Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLesson of '72: Compromise on War Plank
Now that the Obama-Clinton battle is over, the Democrats face another fight that could split the party. Over the summer, their 186-member Platform Committee will have to write a plank on the war in Iraq. And the convention in Denver will have to ratify it.
The lines are already being drawn. "On the issues of Iraq and foreign policy, Democrats can't be vague or fuzzy," says a contingent of progressive party leaders. They call for a clear forthright plank that demands "an end to the war in Iraq by initiating the safe and secure withdrawal of all US combat forces, leaving no permanent military bases behind."
Peace activists who know the Iraq issue well will not be sure whether to laugh or cry. Not vague or fuzzy? This is precisely the kind of vague coded language that Dems have been using for many months now to avoid a clear, forthright call to end the war now.
Removing all "combat" forces will still leave tens of thousands of U.S. troops and many thousands of private security contractors in Iraq. They will be stationed on bases that could be there for decades without formally being called "permanent."
That huge contingent of "non-combat" forces on "long-term" or "enduring" bases would be a recipe for continued war, a lightning rod for the growing number of Iraqis who want to see all U.S. forces leave their country immediately -- which is just what real peace activists want, too. The argument for a genuinely antiwar position -- "bring 'em all home now, soldiers and contractors alike" -- is compelling.
Nevertheless, even knowing all this, peace activists would be wise to support the emerging progressive plank and accept even milder language, if that's what it takes to hold the party together and get Obama elected.
Just remember what happened in 1972, when genuinely antiwar forces took control of the party and nominated Senator George McGovern. Richard Nixon won re-election in a landslide.
Democrats and peace activists have yet to fully understand the real lesson of '72: For millions of voters, war is not a policy problem to be solved by analytical reasoning. It's a cultural symbol that stirs powerful passions. A more cautious war position, one that respects the power of symbolism, could be the Democrats' ticket to victory in November.
Todays' advocates of a strong antiwar plank insist that in 1972 most voters were ready to accept a staunch antiwar program. McGovern lost, they argue, because of a host of factors largely unrelated to the war. But their own arguments reveal the crucial role that cultural symbolism played in McGovern's defeat.
Some blame that defeat on intra-party warfare. Though by November, 1972, George Wallace had been shot and removed from the race, many of his supporters deserted the Democrats. Though Hubert Humphrey belatedly adopted an antiwar stance, in the primaries he charged that McGovern was too weak to stand up to America's enemies. After McGovern won the nomination, many Humphrey supporters deserted the campaign (especially in the then-powerful labor unions).
Others argue that even if the party had been united, McGovern would have suffered from two fatal deficits. He chose Thomas Eagleton as his running mate but quickly dropped him when Eagleton's history of depression was disclosed. And he could never overcome the oft-repeated Republican charge that he stood for "acid, amnesty, and abortion." It was the emerging culture war, some Dems say, that led so many who opposed the Vietnam war to vote against the antiwar candidate in1972.
But, in fact, such large numbers of white Southerners, labor union members, and moderate Democrats defected mainly because they drew a direct connection between the culture war and Vietnam. Even many who opposed the Vietnam war heard McGovern's harsh attacks on U.S. policy as attacks on the nation, its troops, and its cherished values.
It made perfect sense to them that "amnesty" for draft avoiders was sandwiched between "acid" and "abortion." They could not separate noisy antiwar sentiment from all the other images of radicalism that had filled the media for the preceding five years, making it seem as if the United States was falling apart. The Eagleton affair merely confirmed their image that the Democrats were the party of disarray and personal weakness.
Nixon successfully presented himself as a bulwark against cultural catastrophe. He promised to withdraw U.S. troops gradually and bring peace while preserving American honor. For millions of voters, "honor" was a code word for keeping the nation's moorings in familiar cultural traditions of the past. They voted for Nixon as a symbolic way of resisting a tide of change that they saw as far too rapid and radical.
Millions of voters still worry about that tide. Few list abortion, the drug war, or other social issues as their highest political priority. The Iraq war has now become a main symbolic battleground for the broader debate between clinging to and crossing, or even erasing, traditional cultural boundary lines. In some sense, we're still stuck in 1972. The debate about Iraq is, to a large extent, another chapter in the ongoing cultural battle about Vietnam and "the '60s."
That's what gives John McCain hope. He wants to take the electorate back to 1972, when he was still suffering in a North Vietnamese prison. He hopes that image will send a clear message: His patriotic wartime fortitude proves he will always hold a firm line against the nation's enemies, at home as well as abroad, and "never surrender."
On the other hand, Barack Obama symbolizes the breaking of America's historically strongest taboo: crossing the once-rigid boundary line between the races. His emphasis on national unity and the very color of his skin send that message of radical change to many voters.
Crossing boundaries and breaking taboos was just what the '60s counterculture was all about. In 1972, Republicans portrayed that as the ultimate danger of a McGovern victory, and they won resoundingly. It could happen again this year, despite the growing opposition to the war.
A McCain victory would take the wind out of the peace movement's sails and relegate it to the margins of American political life for at least four (and maybe eight) years. An Obama victory would create momentum toward the left and open up a possibility for the peace movement to have growing influence (as well as opening the doors of at least lower level staffers in the White House to peace activists).
To take advantage of an Obama victory, though, peace activists would have to accept a hard fact: We have not learned how to frame our message in ways that speak to the cultural hopes and fears of a majority of the voters. Until we learn how to do that, we cannot hope to capitalize on an Obama victory to really build our power. And we should not try to saddle Obama with a war plank that could split the Democrats and help put a Republican in the White House.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. This is an expanded version of a column distributed by History News Service.
30 Comments so far
Show AllI agree with the other commentators that the historical comparison to 1972 is weak, not much in common with those days whatsoever.
I will, however, note a couple of major differences that others have failed to mention: 1) peak oil; and 2) the consolidation and right-wing drift of the corporate media.
In my view, the war in Iraq was a staged affair to attempt to grab oil territories, to bring the last great oil fields under US military control. Oil is the source of both energy and value for the empire. Anyone noticing the first ripples of $4/gallon gas can easily extrapolate what it might mean when world oil production has plateaued since 2005... so far so good! Just wait until we get on the DOWNSIDE of that curve with Chinese and Indian demand continuing to rise rapidly. Any analysis of our global political situation that ignores energy and its meaning is naive and missing the core issue that took the US military to Iraq and planted it there like the flag on the moon.
Those bases aren't going anywhere. Not without a revolution that puts the likes of Cheney, Pelosi, and Murdoch behind bars.
The problem, of course, is that all public discourse is primarily scripted by Murdoch and Co. Democracy, always a weak plank in this country's platform, has been eroded by corporate power. It will take a great uprising to set things on a course of peace, justice, and sustainability.
I suspect that the electoral process is secondary to any real change, but it may get people moving, talking, acting in ways that bring them into a non-scripted discourse.
This essay is not convincing because it's not like '72 at all now. The only common thread is an unpopular war, but there isn't this cultural fervent that Chernus says brought people to vote for Nixon. Actually, Nixon lied to the people, saying he'd bring peace - with honor. Instead, Nixon escalated the Vietnam war.
The idea that we should vote for Obama, who is vague about withdrawing the troops - even though the majority of American people favor withdrawing the troops - doesn't make sense. McCain has no advantage in this respect because he openly favors an unpopular war.
Chernus' analogy here is very superficial. He is deceived by Obama, who has since adopted many positions of the right after getting the nomination. Obama is more like Bill Clinton than anyone from the campaign of '72.
As far as framing the message, the peace movement has been cut out of the debate. You can't frame a message if the corporate press doesn't even cover your demonstration.
"peace activists...have not learned how to frame our message in ways that speak to the cultural hopes and fears of a majority of the voters."
Mr. Chernus conflates two issues: on the one hand, there is the question of whether most voters are simply too right wing to accept a clear and simple anti-war message; on the other, there is the question of whether the culture of antiwar activism alienates some people.
I would guess it's more the first - if the antiwar message doesn't resonate with a greater electorate, it's not because it's "framed" in ways that alienate people, but because 1/4 of the population is right wing, 1/4 is mildly liberal, and 1/2 is passive, ignorant, and disengaged.
Effective communication is not a question of "framing" a message better to a minority, but of building concrete relationships with a politically alienated electorate, that would make communication possible.
Chernus sez: "We have not learned how to frame our message in ways that speak to the cultural hopes and fears of a majority of the voters."
Maybe we could stop framing this imperial occupation as a "war".
"Just remember what happened in 1972, when GENUINELY ANTIWAR fORCES took control of the party and nominated Senator George McGovern. Richard Nixon won re-election in a landslide."
Therefore, we must be very careful to nominate a candidate who is only superficially antiwar,not genuinely antiwar, so that we can make sure he will end the war.
We didn't invest billions (trillions?) of dollars and build the largest embassy in world history to just leave it and come home did we? LOL Obama won't change this....
I think what Chernus is trying to say is the Democratic Party in general, and Obama in particular, have to balance too many demographics. If they don't walk that high wire carefully, and lose key demographics, the odds of losing the general election go up.
We can't afford that.
I expect duplicity during a campaign. That's the nature of the beast. Bush played it well enough to get close enough to steal the election.
The democrats have to finesse elections to get to the point where they can stat nudging things back to sanity.
The urge to instant gratification results in disaster. If we're going to start dragging the political center back left where is used to be, will take patience and planning.
The conservatives took years to do the damage. It will take years to fix. Maybe Obama's the man. Maybe he's not.
But, and this is the important part, it's up to us. Getting the Repubs out is the easy part. The hard work comes afterwards and that means staying involved.
Michael Chavers June 11th, 2008 1:42 pm
Well said!
Words Are Important June 11th, 2008 2:04 pm
Lies are the only similarity between Viet Nam and Iraq. And don't forget we were engaged in Viet Nam before the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident.
Would it be possible for some of you to make your points with a bit mor civility and a little less profanity. A good argument like a good joke doesn't need it. Thanks.
elmysterio June 11th, 2008 3:41 pm
Ok… as much as I enjoy prof. Chernus' writings, this article is the same-old-crap they trot out every election… "Don't be pro-peace Democrats… Remember what happened in '72″.
Now what did happen in '72? Well, the US population proved itself to be completely stupid and fell for the right-wing lies and fear-mongering. And what did you end up with? The crook Nixon. Nice job America! So here we are in 2008 and up comes the spectre of '72 again… Give me a break! If the US population is going to fall for the SAME shit all over again, then 'America' really is stupid.
Boy, damn I know what happenedin '72 but do YOU KNOW what happened in '73 regardless of fucknut Tricky Dick?
Winter Soldier '73, testimony by VVAW of those that gave testimony were John Kerry and Bill Perry my Chapter Prez. They broke open Mi Lai Massacre and all of the lies. Now tell me when did we withdraw ALL troops from Vietnam? 1973.
lizard June 11th, 2008 6:36 pm
War is a cultural symbol that stirs passion….. Isn't that a much nicer way to say that Americans are war lovers? Bloodthirsty? Lacking in compassion for others? Self-centered and only interested in what is good for them regardless of what it does to others? Deluded? There is no shortage of other words to use.
You indeed have zero knowledge of the reality of this Occupation NOW in Iraq. You tend to generalize, you ALWAYS say "Americans Are...." , lizard man NO ALL AMERICANS are not blood thirsty 89% are saying Fuck You BUSH, IMPEACH!
Prof Chernus
Is electing Obama a means to and end or an end in itself as far as you are concerned?
Discuss and give examples.
This is not 1972.
Opposition to the war in Iraq is a different beast. The politics associated with it, the association to freak power is different.
So with that in mind, please start over again and write a new essay with new analysis.
thanks
God bless you, Ira. Now, how about a piece on the need for Obama to choose Clinton as his V.P. Perhaps one day Air Force One will go down in a "snowstorm" and a man we knew little or nothing about who was picked to "balance the ticket" (a closet right to lifer?) will succeed to the office of President to the World, and we'll all rue the day that Senator Obama did not stand up to his Hillary hating supporters and do in his heart what he knew to be the right thing by choosing her as his running mate — no, I'm not playing the 'assassination card', and Sen. Clinton wasn't either — she's a realist — they don't call it the USKKKofA for nothing, and it didn't start at Trinith United, the largest UCC congregation in the world — does anyone know what percentage of American presidents have been assassinated or the victim of an attempted assination? If you believe this statistic is relevant, I recommend the following on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidential_assassination_attempts
An Obama victory would do little or nothing to change the course of the war.
Both Obama and McCain (and Bush) all have rather similar plans for Iraq. All talk about withdrawing some US troops from Iraq. All talk about leaving significant US troops in Iraq. None have in any way opposed the massive US embassy, and none are talking about closing all the bases in Iraq (regardless of the semantics about them being permanent).
So, the differences in policy amount to ....
-- the timing of the start of the drawdown of US troop strength and the speed at which is happens.
-- there might be some slight difference in the final troop levels they'd draw down to.
The fantasy in this piece is that having Obama in the White House is in any way better for 'anti-war activists' than McCain. There's always this vague talk that Obama could be pressured or that the anti-war movement could better make its case to Obama. But I see no real-world manifestations of this.
To analyse this question, ask yourself this. Has the anti-war movement been able to 'pressure ' the Democratic leadership on the Iraq war\occupation since it won the majority in Congress in 2006? I think the answer is a firm no. The Dem leadership has pretty much ignored the antiwar movement and followed its own policies that extend and continue the war.
Sure, we've seen some political theater type of actions. Non-binding resolutions. Votes on bills that everyone knew would be vetoed or filibustered, and thus meaningless. But, the Democrats have steadfastly refused to take the actions the Constitution and Senate rules give them that could effectively stop the war. That is their ability to control the funding and block it with a filibuster.
How effective has the anti-war movement been in 'pressuring' the Dem leadership on the war? Lets review the tape. Does anyone remember this moment when a military mom tried to talk to committee chairperson Obey about war funding? This is certainly an attempt by antiwar activists to influence policy. By the premise of this article, the Dem committee chair should be much more receptive to hearing this discussion than the previous Republican chair would have been. Note when watching the tape that this conversation occurs in the hallways of Congress simply because the Democrats refused any formal meetings in their offices on this issue. So, in analysing how effective this pressure is, noting that the anti-war activists can't even get an appointment to talk and has to track down Dem leaders in the halls of Congress is the first data point.
Roll tape ... http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/19392
Now, one thing to remember is that Obama in the White House will not even be available to this sort of method. He'll be so isolated from the people that there's no chance to just intercept him in the hallways and talk. You'd have to get an appointment, and the odds of an antiwar activist getting that appointment seem very long to me.
All Dems have to do is give the power to the people. The rest will take care of itself.
"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
David Rockefeller - Statement to the United Nations Business Council, 1994
A person ought to do what he thinks everyone should do. If you want everybody to litter then go ahead and litter, but don't litter because you are counting on others not to. Whatever you do, you should think as if everyone would do it ,and ,if that would be good, then do it. What kind of a country would it be if everybody voted Nader? Obama? McCain?
If you don't get your choice, then you are out of step with the people. You must change, or wait for them to do so. Fix yourself first, and when you have achieved perfection you can then tell others what to do.
War is a cultural symbol that stirs passion..... Isn't that a much nicer way to say that Americans are war lovers? Bloodthirsty? Lacking in compassion for others? Self-centered and only interested in what is good for them regardless of what it does to others? Deluded? There is no shortage of other words to use.
The definition of insanity is quoting over and over the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
So I ain't a-gwine to say it.
Professor Chernus,
Let's assume that the children are watching and listening to what we say, and what we compromise on. Illegal invasion and occupation, a million Iraqi deaths, mostly children? Compromise on that!?
You learn to frame and communicate your message by having one in the first place, and then sticking to it because it's right. You don't let politicians lead you around by the nose, telling you what you can and can't do. Did you forget that, Professor Chernus? They work for us! So instead of already thinking about compromises, why not think the other direction. How about some good old fashion DEMANDS! We'll show them just where the line is. It's not right to give in to a group who wants to continue to kill Iraqis who resist the the brutal occupation of their country. When killing is going on, taking over a country brutally, illegally, we don't compromise. Maybe Ira does, I don't know him.
This time the momentum will not be broken, because we know, when we equivocate, we lose energy. Had progressives stuck to their demands, they wouldn't have stopped protesting in order to elect John Kerry, the "find the terrorists and kill them" candidate that progressives got behind. I felt like I had to take a shower and scrub the irony off, after seeing my good progressive friends put up their yard signs, "Vote Kerry!" Yeah, he said he'd find the terrorists and kill them. No problem.
Ralph Nader is one of the very few who understands this. It is we, the people, along with our anti-war message, that have the upper hand here. We're in the majority so why are you advocating compromise that would keep troops in Iraq. We should be sitting down in the streets and refusing to leave, not talking about compromising with killers! Somehow, Ira doesn't think of them as killers, maybe he is friends with some compromising Dems and knows them to be "Good Americans."
If someone was beating his children bloody? He'll not want to stop, so you say, "ok, you can keep beating them, but we want you to wear gloves, and we want the beatings restricted to weekends only - pretty please." There you go Ira! Is that what you'd advocate? Or are Iraqis somehow lessor beings, undeserving of protection from a brutal empire who seeks to control them?
With Ira's logic, soon we could be supporting Democrats who chop people's legs off because the only other "choice" we have is a party who will not only chop off people's legs but the arms too. Where does Ira draw the line? Wherever it is, he had better draw it soon, otherwise, it will be drawn for him and I don't think he'll like where it ends up.
Vote your heart out! Vote Nader, or McKinney, or for whomever shares your philosophy for a better world. And then stick to it! YES WE CAN!
Ira Chernus says in 1972 Richard Nixon successfully "promised to withdraw US troops gradually and bring peace while preserving American honor." Prof. Chernus comes very close to capturing the dynamic of the '72 election campaign, but doesn't entirely nail it.
Every promise of peace with honor was followed up by a GOP reference to the delicate, ongoing, super-secret Paris peace negotiations with North Vietnam, where Henry Kissinger was laboring with painstaking brilliance to get the final concessions into place. Sorry, we obviously can't share the classified details with you but trust us, peace is indeed at hand.
This narrative then segued into a reminder that the only thing that could upset the peace negotiations would be a rocking of the boat at this fragile historical moment. If the American electorate did anything stupid like electing that peacenik McGovern guy, who was instead intending to give away the whole store just while the enemy was about to come to terms, it would be a self-defeating stab in the back. So trust us. Stay the course, and give peace with honor a chance.
This sick, false narrative had enormous appeal to disaffected Humphrey-supporter Dems and independent voters. The GOP thus framed the '72 election as a choice between peace with honor versus peace at any cost, responsible statesmenship versus appeasing the long haired rabble in the streets. They didn't call him Tricky Dick for nothing.
Today, the peace wing of the Democratic Party is not freighted up with frightening wider cultural issues, and there is no believable claim of forseeable light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq. The 2008 dynamic is starkly different than 1972. John McCain has already painted himself and the Republican Party into a corner with his promise of five, or fifty, or even a hundred more years of warfare in Iraq.
The choice now is between withdrawing US troops from their misguided mission responsibly and as quickly as possible, or else leaving our military stuck there in the crossfire indefinitely, hostage to whatever the fates next have in store for the Middle East.
Given that configuration, I'm satisfied with the proposed antiwar platform language for the Dems. This fall it's a going to be a real referendum about endless militarism abroad, rather than a fake charade like it was in 1972.
Bill from Saginaw
Ok... as much as I enjoy prof. Chernus' writings, this article is the same-old-crap they trot out every election... "Don't be pro-peace Democrats... Remember what happened in '72".
Now what did happen in '72? Well, the US population proved itself to be completely stupid and fell for the right-wing lies and fear-mongering. And what did you end up with? The crook Nixon. Nice job America! So here we are in 2008 and up comes the spectre of '72 again... Give me a break! If the US population is going to fall for the SAME shit all over again, then 'America' really is stupid.
Ok... as much as I enjoy prof. Chernus' writings, this article is the same-old-crap they trot out every election... "Don't be pro-peace Democrats... Remember what happened in '72".
Now what did happen in '72? Well, the US population proved itself to be completely stupid and fell for the right-wing lies and fear-mongering. And what did you end up with? The crook Nixon. Nice job America! So here we are in 2008 and up comes the spectre of '72 again... Give me a break! If the US population is going to fall for the SAME shit all over again, then 'America' really is stupid.
Hasn't Chernus and other Democrats learned ANYTHING from the past two pathetic democratic prsidential candidates?
The Democrats can waffle to the right all thay want, winking the "don't worry; I'm just moving to the right to get elected" wink at the left wing of the party - forgetting that the republicans can see the winking too.
So, partly because of the above and partly because it is good strategy, the republicans are going to red-radical bait the Democrats REGARDLSS how far to the right the spineless democrats waffle. Its worked like a charm since McGovern.
Why can't the democrats see this??? I'm a socially retarded Aspergers adult and I can see it!
The democrats have it completely backward! How can their obvious attempts to look like "lite" version of their opponent lead anyone to vote for anyone but the genuine article - their opponent.
Of course, it is absurd that Democrats could actually be this stupid, so the actual cause lies elsewhere - the cause being that the democrats have never had any intention whatsoever of adopting a genuinely progressive-left agenda.
We should not be suprised. The problem is global. The British and Australian "Labour" Parties, the Canadian Liberal party (and even the NDP to their left), the Brazilian Workers Party and dozens of "Socialist" parties from Chile to Finland have become little more than exclusive clubs for free-market fundamentalists.
Prof. Chernus is exactly right. The language of the Progressive's anti-war plank is coded so that it doesn't drive off the moderate voters. And you could posit a worst case scenario that has Obama weasling the words to say that long term temporary bases are not permanent bases, et cetera, but it's more likely to work out the other way around. The majority of the people believe that war is wrong and must be ended, but they don't agree on how and how fast. By declaring that all American personel will be out of Iraq by February is a) not technically feasible and b) would please the million or so strongly anti-war crowd, us, but would appear to many more people as being too sudden. And the McCaindroids would twist it into "Obama declares defeat", "he's a Muslim Mole", "He'll install Sharia Law".
pattmarty, yes, it's a different time, but many of the same conditions are present, some even amplified and many of the same actors and their decendants, are involved, many of the lessons of that era apply, especially the ones that society as a whole didn't learn. And ignoring what we learned so painfully is folly.
Words Are Important June 11th, 2008 2:04 pm ...Absolutely...The only other person I trust as much as Nader is Kucinich...Vote your conscience...VOTE NADER....The Democorps have had their chance and have blown it BIG TIME VIA PELOSI.....
Sigh.
If the American people are as colossally stupid now as they were in 1972 about the war(s) then this country deserves John McCain and whatever shit it has to eat from that point on. If the Democrats don't have the moral cojones to put a strong anti-war plank in the platform we might as well hang it up - it's over. This country will never be civilized.
The reason why the Iraq war is compared to Vietnam War is that both illeagal and immoral wars were based on lies. The Vietnam was with the manufactured Gulf of Tonkin incident and Iraq with September 11.
There was a poll last year and over 50% of the soldiers in Iraq thought that there was some connection between Saddam and September 11. That is good propaganda at work.
And now our 'progressive' voices are telling us that the way to not get anothe Nixon elected is to support republican light Obama. Bullshit.
Frederic Douglas understood it perfectly when he wrote the following.
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress," declared Frederick Douglass in 1857, in response to those who suggested that the great abolitionist was pushing too hard for an end to human bondage. "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
Unless Obama will make clear deliberate statements on ending the war, ending corporate domination, bringing universal health care, he will not get my vote. I'm speaking only for myself, and don't give me that line about, "you're throwing away your vote." People who support the current political process are throwing away the lives of the next 7 generations.
Ralph Nader (or green party) for president, Cindy Sheehan for congress.
IMPEACH BUSH NOW, call your congress person.
mcgovern lost in part because the pro-war Ds like hubert humphrey and scoop jackson disowned him rather than admit that vietnam, at that point seen as a disaster by the majority, was largely a D war.
the current D candidate faces no such obstacle. the iraq quagmire clearly belongs to shrub and the Rs (the complicity of most Ds is of course soft-pedalled), to the extent that most R incumbents are frantically trying to distance themselves from the white house.
obama's victory in november is all but assured. his problem will be to appear anti-war to those who oppose it on moral/constitutional grounds, while not turning off the majority who only oppose it because it's been so badly bungled.
McGovern is a great man, but he was not the most inspiring leader. Democrats are not as divided now as they were then. The Soviet Union and China were still seen as communist threats then. It's a different world.
Now it seems one of the greatest obstacles or enemies of our time is our addiction to oil and coal, a dependence enabled by a US government and mainstream media complicit with big oil and coal, with consequences that include global warming.
We need to move quickly and decisively toward sustainable, renewable energy economies in which people live closer to where they work. We need to find ways to recycle almost everything. And we need to move away from economies of excess and waste that were encouraged by cheap energy. These are needs, not luxuries.
Obtaining what we need will not be achieved by pandering and compromise.
In his last paragraph, Mr. Chernus says that "We have not learned how to frame our message in ways that speak to the cultural hopes and fears of a majority of the voters." But Mr. Chernus does not acknowledge that there is a growing disconnect between the will of the people and the goals of some of our elected leaders. Most doctors and citizens in the US support single-payer universal health care based on a medicare. Most want us out of Iraq.
Yes, we have to learn how to frame the message. But we should not compromise the message into meaninglessness in the process of framing it. That's another way to lose elections.
The Neocons used spin and fabrication to evoke fear in order to get the Bush-Cheney agenda. The Democrats need to use honesty about global warming and peak oil to transform the US economy.
Using honesty to evoke fear in order to pursue a needed agenda is not the same as using fabrication and spin to evoke fear so that a small group of the wealthiest can profit.
I agree with you I am an independent but in order for the democrats to win they will need to have a platform that brings the moderates of both sides together. Too radical of a platform will doom this country with another man in John McCain, who does not have the capacity to be president.
2008 ain't 1972, period. Different times, different war, different fucking world. The "war" has in these troubled times with so many things on America's plate has actually fallen down on the "to do" list. I often wonder WHY everyone tries to equate todays problems with problems past. It seems that thruout history people continue to make this same basic mistake. You can always find similarities, but wannabe historians ALWAYS want to compare. Put the fucking strong war plank in, nobody will notice when they're filling up their gas tanks with 5.00 per gal gasoline, and NO health care, and probably NO job.
"We have not learned how to frame our message in ways that speak to the cultural hopes and fears of a majority of the voters."
Prof. Chernus, once you strip away all the pretty talk talk the cultural hopes and fears of the 70% White American majority are transparent:
1. Insulated White Privilege. We don't care who goes under the bus as long as it ain't us.
2. White Male Supremacy. This is the RIGHT of every 30 cent weasel dick to be a "King in HIS castle", rule everyone under his roof any way he pleases and be sexually aggressive with every "female" who strikes his fancy.
3. Gender Slavery. Can't be supreme unless you can beat the shit out of someone with total impunity (like our corporations and War Criminals). Got to keep the "bitches" in their place. No economic or biological self-determination. This is now nearly restored. No "female" can terminate a pregnancy in 85% of American counties (at any price) and the pill is being priced out of any working class budget. Shortly, our Masters will go to work on any "rights" to own property. Won't that be a great public debate.
4. Constant War. As long as none of "us" have to carry a gun. Like installed poverty, war builds character, if they survive four tours.
These are just a couple. I'm sure anyone here could add several more. Core operating values. The things White America will kill to have.
And yes, BHO will do his part. He's already chosen a major defender of slave labor (see WalMart) as his chief economic adviser. Maybe he will help BHO bring the WalMart "miracle" to America? Slave labor, prison labor, child labor, and sweatshop labor. Now those are core operating values "at work".
Peace.