Anyone who remembers George McGovern, please raise your hands.
::Spiff scans Doperspace::
Hey, you’re all older than dirt!
But seriously, Mc Govern was the “peace candidate” in ’72, and he got clobbered by Nixon even though support for the Vietnam war was rapidly declining (it may even have been below 50%).
Will a similar “peace candidate” be trounced by the GOP nominee, even though support for the war in Iraq is at an all-time low? (I’m assuming this candidate would be the Democratic nominee.)
But before we start debating, my definition of a peace candidate is one who:
Vows to set a timetable for troop withdrawal, and it’s sooner rather than later
Says that the U.S. was wrong to invade in the first place (i.e., no WMDs found)
Cannot be accused of flip flopping (i.e., didn’t vote for the war à la John Kerry)
Unfortunately, I say such a candidate would fail.
Now, I would vote for such a candidate, but he or she would be shot down by the time-tested talking points that have been proven so successful in electing GOP candidates. I think these points are BS, but they will resonate and have just enough of an effect with voters that they will accomplish the GOP’s goal. To wit:
Ending the war will mean we will have to fight the terrorists on our soil
You (candidate) are a coward who’s not tough enough to stay the course
You (candidate) must hate America because you say that we were wrong to invade Iraq
You must be a supporter of Saddam (see point #3)
Iraq will collapse into anarchy w/o a U.S. presence (this part is true, IMHO), and no one else can step in
And I’m sure there are other attacks (that I can’t think of right now) that would be used.
If the number of US troops in Iraq are the same then as now, and it’s not apparent real progress is being made there, then I think a peace candidate could win. (I don’t think this will be the case, Congress reads the PO polls like we do)
In regard to McGovern, he was running against incumbant Nixon, who didn’t get us into the mess, the number of troops had declined during the first term and the draft had been eliminated. If Nixon had gotten us into the mess with increasing troop numberes and the draft was on, sounds a bit like where Johnson was in 1968.
McGovern lost because he was so far to the left of the American mainstream. His kooky ideas like “give everyone $1k” made him look like a nut. A “Peace Candidate” either on the right, or a moderate Democrat (not from the North East) might be very attractive. However, if the Democrats buy into the idea that they lose because they can’t overcome right-wing talking points, then they’ll never win. That’s a defeatist attitude that focuses on the wrong problem-- you need a platform that interests people to win.
I suppose that has nothing to do with the thread. My fault.
I seriously doubt that a candidate who shows up with a specific timetable for withdrawal would win. I’d have a hard time voting for such a candidate myself, and I’m not exactly your average pro-war voter.
But your fifth reason (that Iraq will collapse into anarchy without US troop presence) is a real threat, and the Pottery Barn analogy holds. We broke it, and in some way, we bought the trouble.
A candidate who comes in with a specific plan of how to get other countries involved, however, might stand a good chance. I know that Republicans liked to pooh-pooh that idea when Kerry suggested it, but the fact is that a new candidate won’t be carrying all the emotional baggage that Bush carries. They’ll come into office in a honeymoon period, and if they use that honeymoon to try to coordinate a real international effort to get Iraq back on its feet, they’ll stand a good chance.
Obviously, such an effort would need several characteristics:
There’d be strong input from Middle East powers. Jordan, maybe? Saudi Arabia? Not that either country’s government is a paragon of freedom and democracy, but it’s in their interests to have a stable government in Iraq, and their involvement won’t be as odious to Iraqis as US involvement.
The US relinquishes control. If the new president comes in wanting to give a veneer of cooperation, a “Coalition of the Willing 2.0,” nobody will buy it this time, either. The US has got to make it clear that Iraq will be for Iraqis, not for the US.
Similarly, no special rights will be given to US firms in any contracts. It will be an international effort. Ideally, contracts will be handed out by a neutral party, maybe a party chosen by the United Nations. (I know of the UN Corruption scandals, but I’m just about certain that they inspire less hostility in Iraq than the US contract process).
A candidate who comes in with a strategy for getting out stands a very good chance indeed.
Ooh, interesting question. I would say yes, that they would, just as any country has the freedom to disavow any contract with a private corporation. Where, after all, can they be sued?
Disavowing those contracts may have deleterious effects on investment by future corporations, certainly, and to an extent, the US may need to step in and pressure certain companies (Halliburton, I’m looking at you) to offer contract-withdrawals to Iraq in order to avoid such effects.
But I don’t really know how this ought to be answered; I think it would really depend on what the contracts look like, and I’m pretty ignorant of the fine print.
Any peace candidate will surely be demonized by the right, but I’d predict that the winning candidate in 2008 will be the one who vows to set a timetable for withdrawal, acknowledges that the U.S. was wrong to have invaded in the first place, and didn’t back the war in the first place. The same vicious spin that the Republicans offered up in the 2004 election won’t function in 2008, and besides, I’ll bet that being anti-war will be the norm by the time the primary season kicks off in 2007. That goes for likely candidates who supported the war in 2002, such as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and Joe Biden. Sure, the war won’t be the only issue, but I predict it will be a big one. Russ Feingold and Chuck Hagel are already billing themselves as anti-war candidates, but I don’t think that will be much of a novelty come election time.
McGovern, as Marley23 pointed out, didn’t lose just because he was the “peace candidate.” The 1972 Democratic convention was chaotic, fraught with a good amount of discord, and the candidates fought each other black and blue while Nixon got to stay above the fray. Adding to that, the McGovern campaign delved deeply into identity politics, which backfired on him. And McGovern’s taking the labor vote for granted didn’t help him, either.
BobLibDem is right: peace candidates are hurt if the war is popular; war candidates are hurt if the war isn’t. Just because a peace candidate hasn’t won an election since 1916 doesn’t mean a peace candidate can’t win. Elections turn on many factors. The waning popularity of the Iraq War is certainly going to affect the 2008 election. My prediction that a peace candidate will win could be wrong, I acknowledge, but I maintain that the political climate will favor peace candidates in 2008.
It was too early for me to be very politically aware. I do recall a McGovern (or maybe just Dem) Campagn pen my dad had for a long time:
"Eat Beans and Rabbit Stew, Dump Nixon in '72"
As a kid I thought that was catchy (obviously memorable at least) but as an adult I doubt it would capture my vote, and is probably silly enough to alienate me.
[QUOTE=Kevbo]
**“Eat Beans and Rabbit Stew, Dump Nixon in '72”**QUOTE]
Heh… I don’t know whether that’s identity politics or not, since I really don’t understand it. I’m not wild about rabbit stew but I’m definitely pro-bean and anti-Nixon, but that slogan is a tad too cornball to appeal to me. My guess would be that it refers to something specific, but I can’t guess what.
I didn’t make it to the polls in 1972, myself. I confess that I wasn’t politically aware at the time, and didn’t vote at all during the 1970s. In my defense, I submit that I was three years old in 1972.
Didn’t anyone think of the poor rabbits…? :eek: