fantasy many liberals harbor about Donald Trump, stepping down in the face of possible impeachment over a slow-moving scandal long before his term was up. Before that happened, however, Nixon was reelected by a resounding margin, in large part because progressives made strategic errors that Democrats today appear hellbent on repeating.

In 1968, as in 2016, Democrats narrowly lost the White House after nominating a relatively moderate, establishment candidate instead of a more liberal alternative who had inspired a raging enthusiasm among younger voters.

Democrats spent much of the next four years arguing about what direction the party should take. White working-class voters—traditionally a Democratic bloc—were sluicing away, and progressives, convinced the party needed to change both its policy direction and its coalition of supporters, demanded a new approach: a “loose peace coalition” of minorities, young voters and educated white Democrats, as strategist Fred Dutton wrote in his 1971 book, Changing Sources of Power. One year later, the party’s presidential nominee, the ultra-liberal Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, went on to lose 49 states in one of the most lopsided victories in American history.

Politics today are much different than they were then, as is the shape of the American electorate. But there are parallels that Democrats should bear in mind as they nurse their hopes of driving Trump from the Oval Office. Trump is a culture warrior, and progressives today are perfectly willing to engage that sideshow—just as they did 45 years ago with Nixon.

Look no further than the recent controversy over NFL players’ protests over police violence and racism, which Trump has successfully portrayed for most voters as an insult to men and women in uniform, the American flag, mom and apple pie.

“If the Democrats become the party of those in favor of kneeling rather than standing for the national anthem,” says historian Jeffrey Bloodworth, author of Losing the Center: A History of American Liberalism, 1968-1992, “that would be a full McGovern.”

Much more at the link.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/09/democrats-mcgovern-1972-trump-nixon-2020-215687

I'm sorry, what? I'm not even talking about the final "point" the article makes, that's just the low hanging fruit that any normal rational person should laugh at and scorn.

This is just my personal opinion and i recognize that there may be many who don't agree, but what partially allowed Trump to win despite his racism and bigotry and historically bad numbers was the fact that the void for a viable solution to people's pain was not met by anyone in establishment circles , and that created a vacuum that was filled with right wing populism that allowed Trump to exploit and fan the flames of the hatred that already lurked beneath the surface on the right.

To destroy that discontent, you need an unapologetic left wing actor who, while caring about social justice, actually gives a shit about what they are saying and pushes for policies people on every side of the spectrum can vouch for, and have them sound authentic about it. Its not too out of bounds considering how much the dems try to "appeal to the moderate center" by going to the right all the time.

How about, instead of compromising everything you claim to care about at your core in an attempt to "appeal to the center". a non existent segment of America....simply speak to common appeals of the common classes while at the same time promoting an ethical social and economic platform. That would unite far more people under a party's banner.

 

[John Rabbit]

Is this more "Dems are too far left" fuckery that erroneously paints moderate-conservatism as "the center" that the party should move toward?

 

[Aylinato]

That makes no sense

 

[Ishan]

Haven't read the article . But from what op posted it seems he's trying to say don't make this a culture war . I can see some of that if it stops being about trump job performance and becomes about whether democrats are defined for or against the notion of respect for the flag etc . It allows trump to fight the war on a cultural level rather than a substantive level ... And then I guess you need to find a democrat who can fight on the cultural level too . Obamas gone . Bernie warren seem pretty old . Etc.

Edit not sure I agree with him and all that but I can see a point he's trying to make . Not sure how strongly that point will be borne out etc .

Def something like 49-1 or q bad drubbing seems out of the question . But is a trump re win out of the question that I'm not sure about

 

[benicillin]

This is what happens when you take a Trump = Nixon comparison too far.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Did the Soviets hack the voting system in 1968 too?

 

[VendettaRed07]

Pretending like political rules from the 70s-90s apply now will give us McGovern

 

[Madness]

In 1968, as in 2016, Democrats narrowly lost the White House after nominating a relatively moderate, establishment candidate instead of a more liberal alternative who had inspired a raging enthusiasm among younger voters. 

In so many words they're basically still asking why not Bernie...

 

[TumblingHippo]

In before "Democrats will never win unless they become anti-abortion/pro-gun/anti-lgbt because of what the mean ol' conservatives will say if we don't!"

 

[Ogodei]

In 2016 we had a GOP candidate who was fully primed to activate the full power of latent racism among the electorate. He lost the popular vote and won by gaming the electoral college, and only then by about 100,000 votes scattered across three states. He pushed GOP power to the max in Virginia and lost. He pushed GOP power to the max in Florida and barely won. He pushed GOP power to the max in Arizona and did worse than any Republican before him. Ditto Texas.

The people who support the kneelers are the future of this country. The hooting, booing knuckle-draggers are loud and well-entrenched, and will remain a plague on this country for decades to come, but their ability to *rule* is under threat.

 

[Con_Smith]

Basically, don't tip your hand you stand for equality and actual American values. If you don't appease the racists your fucked.

 

[KingK]

Pretending like political rules from the 70s-90s apply now will give us McGovern

Pretending political rules from the 70s-90s apply now is also an enormous part of the reason we have Trump.

 

[mlclmtckr]

How do you say with a straight face in 2017 that what the Democrats need is more centrism

 

[Slayven]

The Breitbert expose form last week shines new light on articles like this.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Because everyone knows that social changes happen in America by the oppressed keeping their mouths shut and never making anyone feel uncomfortable.

 

[Mael]

If the democrats go full on against the kneelers, I don't think I would want them to win anyway.

The Breitbert expose form last week shines new light on articles like this.

This too.

 

[TheUntamedLegend]

Trump was supposed to be Goldwater and look what happened.
These comparisons don't really hold up so well.

 

[Ithil]

"Roll over for racism or else".

No thanks.

 

[RinsFury]

Fuck moving one inch to the right just because white supremacists voted one of their own into power. The problems that should be tackled are gerrymandering and voter suppression, as well as uniting the base behind a strong candidate that gets the youth out to the voting booths.

 

[zero_suit]

Fuck moving one inch to the right just because white supremacists voted one of their own into power. The problems that should be tackled are gerrymandering and voter suppression, as well as uniting the base behind a strong candidate that gets the youth out to the voting booths.

It's easier to write bullshit articles like this, though.

 

[kirblar]

Much more at the link.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/09/democrats-mcgovern-1972-trump-nixon-2020-215687

I'm sorry, what? I'm not even talking about the final "point" the article makes, that's just the low hanging fruit that any normal rational person should laugh at and scorn.

This is just my personal opinion and i recognize that there may be many who don't agree, but what partially allowed Trump to win despite his racism and bigotry and historically bad numbers was the fact that the void for a viable solution to people's pain was not met by anyone in establishment circles , and that created a vacuum that was filled with right wing populism that allowed Trump to exploit and fan the flames of the hatred that already lurked beneath the surface on the right.

To destroy that discontent, you need an unapologetic left wing actor who, while caring about social justice, actually gives a shit about what they are saying and pushes for policies people on every side of the spectrum can vouch for, and have them sound authentic about it. Its not too out of bounds considering how much the dems try to "appeal to the moderate center" by going to the right all the time.

How about, instead of compromising everything you claim to care about at your core in an attempt to "appeal to the center". a non existent segment of America....simply speak to common appeals of the common classes while at the same time promoting an ethical social and economic platform. That would unite far more people under a party's banner.

You misunderstand completely why Trump won the GOP nomination and later the election. He did not win "despite" being a racist. He won the GOP nomination explicitly because he was unapologetically one.

Trump and the GOP won the 2016 presidential election by a hair because of white rural identity politics. The demographic trends shaping the "sunbelt" to be more friendly to Dems are happening in reverse in the rust belt, and it created an opportunity for a candidate like Trump.

As far the political response to this goes- it's been obvious. BLM went from organizing protests to working on local organization. Schumer/Pelosi have been avoiding direct confrontation on many of those issues that make these types of white (racist) swing voters upset.

 

[Shauni]

The premise of the article makes no sense because on level they are saying that we needed a raging leftist to enthusiastic voters for 2016, but to not go back to that for 2020 or we are doomed to fail and fail hard. Like, what?

 

[AstroNut325]

In 1968, as in 2016, Democrats narrowly lost the White House after nominating a relatively moderate, establishment candidate instead of a more liberal alternative who had inspired a raging enthusiasm among younger voters.

The youth do not vote. They don't matter in elections.

 

[Hierophant]

https://twitter.com/historyinflicks/status/862057180748546048
Traditonal Political Compass vs. The American Version

 

[phanphare]

Fuck moving one inch to the right just because white supremacists voted one of their own into power. The problems that should be tackled are gerrymandering and voter suppression, as well as uniting the base behind a strong candidate that gets the youth out to the voting booths.

nah that's too logical

dems need to start publicly shaming people who protest racial inequality and police brutality and stand behind true patriots like jerry jones

Spoiler

this is depressing sarcasm which I think would be clear but just in case

 

[FrenchToastDisciple]

McGovern ran in a climate in which the sitting President was quite popular (not the case currently), suffered from stigma surrounding the mental health history of his vice president, and, most importantly ran fourty-five years ago at the height of the American welfare state and near the beginning of a the white supremacist backlash to it.

I won't pretend to know what'll happen if the democrats nominate a social democrat (or social democrat adjacent) to run in 2020, but the situations are not analogous, and any pundit that thinks they have any power in knowing what the next five years hold in store politically for the country, outside of things like white supremacy, misogyny, capitalist exploitation, and xenophobia continuing to play some sort of role is fooling themselves. These are things that we can assess years, even decades, after the fact, not in the moment. If we could, there would be more people who would have predicted a Trump victory.

 

[Alcotholic]

Politics shouldn't be a fucking game. It affects peoples lives. I don't have much confidence that anything is going to change. Bernie was the best chance we had, but we screwed up there.

 

[FyreWulff]

I haven't really seen the kneeling attached to Democrats, though.

 

[ModBot]

If the only reason you're posting an opinion piece is because it made you angry and you want to yell about how bad it is, it's probably better not to post it.