Make a tax-deductible contribution today and get exclusive Vonnegut gear!
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Views > December 27, 2007

McGovern Still on the Antiwar Path

The retired senator and former ambassador to the United Nations is stumping for a book he co-wrote with foreign policy analyst William R. Polk called Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now while buttonholing dozens of members of Congress and urging our immediate withdrawal from Iraq

By Laura S. Washington

'When Cheney endorses a war, he exempts himself from participation. But maybe it's wise--he might end up shooting his comrades.'
Tags   

The old antiwar horse is still kicking.

In 1972, South Dakota Sen. George McGovern (once a World War II bomber pilot) won the Democratic presidential nomination on an antiwar platform. In 2007, he’s still got game.

In March 2007, McGovern called on Vice President Dick Cheney to resign. A month later, opining in the Los Angeles Times, he revisited the trauma of the Vietnam War era and excoriated George W. Bush and Cheney for blithely sacrificing American lives once again. “We, of course, already know that when Cheney endorses a war, he exempts himself from participation,” he wrote. “On second thought, maybe it’s wise to keep Cheney off the battlefield — he might end up shooting his comrades rather than the enemy.”

For more than a year, the retired senator and former ambassador to the United Nations has been stumping for a book he co-wrote with foreign policy analyst William R. Polk called Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now. He has buttonholed dozens of members of Congress, urging our immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

McGovern lost the presidential election in 1972 because of his conviction that the Vietnam War was wrong. To this day, conservatives blast him for being a liberal anti-American. He’s still not backing down.

“I’m very proud of the things that I stood for in ‘72 and I make no apologies for anything,” McGovern told me in a Nov. 28 phone interview. “I said what I thought was right. And I am proud of what we stood for in that campaign. We didn’t win, but lots of people in history have proposed ideas that were good for the society of their time but weren’t accepted until years later.”

McGovern, 85, was in Chicago in late November to accept an award from the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law for his efforts to fight hunger, a cherished cause since he led John F. Kennedy’s Food for Peace Program in the ’60s.

McGovern bemoaned America’s feeble memory. He recalled often comforting his young daughters. “And I said, ‘Look, maybe something good will come from this Vietnam tragedy. It’s such an obvious blunder, we’ll never go down that road again. So maybe it will save us from repeating this on an even more costly scale.’ And of course, now I don’t know what to tell my daughters.”

Why, I asked him, don’t Americans learn from their history?

“One disturbing thing is that they don’t study it. It’s not even pressed in the schools as a high priority, as it used to be. … People are more interested in learning how to do e-mail, do a computer or whatever, than studying the history of humanity,” McGovern said.

How does his hatred of needless war square with his recent endorsement of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), who voted to send us to Iraq?

“Obviously, I wish she hadn’t voted for that war resolution,” he replied, then added, “I have no doubt that if she is elected, she won’t lose any time ending that war.”

While he would be “perfectly happy” with any of the Democratic frontrunners, “2008 is Hillary’s year,” he said. “She’s highly intelligent, she’s got the grit to stand firm … she knows the heads of state, people all around the world … she was in on all the decisions.”

No doubt it helps that they go way back. Thirty-five years ago, two fresh-faced political activists named Bill and Hillary Clinton helped coordinate McGovern’s Texas operation.

“I don’t forget that. I’ve got a long memory,” he recalled. “To try to sell George McGovern in Texas in 1972—that was a tall order. And they went down there and did it cheerfully and did a good job.”

Did he spot their talent then? He laughed. “What I remember was, keep in mind, this was ‘72, Bill had a hairdo that made him look pretty much like a buffalo. A huge mass of hair. I was always kind of jealous of him because mine was pretty thin even then.”

Ironically, Bill and Hill later eschewed McGovern’s liberal politics and won the White House from the center.

While McGovern is backing Clinton, he eagerly lays on the superlatives for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). “Brilliant.” “Promising.” “Another Lincoln.”

The Democratic Party’s elder statesman showed his age a bit when he ventured into Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) territory. “He’s got a mastery of English diction, he’s grounded morally.” Clean and articulate, too?

Still, you gotta love an octogenarian who can still give it as good as he gets. As he wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “Instead of listening to the foolishness of the neoconservative ideologues, the Cheney-Bush team might better heed the words of a real conservative, Edmund Burke: ‘A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood.’”

Laura S. Washington, an In These Times senior editor, teaches journalism at DePaul University and is a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times.

More information about Laura S. Washington
Tags   
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    I have always respected McGovern for expressing his beliefs clearly and sticking to them.

    Occasionally I get a bit nostalgic for the good old days of the Soviet Union and the Cold War when the “good and bad guys” were more easily defined. With McGovern we’d probably still be in the same situation, so maybe I should have voted for him.

    I believe he is absolutely correct in the lack of historical perspective to the point of nearly total ignorance by our politicians. Truman was possibly the last President to have a truly comprehensive view.

    The trouble we are now in is at least partly due to defining the present conflict in the historical way — as between nations — when it is far broader and more dangerous.

    Being opposed to war solves nothing. Granted it was wrong to invade Iraq (the reasons are apparent to most of us), but leaving Iraq now will end nothing. Afghanistan is even sadder due to the fact that had we limited our actions to there we may have actually gained stature with Muslims and increased global cooperation against the radicals in there midst.
    -------------------

    Note: Isn’t ironic that we attribute the fall of the Soviets to economically outdoing them? With our economy struggling will we do any better and if so, for how long?

    Posted by whattheheck on Dec 27, 2007 at 10:30 AM

    Do you think it strange that people who actually took part in war are against war, while those who dodged war are quick to start wars?  I don’t find it strange at all. 
    George Santayana said, in 1905, in “The Life of Reason,”
    “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

    Posted by frank67 on Jan 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM

    frank67,

    To be fair we would have to say “some who have actually taken part in war are against war.”

    “Once a cat jumps on a hot stove, he will not do it again. He will not jump on a cold one either.”

    The wisdom is in knowing the difference.

    The real war here is not with Iraqis, not with Iraq and the invasion was not really due to the attack on 9/11. IMHO it was “an opportunity” to establish a major military base in the midst of the oil rich Middle East.

    This action will not prevent another attack here and the lack of action to protect our borders, our food supply, and innumerable other points vulnerable to terrible mischief confirms this.

    By successive U.S. administrations ignoring thirty years in which to have built alternative energy sourses, mass public transportation and promoted energy efficiency in housing — we are still stategically dependent on oil.

    I occasionally wonder what would have changed with the $0.50 per gallon tax (to be used for such development) candidate John B. Anderson proposed in 1980.

    Posted by whattheheck on Jan 8, 2008 at 8:36 AM
  • register a new account »Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.
Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Also by Laura S. Washington

Your financial support of In These Times is critical, because contributions keep the contents of inthesetimes.com free and open to all readers.

Donate now and get a Kurt Vonnegut mug or t-shirt!

Popular Discussions