PLANK OCTOBER 22, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

Presidential politics can get very ugly, but in the current contest I don't think we've heard any slogans as vicious as the one leveled in 1972 against George McGovern, who died this past weekend at age 90. The South Dakota senator was, his opponents sneered, the candidate of "Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion."
The smear is being mentioned in some of McGovern's obituaries, but most of these leave out the phrase's weird provenance, which remained a secret until 2007. In that year, Robert Novak revealed its source (in his memoir, The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington) to be none other than Sen. Tom Eagleton.
Eagleton, a Missouri Democrat, would of course go on to be chosen as McGovern's running-mate--and then dumped 18 days later, after it was revealed that Eagleton had previously received electric-shock therapy for "nervous exhaustion." McGovern's former campaign manager, Frank Mankiewicz, notes in his TNR obituary that if it weren't for the Eagleton blunder, McGovern might well have "remained the standard-bearer for liberalism [in a good way, Mankiewicz means] after what would have been a close defeat by Nixon." Mankiewicz even thinks McGovern, and not Jimmy Carter, would have gone on to win the presidency in 1976.
Had Mankiewicz and McGovern known, when they vetted Eagleton, that Eagleton had originated "Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion," there's no chance they would have chosen him. McGovern's onetime speechwriter, Bob Shrum, said as much in 2007 in a joint appearance with Novak on Meet The Press. "Boy, do I wish he would have let you publish his name," Shrum exclaimed.
Then he never would have been picked as vice president. Because the two things, the two things that happened to George McGovern—two of the things that happened to him—were the label you put on him, number one, and number two, the Eagleton disaster. We had a messy convention, but he could have, I think in the end, carried eight or 10 states, remained politically viable. And Eagleton was one of the great train wrecks of all time.
Why did Eagleton say it? According to Novak (who in 1972 was half of the syndicated-column-writing team Evans and Novak), after McGovern won the Massachusetts primary he, Novak, put out calls to Democratic politicians seeking quotes for a column he wanted to write about a disconnect he perceived between McGovern and blue-collar voters. One of these politicians was Eagleton, who supported McGovern's primary opponent Ed Muskie and opposed legalization of abortion, which would occur the following year when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade. Eagleton obliged Novak with a very juicy quote, supplied on a strict not-for-attribution basis:
One liberal senator feels McGovern’s surging popularity depends on public ignorance of his acknowledged public positions. "The people don’t know McGovern is for amnesty, abortion and legalization of pot," he told us. Once "middle America—Catholic middle America, in particular"—once they find out, "he’s dead."
This attack line created a predictable sensation, and was picked up, first by McGovern primary opponent Hubert Humphrey, and later by various Nixon supporters. Somewhere along the way "legalization of pot" got dropped and the more alliterative "acid" was substituted. McGovern became the candidate of Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion.
Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.
Evans and Novak, whose column was drifting rightward in general, took a lot of heat for this column in particular. It was (rightly) deemed an attempt to sabotage McGovern's chances of winning the nomination. In his 1973 book The Boys On The Bus Timothy Crouse quoted a McGovern spokesman suggesting that the blind quote was pure invention. That infuriated Novak, who all his life kept careful score of every slight. Novak and his partner, Rowland Evans, took Eagleton to lunch at Sans Souci, the Washington power restaurant of that era, to discuss the matter. Eagleton did not try to deny the quote. Indeed, he said that subsequent events (i.e., Nixon's landslide victory) ratified his earlier assessment. (That took a certain cheek, since the landslide was largely the product of Eagleton's failure to come clean on his mental-health record.) Even so, Eagleton refused to allow the columnists to reveal that he was the source of the triple-A attack line, citing the harm such a revelation might do to his Senate re-election. Thirty years later, when Novak began writing his memoirs, he wrote Eagleton, then retired, to ask if he could now cite him as the source of that famous quote. Again, Eagleton said no. But Eagleton died just as Novak was finishing up the book, freeing him to identify Eagleton as the source. "He never repudiated what he said about McGovern," Novak wrote, "while concealing the fact that he said it."
Quite apart from its viciousness, was it factually wrong to tag McGovern as the candidate of Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion? In a 2007 book review of Bruce Miroff's book The Liberal Moment: The McGovern Insurgency And The Identity Crisis of the Democratic Party, I argued that it was.
1.) Acid. McGovern flat-out did not favor legalizing marijuana, much less acid. Eagleton was quite nastily reminding Novak by indirection that McGovern's teenage daughter Terry (an addict who would later freeze to death while passed out drunk) had, four years earlier, gotten busted for marijuana possession.
2.) Amnesty. McGovern did indeed favor amnesty for Vietnam draft resisters, but so, prior to the 1972 campaign, had Nixon. When Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter later granted, in stages, complete amnesty to all Vietnam draft evaders, the republic somehow managed to survive.
3.) Abortion. McGovern's position stood to the right of Roe. McGovern said abortion was a matter best left to the states, which essentially is the pro-life position today. In 1973 Roe would say that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed every woman the right to choose whether to have an abortion.
In my 2007 review, I make a fuller case that McGovern's legacy has been unfairly tarnished in other ways as well. The real blunder that year was committed by the 47 million voters who re-elected Nixon, only to see him resign office in disgrace two years later. This was nicely captured—forgive the vulgarity—by some graffiti I remember seeing in a Los Angeles men's room stall sometime in 1973 or 1974: "If you voted for Nixon you can't shit here because your asshole's in Washington." Amen.
Correction. An earlier version of this column referred to McGovern's home state, erroneously, as North Dakota.
12 comments
Wow, an entire article about the 1972 election, and while you mention Nixon a couple of times, the Watergate bugging of the DNC headquarters comes up not once. I think that would have been a key fact about the 1972 election -- unless you want to blame it all on Eagleton, who was the VP candidate for a mere 2 weeks. How quickly the MSM forgets.
- AllanL5
October 22, 2012 at 12:26pm
I did not know Eagleton was the source. He really was nuts. 1972 was the first presidential election in which I could vote, and I voted for McGovern. I'd like to say I considered all the issues, assessed the two candidates on all the issues, and picked McGovern, but that would be a lie that would exceed even Nixon's lies. I voted for McGovern for one reason: fear. Yes, there's no motivation like fear; and when you were my age in 1972, there was no fear like being drafted and sent to the rice paddies to die. What was galling then and what is galling now is who gets tagged a hawk and who gets tagged a dove. McGovern was a bomber pilot during WWII and knew first-hand the horrors of war, and yet he was labeled a dove because he opposed the Vietnam War. Almost to a man those in the Bush administration who promoted the war in Iraq avoided the Vietnam War, and yet they are labeled hawks because they supported the war in Iraq. I will miss McGovern's truthfulness, and his wisdom.
- rayward
October 22, 2012 at 12:52pm
Timothy, McGovern was a Senator from SOUTH Dakota, where he was born, raised, and lived his entire life.
- IowaBeauty
October 22, 2012 at 1:04pm
"If you voted for Nixon you can't shit here because your asshole's in Washington." A nice postscript to my favorite: "Vote for Nixon in 72 - don't change dicks in the middle of a screw."
- IowaBeauty
October 22, 2012 at 1:09pm
People think McGovern was some sort of softie should read this: http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Blue-B-24s-Germany-1944-45/dp/0743223098 Those planes weren't exactly A-320's. Plus people were shooting at them. He did 35 missions. My dad flew as a gunner in one of those. It was so terrible he didn't even discuss the war until he was 85.
- Sophia
October 22, 2012 at 1:09pm
I have often recalled the comparison of Nixon's and McGovern's war record in the last couple of decades, as I saw Republicans assassinate the character of Max Cleland (just how it is possible to impugn the bravery and loyalty of a man who lost 3 limbs in service to his country, I have never understood, but Lee Atwater and the cupidity and stupidity of the American electorate managed it), and then later put folks like Dick Cheney ("I had other priorities") in position of power and authority, while going after John Kerry's war record. To say that the Republican party has no shame doesn't begin to make the real point. I think we go to war too easily and to often. I think we need concerted attention to non-military solutions to problems, and it shames me that this great Democracy is so quick to imagine bombs and guns are the only solution to a problem. But that does not mean those who have the courage and moral fiber to stand up in harm's way for their country and ideals don't deserve our respect and support for their service. They do, and the Republican Party's longstanding willingness to impugn and assassinate the character of those who have honorably served, disgusts me.
- IowaBeauty
October 22, 2012 at 1:21pm
IowaBeauty, Thanks for the heads up. Dumb error, now fixed.
- Timothy Noah
October 22, 2012 at 2:12pm
I agree with those that post about how Republicans have distorted both McGoverns and Clelands character (or John Kerry), and that's that's a terrible thing to do. But the take away has been that Democrats haven't had an answer to those kinds of nasty charges. So, why vote for a party that can't defend itself? I'l also like to think that revisting McGovern on his death, and making the record a little more clear over time, may help rebuild liberalism's image a little.
- jet
October 22, 2012 at 2:25pm
Well, with John Kerry, apparently Stephanie Cutter wanted to fight back against the swiftboat ads but lacked the money to effectively counter the scurrilous and widely televised and false assertions. She really took a beating after the election - unfairly I think - and one must wonder, how many times has ready cash been an issue with the Democrats' supposedly not fighting back? Editorials in the newspapers and even on TV and press conferences can be given but they lack the visceral appeal of a well-crafted and widely seen TV ad.
- Sophia
October 22, 2012 at 2:50pm
In terms of organized propaganda nobody beats the Republicans. Which is scary. So much of what they say is flat out dishonest and also, aimed not at the brain but at the gut of low-information voters who may already be prejudiced. What to do. So this isn't just a financial issue although that clearly plays a role.
- Sophia
October 22, 2012 at 2:52pm
The swiftboating was vicious but my own feeling on it now is that Kerry was 95% to blame for letting the attacks go unanswered through August '04. It might have been possible to quash them if there had been some hard pushback right then. One of Kerry's misjudgements was that it was possible for him to use his war service in Vietnam without confronting the history of his antiwar activism.
- ironyroad
October 22, 2012 at 3:24pm
Just out of curiousity, what was Richard Nixon's position on the legality of abortion in 1972? I know that he signed the bill that eliminated prohibitions on abortion in DC in 1971 and that he subsequently made no statement after Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973 shortly after his second inaugural, though apparently he was personally opposed to abortion but supported it in cases of rape and (interestingly enough) interracial pregnancy! But I don't think the 1972 Republican platform called for a human life amendment or anything of similar import that would have banned or criminalized abortion on a Federal level. Does anyone know something different?
- wildboy
October 22, 2012 at 4:15pm