Document:McGovern the Dangerous Decoy

McGovern the Dangerous Decoy

"I was planning to stay home on Election Day this year, to protest Nixon's breaking the promises he made in '68... but now that McGovern has captured the Democratic nomination, I guess I'm going to have to go vote for old Tricky Dick, after all. The thought of McGovern as President really scares me. By comparison, NiXon seems good."

No doubt you've heard this "consider the alternative" line from quite a few people, already. And you'll be hearing it again and again, and again between now and November 7th. Nixon's professional fear mongers will be shouting it from the rooftops, in an effort to raise additional funds for their already-bloated campaign chest. "Responsible conservative" publications will echo the cry, albeit a bit less fervently. And millions of good people, who are sick at heart over Nixon's actions in the last two years, will give in and reluctantly troop to the polls in November, hold their noses, grit their teeth, and pull the lever beside the name of Richard Milhous Nixon.

Now, no doubt, if the Democrats had nominated Hubert Humphrey or Edmund Muskie, the Nixon tubthumpers would be hawking much the same line. But it would have fallen, to a large extent, on deaf ears. For somehow, old Hot-Air Hubert and Crying Ed Muskie just don't make very convincing bogeymen.

After all, a lot of people who voted for Nixon four years ago, because they thought he'd at least be better than HHH, have by now figured out that they were seduced and abandoned. For there is little in the record of the Nixon Administration (save its reluctant anti-bussing stance) that one cannot envision as fitting equally well into that of a Humphrey Administration, and there is little that HHH could have done beyond what Nixon has done... especially given the fact that Republicans in Congress would have fought tooth and nail if a Humphrey or Muakie had tried moet of the things they have meekly allowed Nixon to do.

McGovern, on the other hand, somehow retains the ability to terrify. For, although he is not in fact more radical than Humphrey or Muskie (his ADA rating, for instance, is lower than theirs), his image is considerably more radical. Indeed, he is perceived, by many people, as being a cross between Norman Thomas and Neville Chamberlain... a veritable witch's brew of socialism and surrender.

It is difficult to say how this image came into being. If one examines McGovern's voting-reoord carefully, it certainly doesn't hold up. He's a liberal, no question, but no more so than many other public figures generally regarded as being fairly moderate.

To some extent, of course, McGovern himself has carefully cultivated hie radical reputation, as a means of gaining the support of the youthful shock-troops who were eo vital to his success in the primary campaigns... and is now back-pedaling furiously, in order to appeal to the moderate-liberal, whose votes he needs in the general election.

And to some extent, he is simply the beneficiary-if that is the right word-of a curious phenomenon that occurs once every 24 years, as precisely as clockwork.

Nobody knows just why it happens, but every 24 years, a sort of populist radicalism seems to sweep the country . . . and those who are infected with its fever seek a champion. And for some reason, this champion inevitably turns out to be a man of the Upper Midwest-William Jennings Bryan in 1900, Robert LaFollette in 1924, Henry Wallace in 1948, and now McGovern.

These champions and their supporters invariably fail miserably in their attempts at capturing the White House, but this fact doesn't seem to deter them from having another go at it once each generation. And this time, McGovern is their man.

Thus, because McGovern is the can­didate of the radical fringe, he becomes, in many peoples' minds, a radical himself . . . and with some justification, it must be conceded.

But McGovern cannot be considered in vacuo. What counts is not how radical McGovern is (or is not) relative to some mythical ideal, but How radical he is com pared to Richard Nixon. And the answer, unfortunately, is "not very." For despite their rhetorical difference-and the images they project-there is really very little dif­ference between the two men.

Consider first their re?pective economic proposals. McGovern's proposal for a guaranteed annual income of Sl,000 per person is being decried by its opponents as socialism-which, indeed, it is. But Nixon's Family Assistance Plan is essentially the same thing. McGovern's economic proposals are also damned as being certain to cause massive inflation. But Nixon has run up a Budget deficit of nearly SIOO Billion in four years ... a record unmatched since the days of FDR. McGovern's promise to secure "jobs for all"-or, in lieu thereof, 100 percent unemployment compensation-are condemned as being certain to remove incentives for businesses to avoid bankruptcy, and for individuals to remain productive. But then, Nixon bailed out Lockheed. McGovern is blasted as being inimical to the free­ enterprise system-but Nixon has imposed wage-price controls, and nationalized a major industry (railroads).