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-record 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).

McGovern's proposed Federal Budget of S350 Billion is viewed as fiscally calamitous ... and so it would be. Meanwhile, Nixon, who campaigned against Kennedy in 1960 on a pledge to hold the Budget under S100 Billion, inaugurated his Administration only nine years later with a Budget exceeding $200 Billion ... and is now beating his chest and emitting cries to the effect that he will hold the line at S250 Billion. Judging from this record, there is little doubt that Nixon will be cloee to the S350 Billion level himself within four years , if re-elected.

Of course, domestic policy is only part of the package one must consider in assessing a President (or potential President); foreign policy must also be taken into account And here, as on the domestic scene, Nixon's, performance offers little more hope than McGovern's promises.

For Nixon has done everything in his power to "build bridges" to the most oppressively totalitarian regimes in the world­ the-governments of Soviet Russia and Red China. When he could have used the threat of cutting oU foreign aid (a good idea, in any instance) to hold our supposed "friends" in line at the UN, he sat on his hands and let these rented allies unseat the Nationalist Chinese delegation, and seat in its place the murderous Peking regime. And then, his UN ambassador didn t even have the good grace to follow the lead of the Nationalist Chinese, and walk out of that assemblage of pompous pipsqueaks forever.

In Vietnam, he has pursued a policy that combines the worst of two alternati­ves-neither getting us out as soon as he was inaugurated, nor attempting a military victory. The result thousands of lives and billions of dollars thrown away for nothing. No, worse than nothing-for the Nixon Vietnam policy has resulted in a destruction of the American peoples' will to fight in any future war which might (unlike Vietnam) be necessary for our survival, and has siphoned money out of our domestic defense budget, leaving us sadly behind the Soviets in missile strength. And then, to cap it off, he has now virtuaUy conceded the Soviet's permanentt military superiority, in the SALT Talks.

The foregoing should serve to convince all but the blindest Nixonites and crassest "My Party, Right or Wrong"Republicans that the "consider the alternative" argument is fallacious-that a Mcgovern Administration would be no more of a disaster than four more years of Nixon. But even if one still feels that McGovern would be worse, there are some points one should consider be succumbing to the blandishments of the Nixon forces.

First. it ii a virtaal c:enainty that Mc:Gowm cumot win. under any cir­ f"VIIIS&a-. EYm befOff the Eagleton fJaKO. the poUa Mc:Gowm traitin« Nixoo b)· 21 pointa. Thia pp will probably nanow -ta.a. bute'Yell the moat Me&-na analym leava him aby of the 270 eledonl Win needed to win. 'J"bere ii DO doabl, of coane. that McGowm will cany - •ta. Maine 14 eledonl wteel, 1141. Rhode bland 141, Hawaii f41. MiamwJu (I 01 and the Diltrict of Colambia 131 would ,o fOI' Alem K • if be were the Democ:ntic nominff u,. at bare minimum, McGowm ii of 39 eledonl wca. But there. alto,mm the list of "eare beta.•• Anything McGowm gm beyond ti- 39 points will ba, tobe fought for. Since - are tr,-iag to detamine Im bar poaiblr sbowias. bowe'\w, let m gn him the bmdit of all doabla, and - what - up -..ith. To etart. let us ooooede him tbe entire Noni-et.all tbe way down to the North Carolina lxrier, · ooly Vermoot. New Hampabire. qinia. Thia groaaly ,-..- Ntimate . him sn-ea IDOff elalft tic-..a. New Jene,·. Peamylvania. West Virginia. Maryland. and Delaware) and 112 -­ ,"Ota. fOI' a total of 15I. And then. fOI' good let', throw in aD the Pacific elates fCalifomia., ,V uhing1on. Or.con, and Alma., 00 top of tbe alrady-<.'ODCleded Hawaiil. Thie giva McGO'\wn another 63 points. fOI' a total ol 214. Andfinally. fOI' the beck of it. let', toa in Michipn 121 ,-otsl and the Senator', home elate of South Dakota 141. 'The total ie _. 239. OI' 31 .a-t of victory. And that'• it. 11left ii not ooe other etate which McGO'\wn bu the elightst hope of ­ lllinoi, i, hopeleu, without Daley', -8IIJIPO'! ... andeven then, would be unlikely. Ullinoie went fOI' Nixon owrHumpbreybyover 100,000votes, ewn with Daley doin« hie damndeet.l Tau? Doo't be eilly-HhH gotooly 41 pesunt of tb,e 'Ote. Miaolui? Humphrey carried it by a razor', with Wallace drawing 25 times the vote which aeparated HHH from Nixoo--and it ii hard to conceive of thoee Wallaceites voting for McGovern. Wac:umn? Cooceivable. but Nixon bNt HRH by 4 pesunt, with Wallace drawins an additional 8 percent .•• and w bu ooly 12 electoral wtee in any cue. 'The Deep South, South-a. MidwNt. and Mountain Staa areanabeolute deeert fOI' Mc:GoYem; eu,re the Democrau in Nebnub Ifor inetancel voted fOI' him in the primary, u did thoee in New Mexico fwbere hie ooly t - Wallacel, but hie cbanoee of canying any of the elates in ti­ re,iooe in Nowmber are a Rat a.ero. No. e'\'ell conceding him a number ol etats which be ie by DO meant certain to carry (e.g. California, Maryland, Penn­ sylvania, and Mic:hipnl, one finde it im• poaible to rationally envieion a McGovern victory. So. e'\'ell if one viewe McGovern u Evil Incarnate. ten timee wone than Nixon, one abouJd feel under DO compu)aion to ,0 vote fOI' Richard the Lyin'-8earted, if one', motivation ie limply to prevent McGovern'• election. But what if one'• motivation ii not aimply to keep McGovern out ol the White n-? What if it • to make IUre that McGovern, and all be 1tanda fOI', ii - repudiated at the po&? A laudable motivation, tbil--but one which carriee within it a deadly trae. And tbie ie that one cannot overwhelm McGovern without limultaneoualy giving Nixon an overwhelming endor,emenr. A land1lide victory fOI' Nixon will deliver the GOP into the haoda of ite Democrat-aping faction forever, and will give RMN a blank chedt to do whatever be cl. fothnext four yeen. !Remember LBJ'• performance after hie victOl'Y over Goldwater?I Nixon, and hie equivalente in future yean. will be able to eay "See, it ien't ..-rytomake any OODCHliom to the minimal-government ad'\'OC&tel; we didn't in '72, and we still won by a laodllide." In RUii, thegreatelt danger McGovern poeee ie not that be will win, and lead U1 down the road to oblivion, but that hie candidacy itaeU will do two tbinp.

Finl, it will move the entire apectnun of political debate in thie country abarply towarda oollectivilm. Simply by virtue of the fact that be ii the Preaidential nominee of a major party, McGovern will bring tability to propoula which, u recently u fifteeo yean a,o, would havecate,oriaed any politician who eepou-1 them • a candidate IOI' the funny farm, rather than fOI' the Presidency. Second-and more critically-he will wfirimiu NWHL Whether be1- by a wide OI'a narrow one, be will give Nixon a mandate to move towarda Total Statiam at an accelerated pace. At fast, tbie analyail appean to leave DO hope for thoee of UI who oppoee tbie tn!Dd towarda ata tiam. If we ,o to the polll and vote fOI' Nixon, in order to crueb McGowm, ._ implicitly endone Nixoo'• policieL If, on the other band, we etay home, and Nixon wine only narrowly, the eocialilta in boch partiee can eay "See, our idea aren't IO far out••. nearly half the voten 111pport them." Either way, the oollectiviete win. 11left ie a third alternative. A meam by which we can make our diaatilfactioo known. We can ,o to the polle and YOte agaimt both Nixon and McGovern aod /or a man who repreaeote our pbiloaopby of ie. ,overnment and more individual reapon­ libility. That man ie Dr. John Hoapen. can­ didateol the Libertarian Party. Hiel'UIIIUIIC" mate ie Mn. Tonie Nathan. Toeetber, they offer a rNl alternative to Nixooiem / Mc­ Govemiam. And only by mmtering a eignif1C&Dt bloc of votes fOI' the H Nathan ticket can._ hope to make Nixon realize that we do not eodone hie preaeat policiel, and that we cannot be ignored OI' taken for granted. McGO'\-em muet be recocnized IOI' what be ie a decoy, wt.c.e greatelt danger ii that be will lure us into voting for Nixoo, u 'the 1-r of twoevila." It will take courage to reaiet tbie tem patation. Andit will take an extra effOl't to vote fOI' Dr . Hoapen and Mn. Nathan, u tbie will have to be done by write­ in, in most etatee. But it mU1t be done , fOI' what ia at stake ie nothing le. than the future of freedom in America.

Break Free From Big Brother. Vote Libertarian. Vote for Dr. John Hospers and Mrs. Tonie Nathan for President and Vice-President of the United States, on November 7, 1972. If they're not on the ballot in your state, find out how to cast a write-in vote.

Contribute to the Hospers-Nathan campaign. Checks should be made out to Libertarun Party C•mp•ign Fund,and sent to the Fund at 1415 N. El Paso, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906.

Join the Libertarian Party, aa an active member. Annual dues are S4 for students, S6 for regular mem­ bership, and S12 for sustaining membership. Checks should be made out to Li rt•run P•rty, and sent to the Party's National Headquarters, 7748 Lowell Blvd., Westminster, Colorado 80030.