McGoverning

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Yes, Jan 2, 2018.

Loading...
  1. Yes Safe, Efficient Airship Travel Since 1972

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Location:
    The Shire, somewhere in Cascadia
    Oh they're not out to replace all of them, really not even in mainline service, the independent C-130H squadrons (not to mention the boutique little numbers of HC-130Ps or AC-130Hs or such) will still be there. But the three principal tactical transport wings in the regulars are now scheduled to convert. The "B" stretch for the -141s is a go, it's the kind of pragmatic make-do-and-mend thing that the McGoverners like and it pushes a strategic solution to the right past the budgetary situation of the mid-Seventies. The C-14 is a nice fat contract for Boeing that (1) has an actual purpose given what it can do and (2) keeps the Senators from Washington more pliant, well Maggie anyway. But there is still that bigger job out there and McDonnell Douglas are probably looking already at what they might do to stretch that YC-15...

    On the ICBMs, the McGoverners prefer the LGM-120 Marksman type-classification they provide in '76 within the FY77 FYDP (the Five-Year Defense Plan for Fiscal Year 1977, which starts in Sept. 1976), but it's quite likely a more derogatory nickname "Midgetman" may stick to it from aggravated brass who wanted their Big Damn Missile and whose response to a system that is much smaller and thinner (though just as accurate and much more survivable than M-X in silos) is not Freudian at all, no siree...

    It's one of those foot-in-the-door compromises that happens when administrations deal with Congress, and one the McGoverners can justify to themselves as putting muscle and sinew in the "total force" model they embrace, leaning more heavily on the reserve components to reduce high-cost mainline operations. But yes, basically everybody to the right of the McGovern wing of the Democrats is likely to have something to say about that in the longer term, past a McGovern administration.

    In pure-numbers terms, when Nixon left office there were 22 tactical aircraft wings in the USAF (that doesn't count singleton squadrons like the F-106s on air defense or composite units like some of the ones in the Philippines and South Korea.) The Chiefs wanted a soft bump up to 24 in the short term (Nixon's unfulfilled second term ITTL) while they considered just how large to build beyond that. McGovern's campaign-trail Alternative Defense Posture called for 18 tactical aircraft wings and they've moved firmly in that direction. Given that four of that eighteen will be F-111s (as IOTL) and two will be F-4Gs (one fewer than OTL) on SEAD, that only leaves a dozen, and given how badly the service and the administration want the F-15 and A-10 respectively, there's not a lot of middle in there to squeeze in another type. Again, the McGoverners are the only folks who think in terms that low. So there's an easy "fix" sitting right there for folks who believe in bigger numbers.

    Awesome! Feel free to repost that bad boy over here - enthusiastic contributions from the Careful Readers add valued truthiness and are very welcome :) In the meanwhile let's us and everyone else in the thread enjoy a little YC-14 porn:



    Love the title screen. Also that's just pretty, and the fact it could pack more or less the load of an Airbus A400M could make it bloody useful. And it may give Antonov some encouragement too on the overwing config...
     
    Indiana Beach Crow and Wayside like this.
  2. Electric Monk Does Your Believing For You

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Location:
    Capital Regional District
    Another amazing chapter, I read it twice in a row lol because there’s a lot there to ponder.

    For the press he got in ‘68 and ‘72 he certainly vanished from public scrutiny afterwards. Aside from being on the board of Council for a Livable World (for decades)—which is a big hint as to what he’s devoted to in the McGovern administration—I really don’t know what he did besides that afterwards but he remained steadfast in dropping $250s to campaigns as late as 2012. A pity, I’d easily take him over Shrum as a longterm political operative—he could have saved Mo Udall’s bacon in Wisconsin maybe :).

    McGovern ‘72: Oral History
     
    Yes likes this.
  3. Threadmarks: McGoverning: Images from Chapter 15

    Yes Safe, Efficient Airship Travel Since 1972

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Location:
    The Shire, somewhere in Cascadia
    [​IMG]
    President McGovern during a national security
    briefing with Adm. Thomas Moorer, McGovern's
    first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the
    president and Moorer had a sometimes
    contentious relationship, but combined resources
    to remake the landscape of American policy on
    nuclear warfare


    McGoverning SecDef Vance testifies about CART to Senate Foreign Relations.jpg
    Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance testifies to the Senate Armed Services committee on the potential effects
    of the Humphrey-Cranston Amendment to FY74 defense appropriations, which would reduce US force levels
    overseas by up to 125,000 personnel from all services

    [​IMG]
    A Canadair CV-84 Puffin, soon to be purchased for the United States Marine Corps in cargo and radar-equipped versions,
    on flight tests at sea with the Air Command of Canadian Forces

    McGovern Defense USS Guam Sea Control Ship.jpg
    USS
    Guam, reconfigured from its amphibious role as a sea-control ship (officially a CVS, anti-submarine aircraft carrier) underway in the North Atlantic;
    the conversion of several
    Iwo Jima-class ships to the sea-control role was part of the McGovern administration's approach to anti-submarine requirements
    against the Soviet Union's submarine fleet
    [​IMG]
    An early (but quite accurate) sketch of the Vought F-16N, approved by the McGovern administration in the
    interests of project commonality

    [​IMG]
    The Nixon Doctrine aloft?: artwork from Northrop advertises its numerous sales of the F-17 Cobra
    to principal US allies overseas; from bottom to top aircraft that represent F-17 sales to the
    Fuerza
    Aerea Espana, to the West German Luftwaffe, to the Royal Australian Air Force, to Italy's
    Aeronautica Militare, to Canadian Forces' Air Command, to France's Marine Nationale, a planned
    sale to the Royal Air Force that ultimately fell through, and to the Turkish and Greek air forces
    respectively
     
  4. Yes Safe, Efficient Airship Travel Since 1972

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Location:
    The Shire, somewhere in Cascadia
    Cool! Thanks.



    I do think that points to his own sensibilities. And this certainly, or at least hopefully, gives him a leg up in the Democratic campaign firmament - yeah I'd take him over Shrum every damn day.
     
    Wayside and Electric Monk like this.
  5. Unknown Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Location:
    Corpus Christi, TX
    I like that you're avoiding the usual McGovern peacenik cliché here, IMO, and waiting for more...
     
  6. Avalanches Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Location:
    Tampa
    I'm just gonna nod and pretend like I understand defense policy - great chapter, as per usual @Yes.
     
  7. Expat Monthly Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    I still have a long way to go but I had to stop and ask: is Jules Witcover a student of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition or did the ds9 writers crib that from him?XD
     
    Yes and Electric Monk like this.
  8. Yes Safe, Efficient Airship Travel Since 1972

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Location:
    The Shire, somewhere in Cascadia
    :p No worries, and there will be some fleshing-out too. I would on a broader front draw attention to that link to the dissertation from Antioch U. and this emergent, overarching theme about rethinking the working relationships between managers/supervisors/officer corps/powers-that-be in a broad range of American professional settings and the rank and file, that's coming together as a significant macro issue in these altered Seventies and we'll see more of that, so that should pique your Democratic Socialist interest ;):cool:

    Well it's certainly not either the Yippie-wish-fulfillment model or the New Right nightmare fantasy of disarming the Marines and sending them to feminist reeducation camps and unionizing the missileers and handing the launch codes to Moscow. There are some quite significant defense cuts/restructuring/realignments, certainly of the kind that will work (Scoop) Jacksonian Dems and Boll Weevils and Goldwaterites into a full and frothy lather and launch plenty of COMMEHS GON EET UR BABEEZ newsletters to Silent Majority types. At the same time the McGoverners see this as reimposing their version of sanity (that has its occasional issues too, for example that a lot of the Holum-esque defense reformers were nearly-irrational technophobes based on presentist disdain for a rash of high-profile high-tech fiascos in Sixties defense procurement, which caused them to assume based on those failures that all high-tech, high-risk projects would be gold-plated dumpster fires that didn't work. Every side has its confirmation biases.) They wanted those capital-P progressive virtues of efficiency, economy, flexibility, and pragmatism linked to a basically detente-driven model of grand strategy that encompassed things like comprehensive plans to feed the Global South and disease eradication and Peace Corps work etc. rather than just arms sales and mutual-defense treaties. But that didn't mean more than a handful of actual McGoverners were straight up pacifists. They wanted restraint, care, and what would now be called evidence-based practices in both strategy and resource management (organization, procurement, training, etc.) And that was affected by some of their own biases. But that wasn't the same as dismantling the military or unilateral disarmament. There are important gradations and distinctions.

    On the side of "trimming the sails" there are a variety of things:

    • Personnel cuts, especially, since in the volunteer force personnel are a major "through-life cost" for the defense budget. When you compare force numbers in 1972 when McGovern was running for office to, say, 1975 or so by the time reductions are in place fully, there are some real drops, both ITTL and compared to OTL. The Army goes from about 811k down to 650k, a drop of roughly twenty percent. The Navy goes from roughly 588k to 495k, a drop of roughly sixteen percent. The Marine Corps, from roughly 198k to 145k, down almost twenty-seven percent. And the Air Force, from roughly 726k to 510k, down nearly thirty percent. Those are deeper numbers than OTL's post-Vietnam drops, and provide a real portion of what actual savings the McGoverners can make on defense.
    • Then there are real-terms cuts in force size.
    • In the Navy, from June '73 at numbers already prescribed by Nixon administration decisions on to 1975, the number of big-deck aircraft carriers goes from 13 down to 8. The number of surface combatants, from 187 down to 155 planned for the end of the decade (which includes sixteen fast missile boats so really like-for-like it's 187 to 139.)
    • SAC's bomber fleet drops from a planned figure of the Nixon crew at 382 bombers in service down to 200. The ICBM arsenal, from 1,054 missiles to 600 under CART. The Navy's ballistic-missile force, from 41 SSBNs with 656 missiles down to 18 SSBNs with 288 SLBMs (warhead numbers don't change a lot because there's conversion from triple-warhead Polaris missiles to Poseidon missiles with longer range and 10 warheads apiece under CART limitations.)
    • The USAF goes from 22 tactical fighter wings down to 18.
    • The Marine Corps loses an entire Marine Amphibious Force in the regular element, that's a division plus an air wing plus a service-support command.
    • The Army drops from 13 active-component divisions to 12 only because Big Green fights to increase its "tooth to tail" ratio in the smaller force above the 10 divisions first programmed by the McGoverners, much as they fought to up that ratio in a larger force IOTL.
    • In the nuclear field oodles (that's a technical term...) of programs get the kibosh put on them, from the M-X design to the interim "improved Poseidon" Trident we know IOTL as the C4, to a series of tactical weapons systems modernizations or replacements that have simply disappeared in the "theater weapons" cuts under CART. No new nuclear artillery shells, the upcoming Tomahawk cruise missile has lost its nuclear warhead, etc. Significant roll-backs.
    At the same time there are some places where the administration accepts plans in place, or backs down from potential fights to look elsewhere, or actively pursues significant programs.

    • The administration backs off their reformist fight against the F-15 and actively pursues its commitment to the A-X/A-10. They also decide the YC-14 is worth turning into something.
    • While they kill funding (for now) for the OHPs and send the frigate designers back to the drawing board, they buy a larger number of Spru-cans and spread the work around a few yards. Likewise they decide to convert most of the Iwos into a sea-control role and build more SSNs in keeping with their view that the key military balance afloat is under the water.
    • On the nuclear front, they move ahead with the Pershing II, approve a Midgetman-equivalent for the Eighties (though even R&D money won't start until FY77) and decide to move faster on an equivalent to what we know as they Trident D5 by (1) uncoupling it from M-X and (2) linking it to a more exquisite (in the engineering sense) new SSBN both to start building in the early Eighties. All of which pushes funding issues to the right a ways, which they want, but also makes specific commitments under the terms of CART which binds the US to these projects rather than other ones.
    • McGovern's "Paris is worth a Mass" decision to buy compliance from the USAF brass by revamping the much smaller bomber fleet with 100 B-1As serving beside 100 late model B-52Hs. This involves a couple or three new weapons systems, or mods of existing ones, for the new bombers.
    • Considerably more, and concerted, effort put into an Organizational Effectiveness approach to remaking the working relationship between superiors and lower ranks in the new volunteer military, in an effort to attract a brighter, better educated crop of recruits. This involves money expenses, too.
    I'll do a proper appendix about what the services look like, in terms of disposition and resources, based on the McGoverners' QDR and forward planning, and the work of military reformers inside the services. That should be up maybe today, definitely tomorrow. But this is a quick sketch of some major budget-related changes in this "McGoverning" term.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2019
  9. Yes Safe, Efficient Airship Travel Since 1972

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Location:
    The Shire, somewhere in Cascadia
    An excellent question! It's older even than Witcover, so cribbing is the order of the day. I'd have to go hunting for purported origins of the phrase. But the Boys on the Bus would've understood Quark and his kinfolk at an instinctive level even if they wrote them up with catty bylines.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2019
    Expat likes this.
  10. King of the Uzbeks Charles Curtis is my Baby Daddy

    Joined:
    May 28, 2013
    Location:
    Not-Tashkent (sadly)
    I'll make you a deal, I pretend this is a thoughtful question with linked sources about minutiae and you pretend that this is a response in the same vein.
     
    Batman16 and Yes like this.
  11. King of the Uzbeks Charles Curtis is my Baby Daddy

    Joined:
    May 28, 2013
    Location:
    Not-Tashkent (sadly)
    In a more serious tone, do you have fuller details on those nifty 28th and 29th Amendments?
     
    Batman16 and Yes like this.
  12. PNWKing There's Still Hope Out There!

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    What have the following people been doing?:
    Bernie Sanders
    Hillary Rodham
    Al Gore
    Steve Jobs
    Samuel L. Jackson
    Jeanne Kirkpatrick
     
  13. Wolfram Fair to middlin'

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Location:
    University of Houston, Houston, Texas
    Mr. Jobs showed up in Chapter 13:
     
  14. Yes Safe, Efficient Airship Travel Since 1972

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Location:
    The Shire, somewhere in Cascadia
    :p Done and done. :cool:

    Asked and answered from @Wolfram on Steve Jobs. As for the others, roughly on these lines:

    Bernie Sanders: Busy at work in Vermont trying to plug the Liberty Union more actively into the People's Party national organization, willing to go slow on his own office-seeking (in the short term) in an effort to take advantage of the McGovern opening and make the Liberty Union more than a dem-soc "ginger group" in the British turn of phrase and more like a wedge force for a broad national movement to (1) keep the McGoverners honest, from a left perspective, and (2) take advantage of the McGovern effect on what we'd call the Overton Window to create opportunities for harder-left office holders.

    Hillary Rodham: Very busy at work in the Office of the Solicitor General, as one of John Doar's second-seat irregulars in the ongoing civil and criminal actions against various people connected with the Nixon administration, the Committee to Re-elect the President, dirty pay-to-play lobbying organizations, and so on. Under the pressures of work and her own ambition to use this opportunity to get ahead she's broken it off with her old Yale boyfriend, himself now Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development. Will bob to the narrative surface again in the next chapter cued up.

    Al Gore: Has decided to stick it out the extra year and pick up a full M.Div. at Vanderbilt Theological Seminary. He's enjoyed a little taste of Woodward-and-Bernstein-ing with The Tennessean but wants to try and have maximum effect on the social-justice issues that engage him most, and is very much of two minds about his family's insistence that he head on to law school. A searcher, at the moment.

    Samuel L. Jackson: Returned to LA after getting his degree in Drama, moved by the McGovern victory to (1) head for the big-time town in search of acting work and (2) continue his political engagement doing more social work and also working both for Tom Bradley's '73 mayoral campaign and for more Black Power-oriented political groups on Bernie Sanders' model of "keeping 'em honest" on the left side of the political mainstream by going to the left of that.

    Jeanne Kirkpatrick: Busy as all get out for the infant Coalition for a Democratic Majority, aka Scoop Jackson's anti-McGovern caucus ITTL (it pretty much was IOTL, it's just even more explicit in the McGoverningverse) and still churning out foreign-policy position papers and assessments for Senator Jackson's office directly. Angling for a solid spot with the Committee on the Present Danger, about which more in the next chapter.
     
  15. Threadmarks: McGoverning: Chapter 15, Appendix 1, or, Text and Context

    Yes Safe, Efficient Airship Travel Since 1972

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Location:
    The Shire, somewhere in Cascadia
    It's funny you should ask that.

    Text of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment (Presidential Use of Force Amendment) (1973)

    1. The power of the President to introduce the Armed Forces of the United States into imminent or actual hostilities, clearly indicated by the circumstances, shall be exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, or to other specific statutory authorization, or to a national emergency created by an attack or attacks upon the citizens, the states and territories, or the Armed Forces of the United States.

    2. In every possible instance the President shall consult with Congress prior to such introduction of the Armed Forces of the United States, or as soon after introduction due to national emergency as circumstances allow.

    3. Upon any consultation with Congress prior to such introduction of forces, Congress shall have the right to refuse such introduction.

    4. Within twenty-four hours of such introduction of forces the President shall submit a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate that details the circumstances of that introduction, the constitutional or statutory terms under which it is undertaken, the estimated scope and duration of the introduction of forces, and such other information as the Congress may request for the fulfillment of the Congress' constitutional responsibilities with respect to war powers.

    5. Within sixty days of such introduction of forces, the President shall commence their withdrawal unless Congress has issued a declaration of war, or otherwise extended by law the sixty-day period, or is unable to meet due to the effect of an attack upon the United States.

    6. Any extension by law of the sixty-day period, including declaration of war, must be completed by Congress not less than thirty days before the sixty-day period expires.

    7. At the end of the sixty-day period, the following period for withdrawal of forces shall not be greater than sixty days unless approved by Congress through an extension by law, and based entirely upon evidence and information presented by the President to Congress regarding the practical necessity of such extension.

    Text of the Twenty-Eighth Amendment (Presidential Emergency Succession Amendment) (1974)

    1. All terms and conditions of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution remain in force herein.

    2. In case of the removal of both the President and Vice President from office, or their death, resignation, or other incapacity as recognized by law, then succession to the powers, duties, and prerogatives of the presidency shall settle as follows.

    3. Presidential succession shall pass by rule of seniority of office through the Cabinet, beginning with the office of Secretary of State, and proceed by seniority through the Executive Branch among only those officers of state appointed to their offices, duties, and entitlements by advice and consent of the Senate, so long as the officer next in succession is a United States citizen born within the states and territories of the United States.

    4. Such officers shall take upon themselves the role of Acting President, fully sworn to act with the powers, duties, and prerogatives of the presidency, and required within thirty days to present to both houses of Congress a Vice Presidential candidate in accord with the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

    5. Once elected by confirmation of both houses of Congress, such a Vice Presidential candidate shall assume their office and by right of constitutional succession become President in full at the time of their first availability.

    6. At that time the Acting President shall lay down those presidential powers, duties, and prerogatives they have held.

    7. An Acting President who has surrendered those powers shall have the right to resume their former office or any other such appointment, on condition of the advice and consent of the Senate.

    Text of the Twenty-Ninth Amendment (Command and Consent Amendment) (1974)

    1. Any duly appointed officer on whom the powers, duties, and prerogatives of the presidency have settled, whether an elected President, an elected Vice President, an appointed and confirmed Vice President succeeding to the presidency, or an Acting President, shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this amendment.

    2. In their role as commander in chief, that officer shall only employ nuclear or biological weapons, or other means of comparable destructive power, as weapons of war upon confirmation and concurrence from another officer of the Executive Branch granted their offices, duties, and entitlements by advice and consent of the Senate.

    3. Any military officer who has accepted orders from the commander in chief to make use of such weapons without the concurrence of a second officer of state as provided above, shall be subject to a court-martial as prescribed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice at the earliest possible time and date.

    4. Any failure by the commander in chief to adhere to this procedure shall cause the commander in chief to be removed from office for unfitness by a majority vote of the Cabinet as prescribed in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or upon failure of such vote the House of Representatives shall be required to vote upon impeachment of the commander in chief for breach of constitutional duties, in which case of impeachment the Senate shall promptly try the commander in chief on the charges issued.

    5. In the event that an attack or attacks upon the United States, its duly elected leaders, its states and territories, or upon the Armed Forces of the United States, should render such communication and consent with a second officer of the Executive Branch impossible, the commander in chief may act in response to such an attack or attacks without penalty under this amendment.




    "Known collectively as the War Powers Amendments, the three coordinated amendments were put before Congress in the wake of the United States' single longest undeclared war, and the political and cultural tumult it had caused. Put forward by the reformist McGovern administration in an effort to "right the ship" of balanced constitutional powers over war-making and to provide constitutional mechanisms that could cope with the problems of the nuclear age, the War Powers Amendments feature prominently in the argument by some historians of the present day that ... in particular the years 1964-1976, represented a Second Progressive Era in American politics..."
     
  16. Rosa Luxemburg Homosatanist

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Location:
    Canton, Georgia
  17. King of the Uzbeks Charles Curtis is my Baby Daddy

    Joined:
    May 28, 2013
    Location:
    Not-Tashkent (sadly)
    Oh man, I can practically smell the poorly researched airport thrillers that will eminate from this ammendment.

    So Ronnie in 76 then.
     
    Batman16 and Electric Monk like this.
  18. Excelsior Time's arrow marches forward

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    While the disentanglement of the executive and legislative are good, there are still certain gray areas which could be taken advantage of or lead to confusion in times of crisis. What happens to presidential succession in the event that there is no Congress to confirm a vice president? Does the Acting President retain power past the 30 day time period until a Congress has been assembled? Additionally, what happens if an Acting President simply declines to nominate a vice president? Is their acting tenure forfeit, or must they be removed from office procedurally? In the same vein, if an acting president is removed or otherwise eliminated without nominating a vice president, does succession go through the office the previous acting president held, or on to the next office. (For example, if the Secretary of State becomes Acting President and is then removed, does the Deputy Secretary of State, who should ascend to Acting Secretary of State, succeed to the presidency, or the Secretary of Treasury?)

    Sorry for asking so many questions, but presidential succession is a topic I've thought a lot about and there are always so many loopholes and things that could go wrong. I suppose the answers are things no one wants to think about until they pass. How fortunate we are that the odds of these events coming to pass are low.
     
    Yes likes this.
  19. Expat Monthly Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    And caught up! Slow poke, me. Fascinating stuff, a pleasure to read! I really appreciate the effort to reform processes. As someone often working in and around government programs, I feel like I could make good use of a stamp that says, "Is there a reason we do it this way or is it just because this is how we've always done it?" for like every memo.

    Some other thoughts:

    I suppose this is only the tiniest part of it, but if you've got a big cargo plane that can go more places (works on shorter runways, right?), and if something like food security is now being indelibly tied to defense/foreign policy, those beautiful YC-14s are gonna do some beautiful things in the years to come. Bring back the cargo cults!

    I'm very much a casual observer on military organization (please correct my mistakes), but any chance the administration/Pentagon are looking at moving away from divisions? I'm pretty sure IOTL this didn't even start being considered until the 80s (with fast deployment brigades), but I don't really know the history of it. Not sure if it would be prompted by the circumstances, but as long as you've got the military's hood up...

    I don't see anything touching on (D)ARPA type projects here. As technophobes, are they messing about at all with the workings there? Perhaps most notably, is anyone meddling with the protoplasm of the internet?

    And since we're talking budgets and tech and possible technophobes and taking into account the damage already done by Nixon, how are things looking for NASA?


    Skipping entirely off the path and into the pasture (and mostly just because I rewatched Harlan County USA this weekend) I'm curious how the UMW are doing. It seems to me Miners for Democracy had a bit of a parallel to the McGovern moment in '72. One could make the argument that the culture shock of seeing young idealists rising in power prompted the backlash that ultimately derailed the reform movement. But I wonder what a McGovern presidency- both in terms of having a more friendly administration in Washington and in terms of a soft/cultural power comparison between the two- might be able to do for the Miners for Democracy. There's probably going to be a leadership problem no matter what, with Miller proving diffident and Trbovich- in my opinion- throwing out the Yablonski legacy for personal gain. But it's so frustrating, other than the leadership, it feels like all the pieces to make meaningful changes are sitting right there. Perhaps I should put my faith in Gavin's broader industrial policy to put things on the right track.
     
    Yes likes this.
  20. Soup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Location:
    Bohemian Flats
    It's certainly possible that we see a McGovern administration that faces a lot more pushback for whatever reason post '76 and can't get as much done.
     
    Yes and Michael Canaris like this.
Loading...