Document:McGovern the Dangerous Decoy: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Document:McGovern the Dangerous Decoy (view source)

Revision as of 04:07, 22 July 2021

6,975 bytes added , 22 July 2021

no edit summary

CarynAnnHarlos

Bureaucrats, Administrators

57,715

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Docalt PDF|Leaflet 1972 McGovern-Decoy.pdf}}
 =McGovern the Dangerous Decoy=
@@ Line 40: / Line 42: @@
 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 virtual certainty that McGovern cannot win under any circumstances.  Even before the Eagleton fiasco, the polls showed McGovern trailing Nixon by 21 percentage points. This gap will probably narrow somewhat, but even the most pro-McGovern analysis leaves him shy of the 270 electoral votes needed to win.
+There is no doubt, of course, that McGovern will carry some states. (Maine 14 electoral votes),	Massachusetts (14), Rhode Island (4), Hawaii (4), Minnesota (10), and the District of Columbia (3) would go for Alexei Kosygin, if he were the Democratic nominee.  Thus, at bare minimum, McGovern is assured of 39 electoral votes.  But there, also, ends the list of "sure bets."  Anything McGovern gets behind these 39 points will have to be fought for.
+Sincere are trying to determine his best possible showing, however, let us give him the benefit of all doubts, and see what we can come up with.  To start, let us concede him the entire Northeast, all the down to the North Carolina border, excepting on Vermont, New Hampshire, and Virginia.  This grossly generous estimate gives him seven more states (Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware) and 112 more votes, for a total of 151.
+And then for good measure, let's throw in all of the Pacific states (California, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska on top of the already-conceded Hawaii).  This give McGovern another 63 points, for a total of 214.
+And finally, for the heck of it, let's throw in Michigan (21 votes) and the Senator's home state of South Dakota (4). The total is now 239 or 31 short of victory. And that's it. There is not one other state which McGovern has the slightest hope of carrying. (Illinois is hopeless, without Daley's doing his damnedest.)  Texas?  Don't be silly-HHH got only 41 percent of the vote.  Missouri?  Humphrey carried it by a razor's edge, with Wallace drawing 25 times the vote which separated HHH from Nixon-and it is hard to conceive of those Wallaceites voting for McGovern.  Wisconsin? Conceivable, but Nixon best HHH by 4 percentage, with Wallace drawing an additional 8 percent... and Wisconsin has only 12 electoral votes in any case.
+The Deep South, Southwest, Midwest, and Mountain States are an absolute desert for McGovern; sure, the Democrats in Nebraska (for instance) voted for him in the primary, as did those in New Mexico (where his only opponent was Wallace), but his chances of carrying any of the states in these regions in November are a flat zero.
+No, even conceding him a number of states which he is by no means certain to carry (e.g. California, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Michigan), one finds it impossible to nationally envision a McGovern victory.
+So, even if one views McGovern as Evil Incarnate, ten times worse than Nixon, one should feel under no compulsion to go vote for Richard the Lyin'-Hearted, if one's motivation is simply to prevent McGovern's election.
+But what if one's motivation is not simply to keep McGovern out of the White House?  What if it is to make sure that McGovern, and all he stands for, is overwhelmingly repudiated at the polls?
+A laudable motivation, this-but one which carries within it a deadly trap. And that is that one cannot overwhelm McGovern without simultaneously giving Nixon an overwhelming endorsement. A landslide victory for' Nixon will deliver the GOP into the hands of its Democrat-aping faction forever, and  will give RMN a blank check to do whatever he chooses for the next four years. (Remember LBJ's performance after his victory over Goldwater?) Nixon, and his equivalent in future years, will be able to say "See, it isn't necessary to make any concessions to the minimal-government advocates; we didn't in '72, and we still won by a landslide."
+In sum, the greatest danger McGovern poses is not that he will win, and lead us down the road to oblivion, but that his candidacy itself will do two things.
+First, it will move the entire spectrum of political debate in this country sharply towards collectivism. Simply by virtue of the fact that he is the Presidential nominee of a major party. McGovern will bring respectability to proposals which, as recently as
+fifteen years ago, would have categorized any politician who espoused them as a candidate for the funny farm, rather than for the Presidency.
+Second-and more critically-he will legitimize Nixon. Whether he loses by a wide or a narrow one, he will give Nixon a mandate to move towards Total Statism at an accelerated pace.
+At first, this analysis appears to leave no hope for those of us who oppose this trend towards statism. If we go to the polls and vote for Nixon, in order to crush McGovern, we implicitly endorse Nixon's policies If, on the other band, we stay home, and Nixon wins only narrowly, the socialists in both parties can say "See, our idea aren't too far out, nearly half the voters support them." Either way, the oollectivists win.
+There is a third alternative. A means by which we can make our dissatisfaction known. We can go to the polls and vote against both Nixon and McGovern and for a man who represents our philosophy of less government and more individual responsibility.
+That man is Dr. John Hospers, candidate of the Libertarian Party. His running-mate is Ms. Tonie Nathan. Together, they offer an alternative to Nixonism/Mc Governism. And only by mustering a significant block of votes for the Hospers/Nathan ticket can we hope to make Nixon realize that we do not condone hie present policies, and that we cannot be ignored or taken for granted.
+McGovern must be recognized for what he is.... a decoy, whose greatest danger is that he will lure us into voting for Nixon, as 'the 1esser of two evils." It will take courage to resist this temptation. And it will take an extra effort to vote for Dr. Hoapen and Mn. Nathan, as this will have to be done by write-in, in most states. But it must be done, for what is at stake is nothing less 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 Libertarian Party Campaign 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 $4 for students, $6 for regular membership, and $12 for sustaining membership. Checks should be made out to Libertarian Party, and sent to the Party's National Headquarters, 7748 Lowell Blvd., Westminster, Colorado 80030.
+[[Category: Politicians|1972]]
+[[Category: 1972 Presidential Race Issues]]
+[[Category: National Party Flyers|1972]]
+[[Category: National Party Flyers from the 1970s|1972]]