George McGovern’s legacy and why it’s important in 2004

Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post’s media critic, was commenting this morning that the debate over the war in Iraq had a little bit of something for everyone: multilateralists vs. unilateralists, military vs. media, Defense Department vs. State Dept., and so on.

When Kurtz, who tends to lean Republican, mentioned what was in the debate for the GOP, he said, “The GOPers want to paint the Dems as the party of Howard Dean, weak on national defense, compared to a Republican president who has now whipped two despotic regimes.”

It was an off-hand remark about a broader argument, but I think Kurtz was saying something important by concluding that Republicans want to portray Democrats “as the party of Howard Dean.” Kurtz inadvertently was explaining how Dean’s significance in the race has grown to new (and different) levels. Whereas Dean was once a small-state governor and former doctor running on a health-care platform, Dean is now widely recognized as the “anti-war candidate,” or as Kurtz equated, “weak on national defense.”

In other words, for Kurtz and many others, Howard Dean is George McGovern.

This is not good news for Democrats, opponents of the war, and most of all, Dean’s supporters. To be likened to McGovern is, unfortunately, to be associated with losing. McGovern, a decent, honorable Senator from South Dakota, ran largely as the anti-Vietnam candidate in 1972. His candidacy excited many young people, particularly on college campuses, and enjoyed a grassroots network of committed liberals. His campaign lacked big money, but he made up for it by having a base of dedicated activists and loyal volunteers. While other Dem candidates that year expressed concern about the fighting in Vietnam, McGovern inspired followers to his campaign by constantly challenging his primary opponents for not opposing Vietnam enough.

Starting to sound familiar?

McGovern, after winning the Democratic nomination, lost in what was arguably the biggest blowout in presidential election history to Richard Nixon. McGovern won only one state (Massachusetts) and was one of only two candidates to lose his home state in the last 40 years (Al Gore was the other). Nixon, in the ’72 race, became one of only four candidates in U.S. history to top 60% of the popular vote (even Reagan, in his landslide defeat of Mondale in ’84, couldn’t reach that plateau).

More importantly, McGovern’s campaign had an unfortunate symbolic legacy. Democrats quickly became synonymous with being weak on national defense, hesitant to use force, and untrustworthy when it comes to military power.

I would argue that Clinton helped restore some of the party’s reputation with a series of foreign policy victories and successful military operations, but countless polls still continue to show that the GOP maintains huge leads over Democrats when the public is asked which party they trust to lead the military and maintain America’s place as a world superpower.

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, many Americans are understandably concerned about these issues again. If the end of the Cold War put national defense on the backburner temporarily, Osama bin Laden put it back on the front burner again.

The Democratic Party sincerely has to consider whether it runs the risk of slipping back into a McGovernite model. I’ve explained on more than one occasion why I have not and do not support the war in Iraq, but I’d like to see the party become one of “Tough Doves” in specific, not anti-war doves in general.

David Yespin, an influential columnist for the Des Moines Register, addressed this issue today in a must-read article about John Edwards’ determination to avoid “McGovernism.”

As Yespin explains brilliantly, “McGovernism sets up a lose-lose proposition for the party: If an anti-war candidate wins the nomination, that nominee winds up too far to the left to be acceptable to the vast majority of American voters in the center. But if a candidate from the center wins the nomination, the lefties sit on their hands, don’t vote, cry in their lattes or defect to some fringe party. Either way, Republicans win.”

Yespin’s column was focused on Edwards and his desire to keep the party away from such a disaster. The North Carolina Senator was in Iowa over the weekend for a town-hall meeting with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to discuss a wide range of issues.

When Edwards told a Democratic state convention audience in California last month that he supports the war in Iraq, they booed him, almost relentlessly. Nevertheless, when addressing a pretty liberal crowd in Iowa, Edwards went ahead and tried the message again.

“You need to know several things and you need to hear it direct from me,” Edwards said. “I believe in this cause. I believe we are doing the right thing in Iraq. I know there are a lot of you who will disagree with that. I believe it is the right and just thing to do. I support what we’re doing there, unequivocally. You should know that. Not only do I support the troops, I support the policy.” Instead of boos, Edwards heard some polite applause.

For Yespin, Edwards’ convictions and courage to explain them “indicates he’s found a political vaccine to combat McGovernism: straight talk about support for the war and a healthy dose of political reality.”

I still have some reservations about Edwards, but Yespin’s point is well said and important. Democrats have a long primary schedule ahead and a variety of candidates and agendas to choose from. I think we’d be wise to keep the election of 1972 and the lessons of George McGovern in mind as the race unfolds.