Victory 2004: Win or Lose
August 26th, 2003The Nation’s peace and disarmament correspondent, Jonathan Schell, offers an interesting perspective on the prospect of voting for truth and peace in the upcoming presidential election (upcoming, as in 15 months away; upcoming, as in it couldn’t happen sooner). Democrats, as well as ordinary change-seeking voters, might consider moot the thought of weighing a potentially losing candidate with strong ideals (ie Kucinich or Dean) against a more plausible middle of the road wash-up (Lieberman).
Perish the thought of Nixon vs. McGovern comparisons.
As it happens, McGovern, not merely a historical figure but a living person, and a thoughtful and articulate one at that, has jumped into the discussion. Calling the warnings against McGovernism “political baloney,” he comments that although in 1972 he won only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, “no war could have continued long after that election.” He is suggesting that although the movement against the Vietnam War, of which his campaign was a powerful expression, never put a President in office, it nevertheless forced an end to the war. His point is that political influence can be exerted in more than one way: “Give me a presidential candidate who speaks the truth as he sees it, and I’ll show you a candidate whose campaign, win or lose, will be good for the nation.”