McGoverning
- Thread starter Yes
- Start date
Ahh, William Craig. A man who truly thought he could keep control of the beast he'd summoned up in any circumstances.Along with the Visibly Sociopathic Calvinist Beaver (that'd be Rev Paisley) I'd also keep an eye out for this guy and his special-sauce flavor of Norn politics:
Which is to say that, as "McGovern Moments" diversify and go global, sometimes in the words of Anna Gaitskell all the wrong people are cheering...
George McGovern, by first winning the Democratic nomination despite opposition from the party establishment on the backs of outsider social movements (especially antiwar students) and then winning the Presidency, demonstrated that sometimes you can fight city hall, sometimes the underdog wins. Other social movements against corrupt, brutal, or otherwise dysfunctional social orders - in Greece, Brazil, and the Philippines, for example, took note of that. (And, of course, the right wing - as manifested by people like Lee Atwater and David Duke - takes its own kinds of inspiration from it...)
Or, for a more academic summary:
McGOVERN MOMENT, THE. A period from 1972 onward in which political movements opposed to the establishment, mostly but not exclusively peaceful left-liberal democrats, were both unusually active and unusually successful in bringing about political change in their countries. Named for US President George McGovern (1973-19██), who represented a prominent early example of the trend and an explicit inspiration to many who attempted to follow it: other notable examples include the 1973 collapse of the 'Regime of the Colonels' in Greece, the 1974 'Philippine Spring' that led to the end of the Marcos regime, and the 1974 'Events of October 8th' in Brazil that helped bring down the country's military dictatorship.
Last edited:
Let the record show that I did not plant that question in the readership...
And this - predictably for an irreplaceable old friend who's eclipsed my skills - is a wonderful explainer on the origins and especially the early days of the "McGovern Moment" phenomenon. Especially the first sentence at the top, and also the sentence I italicized for emphasis right after "McGOVERN MOMENT, THE." In any Watsonian college classroom within the McGoverningverse[1] the prof/instructor would take that italicized sentence, as the answer to a pop-quiz definition question, wave it in front of the class, and say "this is how you do that."
To that I'd add a few definitional characteristics that I'd call purely sociological. That is to say, they're ideologically neutral - true whether its goodhearted liberal-to-left crusaders or angry populists or irridentist ethnic/sectarian revanchists or religious fundamentalists or whoever might be having what a glib journalist might label a "McGovern Moment" This aggregation of elements probably constitutes a good value-neutral model of shared qualities.
- Idealism, including dialectics or tensions between idealisms (for example in the original case the McGovern campaign saw a variety of rights/liberation movements as potential allies who could help elect George McGovern; those rights movements in turn often saw the McGovern campaign as a vehicle or stalking horse to advance the rights/liberations campaigns themselves more than as an effort to elect McGovern; and there was a good deal of use-and-be-used by afoot in that dynamic)
- Innovation in both strategy and tactics that wrongfoots or even thoroughly disrupts the conditioned logic and responses of a political/state establishment (though not so much, if we stretch that military metaphor, in operational art - the fluent and concurrent application of strategy to an aggregate, simultaneous swath of tactical situations; for example IOTL the McGovern campaign had a smart though ultimately - IOTL - mistaken strategy and were brilliant at ground-level tactics, but from - IOTL - a comfortably superior position of disposed resources the Nixon campaign clubbed the McGovern campaign like a baby seal with superior operational art)
- Democratization: opening up participation and the possibility of power to (1) those previously at a disadvantage or also (2) those previously excluded entirely from the exercise of political power
- Ideals as praxis: walking the talk, and with that a degree to which leaders are hostage to followers (i.e. if actions are perceived as "selling out" or simply insufficiently pure it can erode grassroots support)
- Mobilization on a central defining issue that triggers cascading mobilization on an aggregate of other issues (for the original "McGovern Moment" it was always Vietnam but a whole series of other social/cultural, economic, and political justice causes tumbled in through the breach made by anti-war activism and aggregated to the movement and its momentum)
- Preference for moral foundations over historical or hierarchical ones
- Fundamental opposition to a corrupt establishment, which may be singular (ex. the Greek Colonels, Ferdinand Marcos) or may be a collection of entities/actors blamed for national decay
- Preference for action to achieve ends, even when that creates short-term chaos/disorder - substantive change to fit ideals strongly preferred over sausage-making compromise
[1] For some years my shorthand for the ever-evolving worldbuilding tapestry within which McGoverning (as a discrete fictional entity about the era of the McGovern administration) exists "the TBTverse," with "TBT" being short for "The Big Thing" on the assumption that one day a graceful all-encompassing title would fall, A Song of Ice and Fire-style, from my synapses onto my keyboard. I've long since abandoned that hope and lean increasingly to the hopelessly trendy yet wry in-joke of the McGCU, or more accurately the McGNU (McGoverning Narrative Universe.)
Last edited:
To that someone might say "aren't you basically describing a revolutionary situation?" I'd say "well, sort of." In some situations where contrasts between the Moment folks and the oppositional establishment are so heightened, the stakes and the tools to either overturn or maintain a regime so stark, that you do get one of the many forms of revolution. In other situations it is, in the sense intended by the boardroom-bullshit-bingo appropriation of the word, moderately-to-highly disruptive of an existing system but key actors within the Moment movement itself are willing - in the great economist/behaviorist Herbert Simon's word - to "satisfice," i.e. accept a "good enough" outcome rather than a stark ideal, either because of their own position of relative personal comfort within the system or because they view the Moment movement, in itself, as a tool for their own cause rather than as the central cause/goal itself (i.e. "we've ridden that horse as far as it'll go; time to try a new thing.")
Per that sociology of McGovern Moments, based purely on the OTL history involved, very much an example of "the leader who makes himself hostage to his followers."
One of the interesting things about the 1974 election cycle IOTL is the party platforms. I'm a bit of a sucker for platforms, as an opportunity to analyze internal party politics (competing goals/visions cobbled together into a pamphlet), as political cover for parties at the polls (a measure of what patter they think is necessary to get elected, more than their intent), and sometimes as a sincere expression of where a party's policy goals and principles happen to be, whether they ended up winning office or not.
In that context the Liberal platform is especially interesting. Not just because it diverges from the Conservative and Labour platforms - it does - but because of how it does that. Some analysts have described the Liberal platform of that time as muddled or odd or overly complex, all of which I think misreads it.
The interesting thing to me about the Liberal platform - if you look at the policy planks and compare them to other European parties, rather than assume a British exceptionalism - is that really it looks an awful lot like a sort of Christian Democracy British Style. It's shorn of those explicitly religious foundations, despite the Liberals' distinctive Nonconformist roots, a lot of what makes it tick, the ways in which it's a distinctive hodgepodge of right and left and more traditionally Liberal elements, has a lot of parts that wouldn't necessarily be out of place in a CDU or Italian DC platform somewhere during the Sixties or Seventies. Which in some ways marks its place as well down a path of divergence in British Liberalism begun during the Asquith government(s) but also points it out as a distinctive third way.
Also, despite the efforts of folk like Oily Jeremy himself to paint the Liberals as basically liberal-conservative, the platform reads different from that. Elements like UBI, nationalization of North Sea Oil, a permanent prices and incomes policy intended to reunify the country around a central economic compact rather than fracture it between capital and labor, all that sort of stuff sounds like Christian Democracy when it's at home. Especially a real mélange of the German and Italian flavors.
Which is not an endorsement of that platform but it is something that seems to have garnered little academic or other professional notice yet makes it an intriguing approach. Also one that rhymes in places with McGovernment - a sort of Christian-Left social democracy can be seen in many facets of McGovernism.
In that context the Liberal platform is especially interesting. Not just because it diverges from the Conservative and Labour platforms - it does - but because of how it does that. Some analysts have described the Liberal platform of that time as muddled or odd or overly complex, all of which I think misreads it.
The interesting thing to me about the Liberal platform - if you look at the policy planks and compare them to other European parties, rather than assume a British exceptionalism - is that really it looks an awful lot like a sort of Christian Democracy British Style. It's shorn of those explicitly religious foundations, despite the Liberals' distinctive Nonconformist roots, a lot of what makes it tick, the ways in which it's a distinctive hodgepodge of right and left and more traditionally Liberal elements, has a lot of parts that wouldn't necessarily be out of place in a CDU or Italian DC platform somewhere during the Sixties or Seventies. Which in some ways marks its place as well down a path of divergence in British Liberalism begun during the Asquith government(s) but also points it out as a distinctive third way.
Also, despite the efforts of folk like Oily Jeremy himself to paint the Liberals as basically liberal-conservative, the platform reads different from that. Elements like UBI, nationalization of North Sea Oil, a permanent prices and incomes policy intended to reunify the country around a central economic compact rather than fracture it between capital and labor, all that sort of stuff sounds like Christian Democracy when it's at home. Especially a real mélange of the German and Italian flavors.
Which is not an endorsement of that platform but it is something that seems to have garnered little academic or other professional notice yet makes it an intriguing approach. Also one that rhymes in places with McGovernment - a sort of Christian-Left social democracy can be seen in many facets of McGovernism.
Last edited:
Also, because the Liberal Party was a small enough town that the voices in one guy's head play a significant role, all the talk of grand compacts and restored national unity and the essential role of clever, unorthodox solutions really does read like Slick Jezza saying I'M INDISPENSABLE LOVE ME DAMMIT.
Purely an aside there: besides the more obviously gaudy made-for-TV elements of it, where A Very British Scandal really lost its way was in casting Hugh Grant as Thorpe at all. I mean, some actors can do a wonderful job as a historical figure even when they don't bear a strong physical resemblance, but the sheer obviousness of Grant's physical height, relative grace, obvious good looks, and easy charm is almost the antithesis of Thorpe. Oily Jeremy was an angular, awkward, almost Ichabod Crane-like figure (without the height) who managed to be a dominant political-media persona of his era through sheer feral cleverness and fiery charisma. One could never really call him handsome or graceful but he had a fierce centripetal pull to him. Ben Miller with brylcreemed hair would've been a much better choice for Thorpe. Not nearly so familiar for American viewers (though I figure a fair few who'd bother watching AVBS would've seen Worst Week Ever and/or Death in Paradise's early seasons) but fuck that for a game of soldiers anyway.
As far as I could tell, Northern Unionists as a society lived and died on paranoia, especially prior to the start and in the early years of The Troubles. A lot of the popular narrative spread around was (X) IS GOING TO GIVE US TO THE REPUBLIC! kind of stuff. Whether that be Labour, The Eternally Suffering Captain O'Neill, or even at points the British Army. It feels almost like Grandpa Simpson pointing around and calling everything DEAAAAAAAAATH! but replace Death with Popery.
Oh, god, another question. I don't mean to clog the chat, so let me know if I'm overdoing it.
Ever since I stumbled upon the existence of a certain hate-spewing amphibian-loving leftist mayor/council leader of London, I have had a minor to severe obsession with state, local and municipal politics in both Britain, and, in what holds more relevance here, the US. It can often be hard to find the bits and pieces of these (and also, Dick Daley isn't dead yet in canon so I can't ask questions about Chicago) but considering you're the guy who made a google doc featuring the entire bits and pieces of every NFL season of the entire 1970's in granular detail, I was wondering if you had any tidbits on what was happening on the state and local level in some US states and cities across the country. Just anything you got, really.
Ever since I stumbled upon the existence of a certain hate-spewing amphibian-loving leftist mayor/council leader of London, I have had a minor to severe obsession with state, local and municipal politics in both Britain, and, in what holds more relevance here, the US. It can often be hard to find the bits and pieces of these (and also, Dick Daley isn't dead yet in canon so I can't ask questions about Chicago) but considering you're the guy who made a google doc featuring the entire bits and pieces of every NFL season of the entire 1970's in granular detail, I was wondering if you had any tidbits on what was happening on the state and local level in some US states and cities across the country. Just anything you got, really.
Last edited:
No worries! We will, in time, see what's up in Hizzoner's city as his health declines, but that will take a little longer to get to. This is my opportunity to note that in Everything is Drafted and Everything is Subject to Change canon, Herman Badillo is currently (as of 1974-75 period) Mayor of New York, its first Puertorriqueno mayor and, given what the FALN is up to in the Seventies, potentially subject of some interesting narrative notes. Maynard Jackson did win his race in Atlanta, likewise Coleman Young in Detroit, Tom Bradley in LA too. As noted Mayor Rizzo in Philly made a grab at a Senate set but fell short in the McGovern Midterms, but he's still ensconced in city hall, dammit. There may be some interesting developments in other West Coast cities also. Moon Landrieu is very much in charge down in Nawlins but also living with the double-edged sword of being McGovernment-adjacent. Dick Lugar did indeed jump up from being mayor of Indianapolis to the Senate in '74 (guess we can quit you, Birch...) while, as @GDIS Pathe noted a page back, Nevada's young and ambitious lieutenant governor may yet feel the pull of municipal politics, at least to some degree. I would note for @Wolfram that it's canonical IMyTL, indeed probably prohibitive in most TLs, that Fred Hofheinz took up his dad's old job in Houston in '74 and at this stage remains one of the bright young things of Texas Democratic politics. I'm sure I'll think of some other cases/instances in time.
Rizzo is one of the worst people north of Mason-Dixon to achieve serious power in the American 20th Century, and that’s fucking saying something. It’s good that he did not in fact crawl up to reach the senate, but the sooner McGoverning’s Philly can shake that toad of a man is the sooner that Penn can be a brighter place.
Badillo is a man I have never heard of in my life, which really just proves that I have to add “Post-War NYC politics” to the pile of things I want to read about with nine billion other things. I have noted that he was a Borough President, a role that has in no way engendered any kind of future ma-
What a city.
(photo and fun blog link)
Thank you both for the reminder of just how cursed the Philadelphia mayoralty is in the modern era (of OTL), and for this perfect image of Floreat Nixonium...
Truly for most of the 20th century NYC was pre-1990 Yugoslavia on the Hudson. A complex dance of ethnic and indeed sectarian alliances, oppositions, balancing acts, quotas, and protestations.
Just the 20th century?
Remember, Boss Tweed's career came to an end in part because he failed to handle the tensions between the city's Irish and its Scot-Irish.
Well yes exactly and that doesn't even get us into the Knickerbockers or the Bavarian Catholics. It does as you suggest go all the way back to Stuyvesant.
This is also a key point to raise for New York state generally - indeed much of the deep lunacy of low-church/charismatic American Protestantism comes out of a specific cluster of crazy Ulstermen in the early 19th century well west of the Hudson. (It took an especially virulent root south of the Mason-Dixon but many of the seeds were spread from up there. Multiple entire denominations emerged from the ranting of John Nelson Darby alone.) A history forgotten - like much of white America's "roots" history in northwest Europe - at great cost. Some of us are perfectly well aware why Syracuse University's famous sports teams are The Orangemen and it ain't nothin' to do with some citrus fruit, on that front upstate New York was basically Ontario South ...