University of Virginia Library

Kevin Mannix

Of Course, There's Always Next Year...

With the benefit of admitted
hindsight and the bias of an
inside view, a few points come
to mind about the recent
election.

George McGovern lost
because of several factors:

1. In winning the
nomination, he over-ran several
groups basic to the Democratic
Party coalition, particularly the
old politicos and big labor. In
so doing, he alienated them to
the extent that their full
support was not forthcoming
after the nomination.

2. The Party reforms worked
to McGovern's advantage in
winning the nomination, but
they worked against him
afterwards because many
Democrats who are strong
party boosters were left behind
by the reforms. They could
have been in the forefront if
they had followed the new
rules (Mayor Daley in
particular comes to mind) but
that is begging the question.

3. McGovern spoke his mind
during the primaries. Since he
made specific proposals on
every issue, it was much easier
for the opposition to pick
away at his positions. His very
strength was a weakness.

4. The people of the United
States are not ready for a lot of
change. Sure, they have their
gripes. But their basic attitude
seems to be that Nixon has
been trying, so he deserves
another chance. I don't agree,
but that, again, begs the
question.

5. As a friend of mine
remarked, McGovern would
make a great President, but
he's a lousy campaigner. His
attempts to smoke Nixon out
failed miserably.

6. The bitter primary
campaigns, in which Democrats
such as Humphrey and Jackson
labeled McGovern's ideas as
"far out" or "radical" split the
core of the Democratic Party.
The basic Democrats
blue-collar workers, for
example – saw only the label
when they saw McGovern. And
the label stuck. It didn't matter
whether McGovern had a
better position insofar as the
working man was concerned.

The case in favor of George
McGovern for President will not be
re-argued here. Suffice it to say
that, with the benefit of
hindsight, things might have
been done differently. At the
time, however, the choices
which were made were the best
possible in the light of
circumstances. McGovern
would not have gotten
anywhere in the primaries had
he not followed the course he
chose.

Turning to the Spong
campaign, I submit that it is
downright ridiculous to blame
Bill Spong's defeat on the
national ticket, particularly
since most Democratic
incumbents were re-ejected this
year. Bill Spong made several
mistakes:

1. He knew six years ago
that he would run for
re-election, yet he did not set
up local organizations until six
weeks before the election.

2. Spong let the opposition
make an issue of his
endorsement or non-endorsement
of McGovern.
Spong should have followed a
specific course instead of
trying to have it both ways by
endorsing neither candidate for
President. At the very least, he
should not have said anything
to anyone if he intended a
"golden silence." His
last-minute slip-up in talking to
three college students really
hurt. With an opponent such as
Bill Scott, Bill Spong should
have been ready for Scott's
unscrupulous tactics.

3. Spong had money
available. He should have spent
more.

CD/Bill Bardenwerper

Shriver: Speaking his mind

4. As an intelligent,
middle-of-the-road Senator and
a fine person, Spong was
especially open to attacks from
the flaming left as well as the
flaming right. Throughout his
six years in the Senate Spong
should have carried on an
extensive publicity campaign.

This would not be within his
"workhorse" approach to
government, but it was
necessary so the public could
understand why he voted as he
did on key issues. It was only
because the public had no clear
image of Bill Spong that Bill
Scott was able to unethically
falsify Spong's true voting
record and charge that Spong
was unrepresentative of
Virginians.

As for Murat Williams, he
ran a fine campaign for
Congress in the Seventh
Congressional District. He
spoke his mind on the issues,
stressed his differences with his
opponent, and sought to relate
to the needs of the voters. He
failed for three reasons:

1. His opponent, J. Kenneth
Robinson, is a decent fellow
who has worked hard for his
constituents. That made him a
more difficult target.

2. The 7th is a Republican
District. The cities and
counties in "The Valley" are
especially heavily and
traditionally Republican.

3. Robinson had the big
money necessary for
wide-ranging exposure,
especially on television,
whereas Williams could only
afford radio spots. In addition,
of course, Robinson had the
advantages of incumbency and
has always been careful to mail
a regular newsletter to all
registered voters.

A quick analysis, necessarily
incomplete, but my opinion.
Of course, there's always next
year...