McGoverning
- Thread starter Yes
- Start date
The interesting thing is that legalization (which came at the end of Tom Eagleton's actual, original quote rather than "acid," Eagleton said in not-so-much-confidence to that reporter that McGovern "stands for amnesty for draft evaders, abortion, and the legalization of pot") was probably at the low end of "triple-A" when it came to what McGovern was ready to do. McGovern did not come from Dries despite his Republican family of origin, and never seems to have been a Dry himself. But he did come from a family where alcoholism ran in the genes (it would ultimately claim two of his children, in Terry's case in combination with a deep clinical depression that may have come down Eleanor's side) and he was a good Methodist. He did want a combination of medical-ized drug response and community-based policing rather than Criminal-Code Jim Crow 2.0 and cops militarized against the poor, but he also didn't think legalization would fix the problem.On the other hand, a McGovern presidency opens the legislative and judicial space for a much sharper and quite possibly more fractious, divided response at state level to the Seventies drug crisis. Some of the places that, well, have led the way on legalization much later on IOTL could well play such a role much earlier here, because of the administration's desire to respect legislation and judicial precedent on the principle that such respect is essential to the rule of law. At the same time that could drive other states in an even sharper Rockefeller/Reagan direction. And if he's not careful McGovern's respect for process could get him in dutch with both sides for not siding with either of them openly.
As always lots to unpack here and I'll just try to stick to a few of the high points:
- This is, indeed, even more than a typical administration that might have high ideals but get mired in bureaucratic execution of policy, very much a White House that wants to do the exact opposite of criminalize minorities and the broader population of American poor on principle. But they also have to deal with people who more or less want to criminalize those populations on principle, and that may become sophisticated in their sales pitch more rapidly when they have an entrenched opponent like the McGovern administration that they need to overcome. Also, by the Law of Perverse Outcomes, the McGovern administration's reputation for being "soft" on the nation's Others may make such a sales pitch easier in some quarters.
- McGovern's crew will come at lead pollution from what is basically a Progressive -- that is to say, environmentalist and regulatory -- perspective, but you've pointed out some of the very important potential knock-on effects if some auto manufacturers can take advantage, or find ways to collaborate with like minds in Congress.
- On the one hand there are likely to be swifter refinements of, and greater strength behind, a "medical model" for the Seventies drug crisis; on the other hand the institutional scale of that approach gives the New Right a fat target for the same kinds of dizinformatziya that has affected the health-care debate in the States for decades, for example.
- From the very top there is a strong attachment with this bunch to sweeping promises -- strangely enough it's McGovern's plains-state pragmatism (a true pragmatism, i.e. what he wants most of all is results) that drives him in that direction because he believes half-measures and tactical fidgeting will die of attrition in contact with Congress and with state and local governments. Almost the opposite of Carter's engineer's tinkering, McGovern thinks only bold strokes will do because (1) people need to know where you stand and (2) only those strokes have the momentum to get a chance at success.
- There can be all manner of reasons for people to fuss over the Electoral College, and about the state of a post-Voting Rights Act electoral system. You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment
- How judges behave once they're on the bench is an entire sub-sub-genre of historical and sociological research. McGovern's belief in an independent judiciary and desire to appoint strong judges, however much their philosophical beliefs may offer added benefits from his point of view, does lend itself to that randomizing factor. As you say, in every effort to "get it right" there's potential to disappoint your own partisans by not simply satisfying their partisan impulses.
Based on some modern voter theory McGovern will do just fine doing what he wants. Not that McGovern knows this, but his own particular personality amounts to much the same effect.
I’m curious as to the effect of McGovern the non-pig has on the 1970s bombing epidemic overall.
I’m curious as to the effect of McGovern the non-pig has on the 1970s bombing epidemic overall.
I think this probably has to do with America's extremely low voter turnout and engagement furthered by voter suppression and a strangling two party system. I know that a lot of other countries don't experience this.
Last edited:
That'll be interesting. Granted, by 1973, groups like the Weather Underground were basically nonentities, but groups like the FALN will still probably be visible. After all, it's pretty unlikely that George McGovern is suitably revolutionary for everyone.
I got around to reading your first link at last. I found it frankly depressing. I'd be interested to know whether something broadly similar applies to nations that have proportional representation like say the Scandinavian countries.
I really like to believe that if we enact a good proportional representation system, that voters will wake up and start to pay attention to politics--that more of them will adopt it as a "hobby" in the article's metaphor--because OTL with our FPTP system and essentially two party system (the first does not automatically cause the second--the British Parliament pretty much always has a modest sized third party or two, and pretty often a cluster of very small parties, some ephemeral and some perennial though the relative size of their delegations tends to be grossly out of proportion to their overall support) people feel little option to influence the outcome in a gratifying way--as a hobby for those of us who have dived into it for any level, it is a bit like gambling--I like to think "I am struggling for the right side!" but then I don't want to suffer the down side of losing, so the rush is not enough for me personally.
Also I have a darker view of the alienation of most voters. To the author of that paper, it seems to be no big deal that most people just plain do not care, but I do believe, or anyway like to believe, that there is some nasty oppression going on here, that people are afraid to get into the game because if causes they can really care about come close to winning they can be seriously punished. Knowing this, knowing that "the house always wins" in the gambling casino metaphor, people sensibly stay away lest they get rooked. They form other interests and rigidly wall off politics as something they do not want to think about because it depresses more than excites them.
I like to think that if you change the game by enabling parties that have small but steady support to gain proportionally to the attention of voters they do command, then people would get more engaged and show up to champion those they see as fighting in their cause, and thus a more valid sample of the actual interests of voters forms and over time they learn what has traction and what does not and gradually get more and more accustomed to thinking seriously about policy and weigh in more consistently. Through positive feedback I hope the people get seriously engaged and mass democracy becomes a more meaningful thing.
But I do have a fearful suspicion that if I go to a nation where people do have a serious PR system, as apparently say the Netherlands does, I will find on the whole the same sort of indifference and whimsical relationship of the majority to party power blocks. That of course would raise the question of how come nations like Sweden could have the same party in power for 40 years straight, if its supporters were not seriously thinking about their options and resolving that the old party had served them well and was still on track to do so indefinitely. Rather than just pulling the lever for the same old party because it was habit or just what people from their part of down generally did.
Indiana Beach Crow
Monthly Donor
So, boring and actually run by a secret cabal of WASPy old ladies sitting in the front pews who snipe about everyone?
My understanding is that a lot of those really long lived party systems are either A) only quasi-democratic, B) senior parties in coalitions, where they are usually the senior party but the exact composition changes and junior prties can have more or less pull or C) extremely big-tent parties with a lot of ideological competition and factions winning or losing via the vote, or D) one of the above and a machine.
Indiana Beach Crow
Monthly Donor
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a beige orthopedic pump stamping on a human face - forever."
Humor aside, I do think McGovern could tackle the drug problem and reform. One way I figure be could tackle the opposition was point out the abyssal failure that was Prohibition and how that led to the rise of crime and the mob and how banning drugs would lead to a similar event.
Would be good in seeing McGovern or at least his administration kill the War on Drugs before it got off the ground.
Would be good in seeing McGovern or at least his administration kill the War on Drugs before it got off the ground.