Forty years after, it is still surprising that so many historians, journalists, and concerned Americans want to talk about the 1972 presidential election. George McGovern lost. Even more to the point, America lost. He routinely accepted his share of responsibility for this. But a large percentage of America's voters spoke and, for all that transpired thereafter, they bear some responsibility also. It didn't take long after Watergate broke for the bumper strips to appear: "Don't Blame Me. I Voted for McGovern."
Since then, my singular argument has been that George McGovern, and those who supported him, helped save the Democratic Party. A number of months after the chaotic Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968, I met Senator McGovern and shortly after that began to help organize his national candidacy. During that period he was chairman of the McGovern Commission, established by the Democratic National Committee after Chicago to recommend reforms in party delegate selection rules for 1972 and conventions to follow.
Those rules were designed to open party participation, especially in nominating candidates, to women, minorities, and young people. The reforms succeeded and the Democratic Party opened itself up to democratic participation. The control of power-brokers and party bosses was broken. Decrepit political machines largely collapsed. The political media thrived on the colorful diversity of the delegates at the 1972 Democratic convention in Miami. It was less than orderly, in the manner of true democracy. But the chaos of Chicago was avoided. And rather than split into several Democratic parties, which would have occurred if the new rules had not been adopted, today's Democratic Party survived and has elected three Democratic presidents since then.
George McGovern was passionate, in his laconic South Dakota manner, about ending an unwinnable war in Vietnam, reducing nuclear dangers, and eliminating hunger at home and abroad. But his most important legacy will be his rescue of the Democratic Party.
Two years after his defeat in 1972, I joined him in the Senate. During my race for the Senate in Colorado, I was told I had to disavow my previous two-year involvement on behalf of Senator McGovern. I said at the Democratic Convention in Denver: If the price of receiving my party's nomination is to distance myself from George McGovern, it is too high a price to pay. And I refused to pay it.
It was somewhat strange for him and for me to join him as an equal after being so recently a campaign worker, especially since I had never sought nor been elected to public office before. I'm not aware of it ever happening, at least in recent political history. But we were friends and became close colleagues. It was even stranger 12 years later to be a candidate for president myself and to be joined later in that race by Senator McGovern. That surely was a first. But, despite some bruises, our friendship did survive.
We will never know the nature of a McGovern presidency. But someday the American Democratic Party will find a way to honor him as it should. I am honored to have known him and to have served with him.
Read Gary Hart's recent post about George McGovern: "Winners and Losers"
Follow Gary Hart on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gary__hart
Jeff Biggers: I'm a McGovern Democrat: Now, More Than Ever
Ira Chernus: In Memoriam: George McGovern and Liberal Politics
Chris Herlinger: George McGovern And The Social Gospel Movement To End Hunger
His WWII career as a pilot on a B-24 bomber that flew 32 missions is remarkable in and of itself.
The nation lost a reluctant but willing warrior and a pacifist as well as a reliable liberal that readily acknowledged his errors and moved on with grace and integrity.
http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Blue-B-24s-Germany-1944-45/dp/0743223098/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351016596&sr=1-6&keywords=stephen+ambrose
And I'm proud to say that I worked for you, too - in 1984 along with thousands of others who called ourselves Americans with Hart.
Richard Reeves wrote an article about you in February 1984 - just before Super Tuesday. In his article he wrote that you were once asked, "How many volunteers does it take to become elected Senator from Colorado?" You replied, "10 - if they're truly dedicated, they quickly become 10,000."
We're there again today - trying to re-elect a fine American president and I'm once of those thousands making nightly calls for the Obama campaign.
So thank you, Senator Hart. Thank you for reminding us about who George McGovern was and what he stood for, and thank you for getting us involved.
Good column, Sen. Hart.
I'm proud to have walked away from the craven Democratic party of 1968 in favor of third party membership, but McGovern, a prairie populist had been right on all counts. He got my vote, but I didn't rejoin the party until the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove era of Republican chicanery got completely out of hand with the Clinton impeachment. In 1972 Republicans field tested their now winning strategy of sabotage and obstruction. Watergate was a failed exercise, but they learned from Nixon's mistakes. Don't steal something you already own. Sabotage and paralyze Democratic campaigns.
By the end of the decade they had developed a narrative of "failed" Democrats (Carter) needing Republican rescuers, probably inspired by Roosevelt's dominant presidency that began with Hoover's failure. Facts need not get in the way of the story. Bush's failures have vanished from contemporary history despite his economic legacy, but now we have Obama's "failed" presidency, a direct consequence of Machiavellian Republican tactics, as theys have done everything possible to stall the economic recovery and hang the economy on his neck.
Enter the next dynasty, the House of Romney. With no substantive policy proposals and no personal transparency he stands ready to install the next Republican regime. A master of prevarication he is more disciplined and less scrupulous than Nixon. He is poised to anoint the oligarchs, making it official that the government has become a plaything for the ultra-rich, meant to accelerate their enrichment at the expense of everyone else. Who better than Romney to make that happen.
No one was more anti war deployment than Ike was. George would have been as well if given the chance.
It's so easy to yack and tough talk and see these deployments in terms of abstract figures and theories.
Not much good happens in combat but it can give you a different view years later than REMFs have.