George McGovern Blasts Neoliberal/Neoconservative Scheming

McGovern touts legacy of liberalism in America,” by Rob Chaney, The Missoulian, 30 July 2005, http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2005/07/30/news/local/news05.txt (from Democratic Underground).

isn’t the only famous Democrat from South Dakota…

I have a soft spot in my heart for George McGovern. We were both born in South Dakota. We both taught at a small college. We both lived in Italy for a time (his much longer and splendidly and mine). And neither us of defeated Richard Nixon or Jim Abdnor.

The Senator recently surfaced in Missoula of all places, speaking just like the McGovernator all South Dakotans know and refuse to vote for

I’m a Democrat and a liberal,” McGovern said, adding, “I’m sure I wasn’t just revealing a secret. And I’m the worst kind of liberal – a bleeding-heart liberal.”

Yes, Senator, you are, and the American and South Dakotan people told you exactly what they think of that

medium_election_1972_md.2.jpg
McGovern painted the country Red

Though perhaps he’s a bit more conspiracy minded than before:

The nation needs a strong conservative movement to balance the liberal force, he said. What [America] doesn’t need, [McGovern] said, is people claiming to be either neo-conservative or neo-liberal. Such people are masking their true intentions, particularly with regards to U.S. involvement in the Iraq war.

One thought on “George McGovern Blasts Neoliberal/Neoconservative Scheming”

  1. What this country really needs is a solid third party. So we can finally get some meaningful debate about issues.

    Case in point, Look at the recent court nominees. Since the republicans had enough votes to confirm the nominees, they really didn't need to discuss the candidates. So instead the debate was reformed around the filibuster and not the merits of the judge in question. What kind of bullshit is that?

    Put in a strong third party. If all goes well, no one would have a majority and would not be able to fast track legislation or nominations through congress.

    Isn't the political split in this country basically on thirds anyway? 33% Left, Right and Center.

  2. Dan Johansson,

    The Republican attempt to “take-over” the judiciary is a natural evolution of their tactics. Conservatives (for lack of a better term, the neocons and theocons) consciously adopted the tactics of insurgency in the early 1980s. They published this in their journals, and did not hide it.

    One does not need the most men on the battlefield to win a physical battle. So it is not surprising one does not need the most hard-core supporters to win political victories in a democracy.

    The only way America could have three meaningful parties is if at least one of them were regional. America's “first past the gate” gives the advantage to any party that can get a plurality in an election. Unlike some nations, we do not have proportional representation.

    As for political breakdown, I believe it is closer to 40% right, 30% left, 30% center. The rightward shift is how a “1980s mainstream conservative” like Sandra O'Connor is “liberal” compared to a “2000s mainstream conservative” like John Roberts.

    Some links:

    Adoption of Insurgency Tacticshttp://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/06/10/1983_adoption_of_revolutionary_insurgent_tactics_by_american.html

    Understanding the Right's Supreme Court Battle
    http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/04/27/the_final_days_of_the_third_stage_of_the_4gp_against_liberal.html

    Neocons and Theocons
    http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/06/09/the_neocon_theocon_axis_winning_and_losing.html

  3. Well, thats not really what i was talking about. I was complain more about the fact that there is no meaningfull debate on significant issues.

    In this case, for a republican, its follow the party line and pass the presidents choice. Which is ultimatly the partys choice. There is questioning within the ranks of the fact that is this the best choice.

    At least there was some, but very limited decent over John Bolton.

    I guess I'm an idealist and think that congress people should do thier fucking job instead of making it look like they are.

    We are rulled by the few eliete and the apathy of the many.

  4. Dan,

    There is a meaningful debate, but on the “big issues” it occurs earlier in the process than Congressional votes.

    Specifically, it occurs in millions of small conversations throughout the nation, and the outcome is decided in the Congressional elections.

    Likewise, there are millions of ongoing debates on the best vision for a Presidency that are answered in the Presidential elections.

    The Constitution does not say it is the job of the Congress or the Executive to decide issues from scratch once they are in office.

    I agree that the many are apathetic, but that does not mean there is one elite. There are many elites, who battle among each other.

    As for idealism in the legislative process, Chancellor Bismarck had some words on that

    “Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *