A Running Commentary

Despite striking wins by Hillary Clinton last week, Barack Obama continues to be the Democrats’ presumptive nominee. Rightly so. He appears destined for the pledged delegate lead and, no matter how the Clintonistas may spin it, first place is first place. But is Obama really the Democrats’ messiah or just another George McGovern destined for defeat?

For those born after the 50’s a brief refresher on George McGovern is beneficial. Like Obama, the Senator from South Dakota was a devout member of the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party. In addition to a liberal domestic agenda, McGovern was an outspoken critic of American military involvements of his day. In contrast to Senator Obama (great speeches but little action) even McGovern attempted to legislatively force American withdrawal from Vietnam by sponsoring the McGovern-Hatfield Amendment in 1970.

At a moment in history when hippies marched the streets and students occupied college administration buildings, the nation appeared primed for a liberal revolution. Or at least more open to one than today. Riding a crest of negative sentiment toward the war, McGovern earned his party’s nomination for President in 1972. Like Obama, McGovern’s campaign enlisted huge numbers of frustrated Democrats and idealistic voters, including young law students Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham, who worked on his campaign.

Opposing McGovern was the incumbent Richard Nixon, easy fodder for stoking the Democrats’ liberal, progressive, and counterculture bases. In contrast to McGovern’s calls for outright withdrawal, Nixon’s “Vietnamization” plan called for gradually replacing American personnel with trained nationals. Sound familiar?

What happened, as they say, is history. Nixon’s “silent majority” trounced McGovern in one of the greatest landslides in American history. Despite McGovern’s energized followers and all the anti-war sentiment, Nixon won a staggering 49 of 50 states.

Iraq: History Repeats Itself?

While no two political landscapes are exactly the same, the similarities that exist between 1972 and 2008 are provocative. The first point is obvious: is Iraq really the monster issue Democrats are counting on? Vietnam certainly wasn’t for McGovern. Despite exponentially more body bags and violent protests, Nixon’s steady plan handily defeated McGovern’s for hasty retreat.

Obama rails daily about the war that “never should have been authorized”, but how widespread is the anger he seeks to stoke? Protestors are always louder than defenders, as the silent majority demonstrated. Is there a large chunk of Americans who, even if they don’t think the war was begun rightly, still believe that the country’s honor and credibility demand finishing the job? McCain has already began to attack on this point, arguing that whether America should have invaded is an academic question; what matters is how to bring it “to its swiftest possible conclusion” without destabilizing the region or empowering Al Qaeda.

Obama has also taken some precariously McGovern-like positions. During the 1972 campaign, McGovern advocated withdrawal outright from Vietnam with the expectation that the North Vietnamese would then release American POWs. When subsequently asked what he would do if the North Vietnamese refused to make such releases, McGovern responded vaguely “Under such circumstances, we’d have to take action”.

Obama has adopted a similarly ambiguous position in advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Many neutral observers have pointed out that such a vacuum in the region would leave ample room for mischief by Al Qaeda, Iran and other agitators. Asked whether he would send US troops back in if necessary, Obama has responded affirmatively but without much detail. The position seems untenable.

Democrats & Liberalism: The Double-Edged Sword

Obama also faces significant questions from within his own party; he may be leading a revolution, but a revolution to what? As McGovern famously said, “I opened the doors of the Democratic Party and 20 million people walked out.” The continued viability of the Clinton campaign demonstrates that significant portions of Democrats are not wholly sold on the Obama candidacy. One would expect Democrats to rally around either candidate once nominated, much as Conservative Republicans will around John McCain. But as McGovern’s statement shows, a little revolution goes a long way.

Let’s also not forget that the liberal agenda is tough sell. Columnist Robert Novak’s took up the issue of McGovern’s liberalism early on in the ’72 campaign, arguing that many of his blue-collar supporters didn’t know just how liberal he was. Novak eventually quoted a Democratic senator saying “The people don’t know McGovern is for amnesty, abortion and legalization of pot…once middle-America, Catholic middle-America in particular, finds this out, he’s dead.” Nixon subsequently railed McGovern as the candidate of “amnesty, abortion and acid”. The label stuck, permanently painting McGovern as a crazy liberal.

The GOP will rest at nothing to expose Obama as the same, and his increasingly raw primary battle with Clinton will only provide more ammunition. A recent Wall Street Journal piece by Karl Rove, love or hate him he’s strategic genius, highlighted several polls (Fox, LA Times/Bloomberg and Gallup) that show Democrats favoring McCain 2 to 1 better than Republicans favor Obama and 3 to 1 better than Republicans favor Clinton. The middle is open and McCain’s campaign will aim to make the most of the advantage.

The Unforeseen

As with any presidential candidate, Obama must be prepared for factors beyond his control. Just weeks after McGovern’s nomination it was revealed that his running mate, Thomas Eagleton, received electroshock therapy for depression during the 60s. The resulting negative attention cast doubts on Eagleton’s ability and prompted McGovern to drop him from the ticket. Since he had initially stated he was still “behind Eagleton 1000 percent”, McGovern’s renege allowed Nixon to protray him as indecisive.

Finally, Obama has thus far relied on record turnout by new, young, and independent voters. But the unpredictability of that bloc has frustrated polling predictions throughout the primaries. Polls showed Obama losing in Iowa and winning in New Hampshire both by double digits; the opposite was true. California was to be a double-digit Obama win but turned out a nine-point loss, and so on.

National polls show Obama winning handily in a general election showdown with McCain. But what does that really mean? Is it indicative of a reliable groundswell of long-term support or merely the skin-deep ardor of latte liberals and the Oprah Book Club? Will November see Democrats cherishing their liberal revolution or recalling George McGovern? Time will tell.