McGovern talked about long shot campaigns - noble defeat or empty victory?

[Truth2Tell]

It seems everyone is wondering these days why anyone would run for President unless they were assured of a run-away victory. Never mind that some people may actually believe in themselves enough to undertake long-shot goals, and never mind that some people may spend more time thinking about policy than strategy - the bigger picture is that there is often even more at stake than just winning or losing.

Jonathan Schell - the respected anti-nuclear activist and author of the bestselling "The Fate of the Earth" addressed this issue in one of his "A Hole in the World" series of post 9-11 essays for The Nation Magazine. The piece, called "Ways to Win," appeared in the September 1, 2003 issue, and quotes former anti-war Presidential candidate and poster-child long shot George McGovern. The article seems fitting to revisit on DU in light of current discussions (Bold text by me).

...Debate within the party is sharpening. The questions for the antiwar wing of the party are especially acute. In a winner-take-all electoral system like ours, anyone who holds views that are outside the mainstream is faced with an obvious and inescapable dilemma: Should one vote for a candidate one agrees with wholeheartedly but seems likely to lose the election or vote for a candidate one doesn't much care for but seems likely to win? Which is worse, a noble defeat or an empty victory?

-snip

...The cautionary example usually given is George McGovern, who rightly opposed the war in Vietnam in 1972 but lost to Richard Nixon in a landslide. Ever since, the Democratic Party has been running away from "McGovernism."

As it happens, McGovern, not merely a historical figure but a living person, and a thoughtful and articulate one at that, has jumped into the discussion. Calling the warnings against McGovernism "political baloney," he comments that although in 1972 he won only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, "no war could have continued long after that election." He is suggesting that although the movement against the Vietnam War, of which his campaign was a powerful expression, never put a President in office, it nevertheless forced an end to the war. His point is that political influence can be exerted in more than one way: "Give me a presidential candidate who speaks the truth as he sees it, and I'll show you a candidate whose campaign, win or lose, will be good for the nation."

Other episodes in American history teach a similar lesson. When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he had the support of both Houses of Congress, including a majority of Republicans. But the politically acute President saw that the triumph had an immense future electoral cost attached. "I think we just gave the South to the Republicans," he commented. And indeed, in years to come the GOP, following the "Southern strategy" adopted by the same Richard Nixon who defeated McGovern, won the South from the Democrats, laying the basis for successes in the next several elections. And so even as civil rights was winning substantively, it lost politically. The public accepted the message but rejected the messengers, as it would also do with McGovern. Yet the victory was real: The nation was changed for the better. The national holiday born of the movement is Martin Luther King Day, not Richard Milhous Nixon Day. There will never be a Richard Milhous Nixon Day. Neither will there probably be a George McGovern Day, but posterity will honor him.

These episodes do not necessarily teach Democrats whom to vote for... but they do suggest some lessons. Victory does not come through the ballot box alone. It sometimes comes by circuitous paths. Electoral politics should be played to win, yet changing hearts and minds can at times be as important as changing the President. McGovern is right. When in doubt, it's best to err on the side of speaking the truth.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0813-11.htm

I, for one, have had my fill of empty victories and political baloney. When in doubt, it's best to err on the side of speaking the truth. Amen brother. Words to live by.

[Truth2Tell]

1. And mcGovern has continued to stand up for

the Constitution.

From: The Nation

"What we have learned about how he has conducted himself leaves no doubt that he should be out of office," McGovern says of Cheney. "If he had any respect for the Constitution or the country, he would resign."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=173825

Good to see.

[NoPasaran]

2. And speaking of longshots

McGovern recently endorsed the candidacy of a supporter of his from 1972.

[Truth2Tell]

3. No one can be right all the time

:)