Nixon prolonged the Viet Nam War by 4 years. Then he got re-elected.

Nixon got massively reelected as a matter of fact. Way outside what we now might call the Diebold margin. And Nixon didn't run against a mealy mouthed finger to the wind Democrat in 1972 either. He clobbered George McGovern, a straight forward plain talking unequivocal opponent to the Viet Nam War who I loved then and still love now. Hell, the media wasn't even as controlled by the Right Wing then as it is now.

Nixon didn't win a second term because the grass roots played dead and let Party leaders talk them into passivity. We were on the streets, we were in the news, we were in Nixon's face for every month of Nixon's first term. Nixon/Agnew won 49 States, and Agnew was every bit the Ass Hole that Cheney is now, by the way, for those who missed out on the pleasure of hearing him.

Did we effect the course of the Viet Nam War with our protests? Of course we did, but we certainly didn't "bring the boys home" in less then a year. And somehow the Republican Party emerged stronger for all of it. If Agnew had not literally been a crook, he would have become the 38th President, not Gerald Ford. And if Nixon had not acted like a crook also, Agnew may have become the 38th President in 1976. It is doubtful Carter would have entered the picture had the stain of Watergate not been so recent.

It's said that history repeats, but it never does an exact frame for frame re-run, so there are plenty of differences between Viet Nam and Iraq, and between the opposition then and now to Republican Administration war plans. That doesn't mean that there aren't lessons to be learned though. What are they? How did opposition to the Viet Nam war effect National politics in the late 60's and 70's, and how does opposition to the war in Iraq effect National politics now?

My current political philosophy can be boiled down to two words: Results Matter.

McGovern courted the more liberal and idealistic voters, and his support dropped off after he withdrew his choice of Eagleton for his running mate after it was revealed that Eagleton had been treated for depression. I imagine some of his more activist support got disillusioned pulled the rug out from under him for that, despite the fact that it would let Nixon win. Results do matter, as you say; you have to consider how fickle the support you get might be.

McGovern and the Democrats weren't helped at all by "leftists in the streets" setting off bombs and burning flags. Lots of moderate voters who were opposed to the war nonetheless did not want to be part of a party that seemed to encourage that.

Years alter, it was discovered that Nixon and his gang had instigated some of that under a program called Cointelpro. (You might recall, if you're of a certain age, "Tommy the Traveler.")

He had reduced troops in Vietnam from an LBJ/'68 high of over 400,000 down to something like 120,000. He was secretly bombing the hell out of Vietnam and Cambodia, and fatalities were higher than ever, but people didn't realize it.

Didn't he also announce an end to the draft before the '72 election?

You are right about Nixon's "secret plan" but that was the 1968 ruse to get elected, so it doesn't explain 1972. Bush has "a plan to end the War" also which he says will end it through victory. I have as much regard for Bush's plan as I did for Nixon's. And Bush will reduce troop strength in Iraq. He already figured out that he has to.

By 1972, there were around 300,000 fewer troops in Vietnam and Americans didn't realize that the war was deadlier and more vicious than it had been during the Johnson years.

Nixon found a way to create a perception that he was winding down Vietnam when, in fact, he was stepping it up. So, the protesting didn't stop the war so much as it encouraged Nixon to find ways to continue it in ways that weren't as apparent to the public and it encouraged him to present it to the public as if it were winding down (and I think the troop reductions were a big part of that).

Nixon also, I believe, confused a lot of democrats by reaching out to china (which made it seem like he wasn't an anti-communist war monger) and by engaging in what he sold as Keynesian price controls and by talking about environmental protections and worker's rights.

that he needed to get down below. He was right is seems. Still there were over 100,000 troops remaining in Viet Nam by 1972, and Nixon didn't get punished for having taken four years to get the levels down so low. 2008 is three years away.

That is one of my greater concerns. it is already been talked about as an alternative to ground troops. i am also concerned that it has been mentioned that that is how we will attack Iran. My greater concern is that the present Bush strategy, as pointed out by Clark, strengthens Iran. Does this not concern Bushco because it feeds into their previously stated desire to expand the war in the region? Of greater concern is recent discussion of limited nuclear warfare. Kissinger had expressed a need for that even when we faced MAD. Now with that threat removed for the most part, will PNAC seek to dominate the world with fear?

A minimum national income even got floated for a brief spell, and OSHA and EPA were established under Nixon. But Red baiting of anti war protesters never really let up, and from 1972 until almost the present the term "McGovern Democrats" was equated with liberals breaking from the mainstream, even AFTER Watergate and Nixon's subsequent disgrace.

that when he announced he had a secret plan, even people who hated him believed it. Some were sure that the secret plan would not end the war, or might make things worse...but few doubted that he had some sort of plan that he'd worked out already behind the scenes, because it would have been in character. He'd spent his whole career pulling backroom deals and fixing outcomes. (When young, he ran the Wheel of Chance at the Slippery Gulch Rodeo, and you can look it up.)

http://www.classroomhelp.com/lessons/Presidents/nixon.html

As I recall, he reformed the draft to the birthday lottery to make it "more fair"....little did anyone know in those days that all you had to do to get out of going to Viet Nam was announce "it is not among my priorities" or "I have a pimple on my ass."

Like Chimpy, Nixon was able to use his evil to warp space and time to the point where everyday events seemed surreal.

Clinton talks about this in his bio.

What I remember from the early 70s, both during the '72 campaign and following the election is how he kept announcing the war was nearly over. Remember that? Then as soon as we thought phew our kids are coming home, we would find out he was secretly bombing Cambodia or some other devious crap to actually keep the war going.

democrats and independents. We seem doomed to repeat history.

I believe a large majority of these so-called "leftists in the streets" setting off bombs etc. were connected to Cointelpro. The feds were dirtying up the peace movement with agent provocateurs, just as the California National Guard did last year.

It's a mistaken re-writing of history to repeat these stupid repuke lies like this.

The peace movement in this country in the 60's was, if anything, more "polite" than the demonstrators of today. I was there in the 60's and I'm still out there on the streets today and that's my impression. The cops back then were more brutal, confrontational and provoked most of the (little amount) of violence during demo's in the 60's.

The Democrats BEGAN the war. It was seen as a "DEMOCRATIC WAR." And we were still divided between those who SUPPORTED THE WAR and those who did not. This is ultimately which led to the split of the Democratic majority.

Another factor: There was a "Wallace wing" of the party (southern Democrats) which voted for Nixon. Without the south, which was an intricate part of our "New Deal" coalition (from 1932-1968) - we were doomed regardless of who ran. Which is why Nixon, after Wallace won the Florida, Maryland and Michigan primaries, adopted his policy of ending school "busing."

Another factor: By 1972, people were sick of the Vietnam war, and the war itself was all but over already. Number of troops were down to less than 50,000 from 550,000 when Nixon took over. Nixon was also promising to "end" the war. However, he wanted "peace with honor." There was no candidate in 1972 who advocated "staying the course" or "expanding the war."

Another factor: there were other issues which galvanized Republicans against Democrats. 1972, was the beginning of the "culture wars" with the abortion issue being at the forefront, School desegregation and busing were huge issues in 1972, and the death penalty having been abolished drew the ire of many conservatives. Issues of crime and punishment, school choice, as well as morality were VERY IMPORTANT factors. Probably the most important in those results. Don't forget that this is also the period when black people were moving into "white" neighborhoods and there was a lot of resentment against them and "liberals" who forced the issue.

Another factor: The majority of Americans supported how Nixon was handling the war (see point 3). Unlike today with Bush.

So your analysis of the 1972 election is simply weak and completely wrong.

P.S. Don't forget Eagleton, Nixon's trip to China, and the ABM Treaty for which Nixon was given many kudos.

The Equal Rights Amendment was gathering not losing support. Most Republican leaders were or became "Pro-Choice". I'm not saying that the current religious right had not started organizing against Abortion in 1972, just that it wasn't yet an effective wedge issue for them. Nixon Agnew used anti war protesters as a target in their "Culture War" strategy far more than they did women's rights. 1972 was the year of the Chicago Police Riots at the Democratic Convention. Anti war protests were still very visible.

You're right that the ERA and Abortion were issues supported by many Republicans and that the "religious right" were not what they are today. After all, Gerry Ford supported both. But the important factor is this:

The issues DEFINITELY DID matter to those "southern" white Democrats. The "Wallace Democrats." And Nixon was against both. There were massive demonstrations against Abortion in 1972,73,74. So maybe the elites in Washington (both Republican and Democrat) supported it, the people were moving away from it. This was probably another example of Washingtonians "being out of touch." This may also explain the rise of Ronald Reagan a few years later. Remember that by and large Reagan was seen as a nut job throughout the entire 1970s. The argument that Ford used against Reagan in 1976, was that he "could not win." Why? Because Reagan didn't accept the conventional wisdom of official Washington, taking his cue instead from the grass roots - where he was popular. Washington Republicans supported Ford, the grass roots supported Reagan. It was tied going into the convention. But here's the irony. Had Reagan been the candidate in 1976, in my opinion, he would have won. Why? Because in the end Ford only barely lost to Carter. But where did he lose? He lost Mississippi and a couple of other southern states by only a small margin. In fact, the election was so close that had Ford won another 11,000 votes in Mississippi alone he would have won. Are you telling me that Reagan without the taint of Watergate behind him, and with his support among the religious in America (don't forget that Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other Evangelicals supported Carter in 76), couldn't pull off another 11,000 votes in Mississippi? By 1980, so ingrained was this idea of Reagan as a nut, that even Carter wanted to run against him, believing that he was most beatable.

The rest, as they say, is history. It wasn't until Reagan's huge victory in 1980 that this myth was dispelled for good, and the modern Republican Party came into being.

There are a lot of lessons here for modern day Democrats.

The issue of School Busing, the death penalty and "white flight" were greater issues in 1972, I admit. But there definitely was a growing group of poor Americans who began leaving the Democratic Party in 1972 (possibly before). And Vietnam had nothing to do with it.

Demonstrations of 1973 and 1974 are beyond the time period I was talking about, and I am more interested in how Nixon was able to so solidly sweep the non South than in how he won the South. But the seeds for everything that blossomed over the following decade were already in play in 1972, that is very true.

Two final points about Viet Nam. If Viet Nam had nothing to do with Nixon's reelection than that in itself is a sobering conclusion. It should have, many of us said then and would still say today, so why didn't it? Nixon kept us fighting in Viet Nam for Four years and that didn't cause him to be totally repudiated by the American people. Instead he won in a landslide. Some of the why's have been discussed here, but it is still a significant conclusion to reach.

Second, protesters against the Viet Nam War were featured as fodder for Nixon's "silent majority" to fixate against. We became an issue in their Culture War more so than any issue related to the actual fighting in Viet Nam. I do not mean to overstate the importance of that, they had significant other fodder coming out of the 60's to use also, much of which you accurately described.

Public support for Nixon's Vietnam strategy was always high. Nixon NEVER supported "staying the course" in Vietnam. He supported "eventual" withdrawl, except he supported "peace with honor." Like I wrote, Nixon had reduced the number of troops substantially. From 550,000 (in 1968) to less than 50,000 (in 1972). Vietnam was not an issue in 1972. The war was going to end regardless of who was elected. This was a given. Consider this, had McGovern been elected he would have taken office on January 20, 1973, and presumably ended the war shortly thereafter. Well, Nixon ended the war officially on January 25, 1973 - five days after his second inaugeral. So McGovern's anti-war position was moot. In fact, the day after Nixon ended the war, his approval rating hit the highest of his entire Presidency (69%, Gallup). So the whole logic of your original post is WRONG. People didn't support Nixon because he wanted to "stay the course" as Bush does now, or was "pro-war" as Bush is. The two issues are completely different.

The "silent majority" was a subtle attack on liberals, explaining that they were out of touch. That the "silent majority" didn't demonstrate and cause trouble. They were good law abiding citizens, who worked hard, paid their taxes, and supported their schools and churches.

The "silent majority" encompassed everything. It encompassed civil rights, feminism, busing (which was A GIGANTIC ISSUE IN 72), everything. So the attacks on McGovern had to do with his general "liberalism" not his position on the war. In fact, I don't think it was even an issue. Nixon was more defensive on Vietnam than Bush is on Iraq. When asked about it, he (or his aides) would say simply: "We're trying to clean up the Democrat's mess. We're ending the war. Peace with honor." So Vietnam had no traction for the Democrats since both parties talked about ending the war - I guess you can call it Nixon's version of "triangulation." Instead, McGovern and the Democrats were put on the defensive over their general liberalism, which Nixon argued was "out of touch" with mainstream America (aka "The Silent Majority"). That's what 1972 was about.

You're analysis of the 1972 election is simply off.

My main point was that the Viet Nam War continued for four years under Nixon but that the Republicans came out of that period stronger. I have little doubt that had Nixon escalated the Viet Nam War during 1972 the results would have been very different. He did not however get thrown out of office for his having maintained hundreds of thousands of troops in Viet Nam for most of his time in office.

I doubt very much that Bush will be increasing American forces in Iraq from here on out. I expect the exact opposite, reductions, and I already know that Bush is evoking "honor". I also doubt very much that there will be 50,000 American troops inside Iraq during the 2008 Election campaign.

Actually the main point of my analysis was simply that anti war protests from 1968 on did not bring all "the boys home" in six months. Without exercising control in Washington we could not stop that war. Very few people on this thread picked up on that part of this. We need a strategy that can retake Congress and if our anti war activities contribute to that it can shorten the war in Iraq, and if they don't, Bush will be free to keep calling the shots.

He's the President.

We have to start coming up with an exit strategy to sell in 2008. Otherwise we're toast. By then, Americans will be sick of the war completely (if they're not already). I've always said, the candidate which comes up with a credible exit strategy first will probably be the next President. So all this division by the DLC about "staying the course" is just plain stupid and counter-productive to our political interests. No Democrat who advocates "staying the course" will be elected in 2008. Until the Dems get their heads out of their asses, most candidates will be stuck the way Kerry was stuck with his votes and positions in 2004.

P.S. I'm not convinced that we will have fewer than 50,000 soldiers in Iraq by 2008. I'll believe it, when I see it.

It is so much easier to stand on principles and later blame those too stupid to act in accordance with them should your position fail, than it is to calibrate a strategy that actually is likely to accomplish the ends that you seek. I don't have easy answers to this one, but I don't think ducking the question is a good start.

Idealism is a double edged sword. Without it little of real worth is accomplished. Untempered by pragmatic considerations, little of real worth is accomplished.

"Idealism is a double edged sword. Without it little of real worth is accomplished. Untempered by pragmatic considerations, little of real worth is accomplished."

I like this. Is it yours?

and it applies in many ways to many different situations we face. Very nice.

I was thinking about this very subject after reading the Will Pitt article and all the kudos to it. Will asserts that any Dem candidate who does not ascribe to the "out now" policy will be left out of the Democratic Presidential nomination. That may well be, but what has bothered me, is that might simply mean the next president may not be a Democrat. I think that is too narrow a view, unless the candidate is proposing "stay the course" with Bushco like Lieberman. It is something that should be realized and debated rationally.

That's why it's so important for ALL Democrats to participate in the primaries, not just the most vocal minority.

There were hundreds of thousands of us marching everywhere, but the majority were young people (especially college-age kids), some not old enough to vote. (Voting age was 21). I don't remember the Democratic Party being anti-war. It was mostly young vs. old, us-against-them. It's very different today.

The demographics stayed youth oriented, but increasingly diversified with each year that the war continued. When Nixon beat Humphrey in 1968 it was by a very narrow margin. Organized large scale anti-war protests had been going on for two years at that point, very youth centered. Four years later Nixon won in perhaps the largest landslide in American political history. The anti-war movement was larger then and had spread beyond it's very tight youth oriented focus into virtually every segment of society.

It nominated George McGovern to run for President, and he was nothing if not the anti-war candidate.

I think that the party was rather divided over the war. I don't recall Humphrey being antiwar, and Wallace, who was doing quite well in some of the primaries before he was shot, was certainly no dove.

heading into a Democratic convention. I did say 1972. And McGovern did emerge as the Democratic candidate for President.

Although a lot of voters must have split their tickets since the Democrats retained control of both houses of Congress.

I was an anti-war teen and met McGovern in 1972 which was the first year that 18 to 20 year olds could finally vote after being drafted and getting killed in Vietnam without voting rights up until then.

I don't really believe that of course. It just seems that it takes topic headers like that to get much of a reaction on DU, lol.

But I do know that this war is not going to hurt the Republicans as much as many think. I believe this is a war of both parties almost equally, so that won't be in play.

One factor you forgot, or perhaps did not realize...McGovern was being talked down in churches as being too something or the other...I don't remember if the word was liberal or what.

The patriotic theme was in play then as well in the fundamentalist South.

It is very much like Vietnam in the way they are trying to keep on keeping on....and many more will die.

Something just came up I have to deal with, will get back to you more later. "Results Matter" simply means to me that it is important that we actually accomplish the things that matter most to us, and not just make the case for why they are so important. If at the end of the day we do not bring about a desired change, it doesn't matter how clearly we saw the benefit of making that change.

that is not a good indicator. The points you mentioned; McGovern being talked down in churches, the patriotic theme, and the fundamentalists in the South, sound like the same play book that the Republicans used in 2004 and are using right now with their Pro Christmas offensive, their white flag commercials, and their praise for "patriots like Joe Lieberman who are willing to put the nation above politics".

Building a strong anti war movement is not the same as stopping the war, not if an anti anti war movement gains strength at the same time. I intentionally left opinions out of my OP to leave it open for people to respond with what they thought, rather than respond to what I thought. If anyone wants my opinions here they are:

We must keep playing "the blame game" about how we got into this mess. Some Democrats have already apologized for their actions regarding the build up to War in Iraq, and more still need to, but the main burden of blame rests squarely on the Bush Administration and their Republican allies in the media and Congress. The "How we got into Iraq" turf clearly slants in our favor and we would be very foolish to back off of it.

Second. It is fine to draw clear distinctions between the relatively advisability of different options in Iraq moving forward, but it is foolish to cast them in stark black and whites. The key swing middle block of Americans clearly see gray in the Iraq picture. If we present the argument as White vs. non White (or conversely as Black vs. non Black) then those who view grays are suddenly framed as "wrong", and that is never a good starting point for winning someone over to our side.

Third, we can not eat our own. In 1972 we won the battle for the Democratic Party but lost the war. Policies are implemented by governments. Even a literal Revolution changes the government in order to change the policies. The government that sets American policy toward Iraq sits in Washington, so our efforts must leverage power in Washington. Especially since no one is espousing the Goldwater movement route of completely changing a political party through grass roots action taken over decades as the best way to get us out of Iraq within months. Democrats are in a minority in Congress. We need to peel some Republicans away from Bush Administration positions and we need to elect more Democrats. Unless we do so Bush will continue to call the shots on Iraq, and we already know that Bush digs his heels in further when under attack.

Absolute unity is wonderful when it is arrived at organically, but it rarely is possible. Now, while we are out of power, is not the time to turn against Congressional Democrats and other Party leaders of generally good will, if the views they espouse on Iraq are clearly superior to the ones held by this Administration. Let the debate continue, but don't take our eye off the ball during the heat of passion. We must achieve the power to implement changes or those changes will not be implemented.

McGovern was talked down in churches in any organized way, The political Religious right didn't really get started until the late 70's/early 1980s.

I know what I said is true. I grew up in the churches here, and he is following me around saying I am not telling the truth. Getting tiresome.

Signing off, Tom, will discuss more later.

with fighting wars whether they are for legitimate reasons or not. Oddly though there seems to be a double standard. Repukes and wars = good. Dems and war = no biggie.

Gene McCarthy died today ... McCarthy inspired a generation when he spoke out against the Vietnam War ... "young people" had a candidate all their own ...

but the anti-Vietnam movement made some huge mistakes that i believe are still costing us today ...

the first huge mistake was that we confused being anti-war with being anti-troop ... those who either enlisted or were drafted (or enlisted because they knew they would be drafted) were called baby killers or worse ... and the generation of older Americans, many from the WWII generation, were turned off by our disrespect for the country's military institutions ...

and similarly, the protest movement migrated from one of specific objection to the war to one of generational confrontation and cultural revolution ... the music got more and more intense, the long hair and fashions reflected our alienation and were designed to alienate those not on the team, and the very roots of western American capitalism were being challenged by yippies and hippies and other assorted varieties of the breed ...

it was a truly remarkable, pre-revolution era ... there is nothing wrong with a new generation seeking to turn the world on its head and define its own system of values ... it is tragic that those energies have been absorbed into our mall culture ... too many boomers were never sincere about "the revolution" and i think that was reflected in the rapid collapse of the movement somewhere after the Kent State shootings ... it would be nice, not from a mushy nostalgia but rather to change the world, if those who once knew, or at least once saw a glimpse of what might have been, would commit themselves to rekindling their commitment to make real changes in this country ... don't hold your breath ... and the generations that followed have done little or nothing either ...

anyway, the main point i wanted to make about why the anti-Vietnam movement was not as effective as it should have been was that we saw ourselves as different from the mainstream ... we saw our mission as one where the more we alienated "the straight world", the better ... we were demanding our own identity and rejecting "the old values" ... looking back at TV shows like All in the Family gives a real insight to Nixon's "silent majority" ... those who had been solid Democrats and active union members were turned off by the culture of the "peaceniks" ... one of the Democratic Party's longterm core constituencies, the Archie Bunker Democrats, were coopted by Nixon's "peace with honor" into the "silent majority" ... all these Archies went on to become Reagan Democrats ...

the lesson for me was that the consciousness raising of generational rebellion, i.e. our long hair, our music our street protests and street theatre and our entire counter-culturalism, was not a politically effective tool because while it enlisted more of our generation, it failed to win the support of the broader society ... there are many good things to be said about cultural revolutionaries; they offer a vision of cultural alternatives and change ... but when that change has in its soul the alienation the mainstream, the political impact of that change is likely to be minimal ...

Starting all the way back with "Don't trust anyone over 30", that's about as literally divisive as you can get. There is so much that your post brings up. I appreciate that you touched on both the positive and negatives of cultural revolution, a big part of my personal biography is wrapped up in all that.

You are right about the mistake of blaming the troops personally for the war. Not all protesters did but enough did to have that image stick. The most damaging wedge issue of all to us, in my opinion, was the extent to which some Anti War protesters identified themselves with being Anti American. If one major political Party becomes identified with being proud to be American and the other becomes identified with being ashamed to be American (rightly or wrongly) it isn't hard to figure out which one gets an edge heading into an American national election. Those were the love it or leave it days, and some protesters played right into it with Amerikkka banners.

Another poster on this thread pointed out that the Christian card wasn't overtly played by Nixon, and if my memory is correct that is true. The morality card certainly was though. Benjamin Spock was the anti-Christ for the Right back then, and the "culture of permissiveness" became the enemy of self described patriots. Nixon ran against our opposition to him as much as if not more than he ran on the issues. Trail blazing stuff for Bush/Cheney to pick up on.

which jeered openly at the "Be clean for Gene" campaign.

And that Bobby Kennedy was loathed by many on the left, who derided him for not speaking out on the war, and then jeered that he had only done so because McCarthy made it "safe" for him to do so. He was seen by many as a sleazy opportunist riding the coatails of a more famous family member.

The "acid tests" applied were different then the ones that come up now, but many anti war activissts were quick to write off Democratic oppostiion leaders as not being untainted enough, for one or another reason. It put Nixon in the White House the first time in 1968, when many sat on their hands rather than support Humphrey.

the choice of whether to vote for the lesser of the evils versus choosing to not support candidates who oppose your views on the most critical issues should be respected (i'm not implying that you've said otherwise in your post above) ...

it's easy for the Party's right-wing bashers or Nader-haters (i didn't vote for him) to parrot the "you helped elect bush" meme ... but the counter-point is just as easily made ... by running candidates that don't offer real opposition on some key issues, the Party could just as easily be blamed for "electing bush" ... one view holds the third party voter responsible; the other view holds the Democratic Party responsible for not offering candidates with enough common ground to attract that third party voter ...

that's where i'm at today ... i'm not going to vote for Clinton, Clark, Kerry, Biden, Warner ... i have no idea whether i'll vote for a third party candidate ... maybe i'll just write-in a progressive Dem on my ballot ...

i think the Democratic Party is a mess right now ... we cannot allow the only Party voices to come from such a narrow spectrum ... it's time to let those from the Black Congressional Caucus and other progressive voices be heard ... and yet, it never seems to happen ... the current party structure is both elitest and repressive ... and don't think i'm "anti-Democrat" ... yes, i would love to have a real multi-party system in the US ... i think it would build a stronger country through the diversity of ideas it would enable ... but that's not today's reality ... so i see fighting for power within the Democratic Party as the only currently realistic source to power ... voting against the current party aristocracy is little more than a symbolic gesture ... it is not the stuff that movements for change are made of ... but it is nevertheless still important to respect the act of voting enough to not vote for candidates who don't represent your deeply held beliefs ...

the arguments against this are often very weak ... all the name-calling about being a "purest" is, of course, absurd ... not voting for a Democrat because you don't believe they represent you is hardly demanding "perfection" ... there is no indication made about whether i am, or am not, willing to compromise on some issues ... the truth is, i am ... my thinking is that it's the Party that has become inflexible ... my view is that the party has turned its back on the left ... so, some of us are truly left out in the cold ... we seek to remain Democrats, perhaps for pragmatic reasons only, but cannot see ourselves reflected in the Party's mirrors ... we hope for change; we work for change but we remain largely unrepresented ... even where change is not possible, at least we still own our own votes ...

I would never expect anyone to vote contrary to their most important beliefs. Sometimes it is a choice made anyway, to vote against one important belief on behalf of another important belief, but that's up to the individual to weigh. It's hard to define "purist". From my personal vantage point it seems obvious to me sometimes when another person is being too much of a purist. I think all of us can identify people who might fit that bill from our own perspective, but that doesn't mean we can all agree on who they are or why. I guess the bottom line for me is that it's good to ask ourselves from time to time; "Am I being too much of a purist on this?" I have some problems with people who think that's inherently a foolish question to ask, but I know that the answer is always personal.

For me the question about politics is usually, should I invest time money and energy in contesting elections? The two Party system forces so many compromises on us, while support of third parties often brings results contrary to our intentions. Voting is a simple enough act, but organizing on behalf of a candidate or Party is grueling when done effectively. The alternative for me is pure issues based organizing. But I decided after Bush's first election, once the direction of his Administration became clear, that the cabal that props him up must be taken down. In lieu of that, I am more open to some compromises perhaps than usual.

No one I knew blamed the troops. I knew MANY people since I was not only active against the war but also a rock and roll lead guitar player. I met a LOT of people AND NO ONE BLAMED THE TROOPS for the predicament they were in.

It's BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT and I'm sick and tired of seeing the same god-damn repuke lie repeated!!!!!

This is another bullshit repuke canard used by Nixon and his propaganda arm to tar the peace movement at the time. Just as bushco says, 'you're with us or against us.' Or Arnold with his f*ckin' "those are just the special interests".

Nixon's campaign (the Southern Strategy) was RACIST!!! Racist to the core. It was ALL White working class against Blacks!!! There was almost NO "religious" component to his campaigns...

You are right though, they tried to tar folks like Spock, etc. as the "problem" but it was a hard sell since nearly everyone used his child-rearing books.

i'm sure this was something Nixon spread around and got political mileage from ...

but i can tell you that i was very active in the anti-war movement and being anti-troop was a position i held back then and i found widespread in "the movement" ... i did draft counseling for CO's and strongly believed that people had a choice whether to fight in an illegal, immoral war or whether to resist the draft and resist the war ... the view was that if they chose to fight, we had every right to criticize them for their decision ...

fwiw, today, i am very supportive of the troops and of veterans' issues ...

because part of my family was DRAFTED and had to go. The fact that they were draftees put me in their corner.

Today, I'm against anyone joining the military. I know they're brainwashed and most don't have many other options but it's still a CHOICE -- the choice to murder others for f*ckin' gwbushco.

Not many hard core ones, I personally didn't know anyone who would spit at a soldier for example, but more were disapproving, especially if a returning soldier wasn't repentant about their involvement in an illegal war. Anti war vets were highly regarded by a lot of activists, but not apolitical or pro Viet Nam war ones. And of course the Right wing seized on any example they could find of soldiers being disrespected and hammered away at it, distorting it out of proportion.

You know I never witnessed an act of outright blatant over the top militant racism either, but that didn't mean it wasn't happening around me anyway, chances are I wouldn't be the one to see it if it did. A person can have many dozens of perfectly civil interactions but the ugly one will always stand out. Many Viet Nam Vets have stories to tell about being met with varying degrees of coldness or hostility when they returned to the States.

Nixon's Southern Strategy is infamous of course, but it doesn't explain why, in 1972, he won New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois, Connecticut, Oregon, and every other State except for Massachusetts. Even Mondale did better than McGovern that year. I'm open to hearing what posters who lived in the South remember about whether an appeal to Religion was part of Nixon's effort. I didn't notice it in New York. An appeal to Apple Pie and Motherhood sure as hell was part of Nixon/Agnew's effort though, as was the scapegoating of pointy headed intellectuals.

The direct attack on Spock met with only partial success, but the less focused attack on "permissiveness" was a much bigger winner for the Right in expanding their base. It linked with cliches about the "excesses of the 60's". The roots of the derogatory use of "Liberal from Massachusetts" go back to McGovern, not Kerry. Before McGovern Massachusetts was linked with JFK, a positive association for most of the American public.

For the record I strongly supported McGovern in 1972 (and still do). I don't blame McGovern. I was strongly against the Viet Nam war in 1972 and have no regrets about my long opposition to it. We were not as effective in stopping the war as I wish we could have been, and it would be foolish to not admit that the political Right was organizing also during the same period with a lot of success to show for their efforts. I think some lessons have been learned by the left from that period. Learning lessons is a good thing.

Why else did they tout the "silent majority"? It served a couple of images. It told them they were the majority of course, safety in numbers and the opposition is noisy and vocal but does not represent "America". It is still implied today, a major reason they are concerned by their declining poll numbers. As a veteran myself I was either treated with respect or indifference. In never experienced disrespect but there is even a sense of contempt of the military expressed by some on these boards yet today. I generally look on it as immaturity or a sort of personality disorder. Most thinking people understand the realities of life. I think that the conservatives actually learned the lessons of the times better than liberals. It is the point at which they established their take over of the media and as you point out , the war on permissiveness which has led to the fundamentalist religiosity that we see in politics today. They saw the mobilization of the civil rights and anti-war efforts of MLK in churches and adapted it. I don't think the liberal movement saw it coming or gave it much thought because of the ending of the Vietnam War and progress in social changes. It has been said that the improvements in the standard of living under the Clinton Presidency brought about complacency that allowed Bushco's rise. Of course, in the interim we had the perceived weakness of Carter opposed by the perceived strength of Reagan that did strengthen them and weaken us politically.

And churches were always part of our organizing base, from civil rights through anti-war through anti-poverty campaigns.

...helped uncover government corruption like Kerry? I know he was a military man. Didn't Nixon and Agnew smear McGovern's war record the same way Bush and Cheney smeared Kerry's during the campaign?

They didn't smear McGovern's war record specifically, they smeared his overall commitment to fighting for America.

Even with all the good explanations given on this thread for what happened, if I step back and look at it, it still is mind boggling. Seven or eight years into the Viet Nam War, with Nixon as Commander in Chief for four of those, after tens of thousands of American casualties, after continuing massive outpourings of opposition to that War; Nixon carried 49 States against a real Anti War Democrat. It is sobering.

Is any of this relevant to us now? Anyone have any other lessons they think we can draw from this? Anyone see any precursors to themes that may come up in the mid term elections, or themes that are already in play? You already got a few of my opinions.

i am somewhat wary about making comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq where politics are concerned ...

is it reasonable to ask whether an anti-war candidate got trounced and whether the Party should have learned a valuable lesson? sure it is ... but is the lesson that anti-war candidates will lose? that would be an absurd conclusion to draw unless many other factors were also considered ...

i'm not sure i can elaborate on all the differences between Nixon-McGovern in 1972 and a republican running against an anti-war Democrat in 2008 ... Democrats controlled Congress in 1972 (i think) ... today, we've been out of power for a long time ... the American people are ready for a change ... in 1972, the boomer generation was young, emerging and hopeful ... today, i think many Americans are very worried about whether our country can survive ... i think they see a US that is declining in the world ... i think the soul of America is dying ... Bob Dylan wrote the line: "he not busy being born is busy dying" ... i think that is an increasingly common, and accurate, view of America ...

i guess my main feeling is that the best policy makes the best politics ... with an understanding that we may never form a unified vision on Iraq, the Party should, nevertheless, choose what it believes is the best policy for the country and then make sure Americans understand not just where we stand by why we stand there ... ultimately, i suppose i'm not really engaging your question at all ... in answer to your question "is this relevant now?", my main answer is that, while the past is always worthy of study, i don't think 1972 is all that relevant to 2008 ...

I never thought for an instant that a lesson could be drawn from 1972 not to run an anti war candidate during a time of war if we want to win an election. I was thinking much more of how issues of war and peace got and still get framed in the public debate, and how and when we close ranks with those of differing but still somewhat compatible view points. I was also thinking more about us, literally us; people using DU who are not candidates ourselves, and how our actions effect how the opposition is or isn't able to frame issues to their advantage against Democratic candidates who we would like to support. It is in those ways that I think 1972 is possibly relevant to 2008.

I am a veteran of the McGovern Campaign who was adamantly opposed to the Vietnam War but convinced as you are that results matter. Sadly Nixon proved the point to the nth degree. Democrats did get saddled with all of the excesses of the anti war movement and we have been an easy target ever since. A large part of the reason that the anti war movement developed such self destructive tendencies was that none of the Liberal politicians grasped how harmful the war was until Gene mcCarthy stepped forward. So even though I consider myself a pragmatic Democrat and I understand why an Evan Bayh and Bill Nelson have to take moderate positions, I am extremely disappointed that our leaders with Liberal constituencies timidly stand there with a finger in the wind trying to be in a position in '08 to say they were right no matter how things eventually turn out. Unless the Democratic Liberal Presidential hopefuls start talking like Jack Murtha we will be easily caricatured as flip floppers ala Kerry. But more importantly a large portion of the nation will lose faith in the electoral system because of the over supply of leaders who will not lead.
As Murtha has said, the country is way ahead of DC at this point . People need someone to speak plainly about why this misbegotten adventure in Iraq is morally indefensible and militarily unwinnable.
As I said I am a pragmatic Liberal and I will vote for the Democratic nominee whoever he or she is. I believe that is the only way to rescue our country from the cesspool of corruption and fascistic tendencies that is the hallmark of today's Republican party. But in the Primaries, I will not vote for , work for or contribute to any Democrat that is not for finding a way to get out of Iraq now.

""Nixon sought détente with the Soviet Union through the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) negotiations, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), and negotiations on the European flash point, Berlin. He sought to open a dialogue with the rulers of mainland China, in part to reduce their support to their supposed clients in North Vietnam and in part to act as a strategic counterweight to the Soviet Union. All of these efforts were secrets from everybody in the government, except for Kissinger and his closest staff. Through Yeoman Radford's efforts, Admiral Moorer knew them all and, by his own account, he didn't like any of it. The Chief of Naval Operations since July 1970, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, virtually accused Nixon of treason in his book. Leaks of NSC plans and policies to New York Times reporter William Beecher seem to have dropped dramatically after the closing of the JCS liaison office. The military did not like Nixon's policies and may well have played an active role in his fall from power.""


Nixon's original 'October surprise' of 1968-69 in shutting down impending LBJ/Humphrey peace agreement with Hanoi didn't get him ousted, but as the book Blind Man's Bluff and the above weblink imply, Adm Zumwalt and a host of other naval high-rankers plus those in intelligence at CIA, would have loved to get Nixon and Dr K out after the SALT talks gifted the Russians with a whole Delta class of subs...

In 1972 the "silent majority" that put Nixon back in office were folks who had lived through World War II. My father never served in that war but my parents thought war was wonderful and for a good cause. They thought our government was always right. They lived through World War II when the country united for war. To not unite behind the war was unthinkable.

That generation is dead. The folks that are in their 50s and 60s today are of the Viet Nam era. That is our war. The "silent majority" today remembers Nixon impeachment, the Bay of Tonkin incident, the bombing of Cambodia, etc. Even people who never read the newspaper and have no interest in politics do not really trust the government.

I think people will wake up when it becomes apparent that America is not going to rebuild a major city in this country. We don't have the money because of the war. The "silent majority" started taking notice during Katrina that things aren't right with the government.

Also, if you will notice Bush popularity is following the price of gas at the pump. And gas is headed back up, so his popularity is headed back down.

Don't sell today's "silent majority" short. They are busy, self absorbed and uninformed. The vast majority were not part of the anti-war movement of the 60s. But they were in tune with it. That was their generation.

I really think the Republicans, and many middle of the road Democrats, are playing to a crowd that isn't here any more. I think todays "silent majority" are ready for a strong McGovern type leader with some original ideas to save this country. I live in Texas and everyone around me (all republicans) think something has to change.

I do think that the difference in generations is a net favorable comparison for us, but a whole lot of "Young Republican" clubs sprung up on campuses toward the end of the Viet Nam War also. It was also the Newt Gingich, Rush Limbaugh, Trent Lott and Dick Cheney generation, and a lot of Republicans have been elected since Nixon.

There certainly are issues working in our favor today, no doubt about it. We can win on our platform, but I would not get cocky about it.

As you noted the polls are more closely tied to gas prices and the realization that the government is not going to be there for regular people. You are probably correct in your analysis of Nixon's silent majority, but the Vietnam generation is split as we saw with the swiftboating. I would guess Rove had polls showing him that there was enough of the original silent majority (regular real voters) and people bothered by the Vietnam loss to ensure him a hefty percentage of votes. But, as you point out, polls show people want a change from Bush. Those same polls don't support Kerry either, however. If the GOP puts up a McCain or Giuliani, we could still have a problem.

makes even less sense....since most Americans are not feeling anything but vague moral discomfort with the war. The emphasis should be on other issues, if your analysis holds true.

They have to be to survive. They don't follow politics or read the newspaper. They don't have time. They worry about their jobs going off shore, the price of filling their car with gas, how to ever retire, and what will happen if they need medical care.

In 1972 people had secure employment. They looked forward to a nice retirement with a company pension. It didn't cost much for medical care if you had an emergency and didn't have insurance. They turned on their TV and saw nice family shows. The price of gas was not a problem. They could put their kids thru college. That was a different world, and it is gone with the wind.

Sure, lots of people joined republican clubs in college. Sure, lots of people listen to Rush Limbaugh. Sure, there is loud and vocal bunch of hard core extremists that vote republican. But even in red neck country, these people are growing tired of defending torture, Katrina, corruption in congress, give aways to the rich, and the price of gas. This bunch of extremists are smaller in number than people realize. They certainly aren't the majority, or anywhere near the majority.

People are looking for change. People are looking for hope. If the democrats come up with a strong leader that will speak the truth (like Dean or someone like him) and talk about the failures of * administration, the people will vote for him.

IF the GOP puts up McCain or Giuliani they will spend all their time defending republican failed policies (including this insane war)if the democrats are smart and get in touch with the concerns of the public.

The real problem the democrats face are the voting machines.

my computer is not compatible with the name Nixon. It just crashes.

I remember following it closely. Yeah, the charges were about covering up the burglary, but people were SUPREMELY pissed at Nixon for saying he had a 'secret plan' to end the war and then escalated it.

The real reason he was unpopular and the target for so much vitriol which led to his impeachment was Viet Nam.

So, go right ahead, dems....be warmongers and see how that works out for ya.

He was reelected in 1972. He was almost impeached and resigned in 1974.