‘Government has become so vast and impersonal,” the presidential challenger asserted, “that its interests diverge more and more from the interests of ordinary citizens. For a generation and more, the government has sought to meet our needs by multiplying its bureaucracy. Washington has taken too much in taxes from Main Street, and Main Street has received too little in return. It is not necessary to centralize power in order to solve our problems.”
Was that Ronald Reagan in 1980, evangelizing for smaller, less intrusive government as he campaigned against Jimmy Carter? Was it Barry Goldwater, echoing a theme from “The Conscience of a Conservative” during his long-shot 1964 attempt to unseat Lyndon Johnson? Was it Mitt Romney, contrasting his view of a properly restrained federal establishment with Barack Obama’s exorbitant Keynesianism?
Comments
And Barry Goldwater, conservative icon,or abortion as a woman's right. The point is not that McGovern was some sort of closeted Republican, but rather, that politicians 40 years ago held a range of personal beliefs that were papered over by party politics, a circumstance no different than today. In 1972 the biggest obstacle to true political discourse was from the lunatic fringe on the left, and today it's from the zealots on the right. All things considered, I prefered when the left was setting the tone, they don't believe 'god' gives them the right to interfere in my personal affairs.
This comment has been removed.
Romney doesn't 'lie', he just shifts and contorts his positions to echo what he believes are the sentiments most likely to get himself elected, like nearly all politicians. While I don't welcome it, I actually don't fear a Romeny presidency, what I do fear are all the reins of power in the hands of a GOP beholden to its right wing lunatic fringe.
First Line Edit: And Barry Goldwater, conservative icon, supported abortion as a woman's right.
Republican Senator Bob Dole wrote a better...and more accurate...tribute to the good Senator. Too bad the best the Globe can do is this twisted piece.
This comment has been removed.
We certainly lack a human dimension in our political campaigns, reporting and discussions. Because I am human, I notice it more when people I know and respect are treated inhumanely. Mr. Jacoby and Fox "News" are often the worst practitioners of this though they pale in comparison to some of the websites that portray the President as a monkey. Lest you think that I am incapable of seeing things as I would have others see them, I will attack Louis CK for his sick comments on Sarah Palin at every opportunity, including, as I have, in the Globe's book review and entertainment section. Without prolonging this too much further, the role of people like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers in our political life provides a megaphone for the ugliest distortions of people like Karl Rove. At least Lee Atwater had time at the end of his life to apologize for what he did to Governor Dukakis. With the insertion of hundreds of millions of dollars into our political discussions, the ability to have them is threatened. Jefferson's hope that good speech would drive out bad speech becomes fanciful when good speech can only be whispered (relatively) while bad speech is broadcast at ten thousand watts.
As usual, Mr. Jaocby is never more wrong then when he's talking about Democrats and liberals. McGovern's nomination tells us more about how much Nixon feared Edmund Muskie than it does about what was happening in the Democratic Party at the time (it was imploding). Also, there wasn't so much of a McGovernite lurch as a desparate flight by the Democrats away from the positions and world views that McGovern was associated with.
So now McGovern is to be posthumously 'baptised' as a 'Republican in spirit'?
This comment has been removed.
No, 127guy, you don't think, you just react and spout off.
Its fun to watch liberals run away from an unrepentent liberal like McGovern who had the "audacity" to note the downside of an ever increasing size and reach of government (something liberals/"progressives, rightfully, abhore when it comes to government intrusions in the bedroom). Liberals today don't even have the guts to call themselves "liberal" anymore, hiding behind the new formulation of "progressives" to mask the fact that there is no difference between "progressive" and liberal positions. At least McGovern was man enough to embrace his philosophy of government and, respectfully, argue his position. Today all liberals do is attempt to demonize their opposition in order to shut off debate.
"Today all liberals do is attempt to demonize their opposition in order to shut off debate."
Uh, do you own a mirror?
Just so you know...liberals and/or progressives are just as concerned as any rational citizen would be about the deficits and the debt. But traditional or old school Republican values are left behind by those that seem to have bought the Republican Party. George H.W. Bush was the last Republican of stature to embrace non-voodoo economics and a foreign policy based on collaborative aims and limited war aims. Voting for Tisei or Beilat just adds armour to the crazies at the center of the Republican Party...or am I demonizing?
I don't know how old Jeff is, but George McGovern lost primarily because he opposed an unnecessary and unjust war in VietNam. The Far Right and the money of the Military/Industrial/Congressional complex made this legitimate American hero into some sort of non-macho pansy. A while later the same outfit made John Kerry look like the duty-dodger despite his authentic heroics in Nam and George Bush the super patriot despite his spending Nam on the floor of numerous Alabama bars.
George McGovern was everything a real Christian should be - and everything Hillel says a real Jew should be, but he made the mistake of telling the unvarnished truth. Americans are so in love with our image of ourselves that we don't want to hear the truth.
Is it me, or do conservative Republicans only speak well of progressives after they're dead?
Massachusetts was rewarded for voting for McGovern by bearing the brunt of budget cuts in Washington and defense cuts from Nixon! Amazing how no mention of the hundreds of thousands of people who lost their jobs as a reward for voting for McGovern was in the Globe' article the other day!! Today, Republicans will again control Washington, this time for much of the next decade, and if Massachusetts doesn't want to be left-out of every spending bill and doesn't want to bear the brunt of every budget cut, Massachusetts has to make sure we have some Republicans in the room when the cuts are determined, or Massachusetts will take it on the chin, again, when these cuts are made!!! A token Scott Brown will not be enough to look after Massachusetts interests. We will also have to send others like Beilat and Tisei if Massachusetts is to get our fair share the next decade. We MUST have people in the room when these cuts are made! We must send Beilat and Tisei to join Brown.
USER_4408549: "Massachusetts was rewarded for voting for McGovern by bearing the brunt of budget cuts in Washington and defense cuts from Nixon! Amazing how no mention of the hundreds of thousands of people who lost their jobs as a reward for voting for McGovern was in the Globe' article the other day!! " CONCLUSION: You're right, user - Republicans today are no less vindictive, short-sighted, or hypocritical than they were under Nixon in 1972. In fact, it seems they are more so, to judge by the debt ceiling 'crisis' and unabashed obstructionism (think 'Mitch McConnell)! As you've pointed out, sending Bielat, Tisei, and Brown to Washington will fortify a Republican Party that is an embarrassment to every single person I know who was a Republican in 1972. THAT'S saying a lot...
What radical shift to the left are you talking about?
I will always respect George McGovern for his stand against the war. When I returned from the war their were few who had the courage to say this war is wrong. McGovern, Bobby Kennedy, McCarthy. Folks can say what they will about everything else but McGovern stood up to the "faux" patriots, the Nixon "secret" to end the war and said, "No we need to come home." Instead thousands of my fellow soldiers were to fall in battle before the nation did the right thing. I have resented Nixon ever since and the "faux" patriots within the public who perpetuated and continued to support that war. Policiticians who blindly supported it and refused to participate because they had better things to do. That's you Dick Cheney and you too Mitt Romney.
I voted in that election, and remember the reason: that George McGovern was an economic liberal. If he had run a business BEFORE running for office, I could have avoided voting for Richard Nixon in my life. On the other hand, Nixon did come around to getting us out of Vietnam, and ended the military draft.
Yeah it only took five years and how many dead to get that secret plan to work. Typical I'll make it up, sell it to an ignorant public and someone else will pay the price. I've seen Republican's do it time and time again. Perhaps Mitt won't, but somehow I get a bad feeling about this guy. I grant you it's just a feeling but I didn't trust Mitt in Mass. and he didn't disappoint and I don't trust him now. Fact is I'm not sure why the right trusts him. Abortion, depends on who asks the question. Tax cuts, deductibles? It's a secret plan. Severe conservative, moderate, liberal? Who knows. You and I could argue poicy and perhaps find common ground. This guy would agree with both of us at the same time.
And what business experience did Richard Nixon have? Holding political office? Running unsuccessful political campaigns? There were rumors that he was a used car salesman but I never saw any documentation. :-)
Nixon did a lot of good things. The most important one in my mind was the opening to China. The good things he did, though, are overshadowed by the non-existence of a secret plan for the Vietnam War. In the end he simply withdrew leaving the South Vietnamese to their fate. He could have done that 4 years earlier with the same result, although without the worthless piece of paper from Paris.
Nixon's most serious fault was the criminal attempt to undermine our political and justice system during the Watergate scandal.
I can't vouch for the validity about much of what Jacoby writes, but considering his history I'd take it with a grain of salt.
Still, it only reinforces George McGovern as a liberal. Liberals often vehemently disagree with each other because they have no central dogma other than being open to new ideas, and re-evaluating old ones. Some liberals may become advocates for something on the left or something on the right. Most liberals incorporate some of both.
Even in this column, Jacoby seems to be unable to articulate a specific dogma for liberals because no such dogma exists.
Nothing galls me more than when conservatives act as if they are the only ones who believe in God, practice their religion, and serve in the military, as if they have the exclusive claim on these 'values'. The diffrence between liberals and conservatives is not these values, the difference is in the conservative's desire to force someone else to adhere to their values and the liberal's belief that other people's values have value. George McGovern's midwestern values didn't make him more like a conservative; they just made him a good man.
Well said, and I wholeheartedly agree with this message! Senator McGovern was the first presidential ballot that I had the honor of casting as a new voter, a proud son of Massachusetts, and a lifelong progressive!
At the time I was living in Marietta, GA, and I was part of the 1 out of 7 who voted for McGovern.
Of all the votes I've cast over the years, that's the one I'm most proud of.
You actually have the gall to interpret the motivations of a dead American Senator and hero? Damn, but it's convenient that you waited until the Senator was dead in his 90s to explain his true thoughts on the role of government. Were you afraid that he'd contradict you if you channeled him while he was still alive? Seems kind of despicable to me , and cowardly. But honestly, Mr Jacoby, I've come to expect this kind of thing from you. There must be something they can find for you at Fox, or World News. Your posts routinely offend me, and must be embarrassing to you, at least privately. The Globe can do better. Way better!
Jeffy, you've hit a new low. Shall you urinate on his grave too?