What Could Have Been – Maine Presidential Leadership Part IV

Ed Muskie is a legend in the state of Maine.  He, more than anyone, is responsible for the transition of Maine from an impenetrable Republican stronghold to a “deep blue” Democratic state.  He built a grassroots operation that got him elected to the governorship, as well as the United States Senate, and did so with convincing majorities.

He started out humbly.  Muskie was born in Rumford to an immigrant father.  He went to Bates College, majoring in history and government.  He later went to Cornell University Law School, graduating in 1939.  During the second world war, Muskie served in the Navy.  He returned to Maine after the war and opened up a private law practice in Waterville.

Muskie then decided to enter public service.  He ran, and was elected to the Maine House of Representatives, and was instrumental in helping to build up the Democratic Party in Maine – specifically by identifying and building coalitions that could be coalesced into his party.  His realignment of the political climate in Maine culminated in his own election as Governor in 1954.

Muskie was able to translate that success into a national profile.  One of the nation’s first legislative environmentalists, Muskie was first thrust into national politics when he was selected as Hubert Humphrey’s running mate in the excruciatingly painful election of 1968.  The election, while close in the popular vote, proved to be a victory for Richard Nixon.

Muskie, however, would not go away.  After Ted Kennedy – who had been the assumed nominee immediately after the 1968 election – was tarred by the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident, he immediately became the front runner for the 1972 presidential election.

How it could have happened – In August of 1971, polling confirmed that Muskie was actually leading incumbent Richard Nixon.  Muskie was the clear favorite for the 1972 Democratic nomination, and seemed to be poised for a close election with President Nixon.

More than anything, Muskie was a victim of high expectations.  Presidential primaries were still a relatively new phenomenon in this country in the early 70s, and Muskie himself had never participated in a real primary.  Going in, his nomination looked assured, so when Muskie won Iowa, but dark-horse George McGovern made a strong showing, the national press started shining the light on a horse race, giving McGovern a great deal of attention.

In New Hampshire, Muskie again won the state but by a narrow margin, and the momentum in the race – incredibly – seemed on McGovern’s side.

But still – Muskie had won both Iowa and New Hampshire, and usually when that happens, a candidate ends up being the nominee.

Prior to the New Hampshire primary, the Manchester Union-Leader, a newspaper in New Hampshire, had published what has become known as the Canuck letter” which purported that Muskie had slurred French-Canadians.  This letter – which turned out to be a complete and utter fabrication – was concerning to Muskie due to the makeup of much of northern New England, which of course has a large French-Canadian population.  This news would significantly hurt him in the run up to the critical New Hampshire primary and he needed to respond.

But more than that, the Leader published an attack on Muskie’s wife, accusing her of being an alcoholic, and making obscene and crude remarks on the campaign trail.

Muskie’s response would become one of the more famous political moments of the latter half of the 20th Century.  In an attempt to defend both himself, and his wife, Muskie appeared outside the newspaper’s offices during a snowstorm.  The press noticed a moist face during his impassioned speech, and reported that Muskie had “broken down and cried” – Muskie himself always contended that what the press had seen as tears were in fact nothing more than melted snow.

The notion of a weeping Muskie utterly destroyed his reputation as calm, measured, reasoned, and steady.  His position as a front runner was deflated almost immediately.  Interestingly, crying in 2008 was viewed somewhat differently.

Had these events not happened, it is entirely possible that Muskie would have done better in the New Hampshire primary than he did, recapturing the momentum from McGovern.  If that happened, with a strong reputation in tact, it seems more than possible that Muskie – as the establishment choice – would have been able charge to the nomination.

Nixon won in 1972 with one of the biggest routes in all of American history.  However, were Muskie, not McGovern, the candidate some of the reasons why Nixon won so heavily would have been erased.  For example, the label attached to McGovern of “Amnesty, abortion, and acid” would not have been pegged on Muskie – and that was one of the biggest clubs that Nixon used to beat up on McGovern.

It also seems unlikely that Thomas Eagleton would have been selected as the running mate. After the convention had concluded, it was discovered that Eagleton had undergone electroshock therapy as a treatment for depression.  This news, as well as McGovern’s indecisiveness about his status was deadly to McGovern.

With these issues not present in the campaign, it is likely it would have been a much more competitive race, and Muskie would have had a realistic shot at the White House.

What a Muskie Administration would have looked like – Nixon was for all intents and purposes a moderate Republican – for example, he instituted many environmental regulations.  But that is not to say that a Muskie Administration would have been all that similar.

One divergence could be the war in Vietnam.  Muskie was no McGovern, but he was running on a decidedly anti-Vietnam campaign in 1972.  This is from a campaign brochure during the primary:

The New Beginning means an end to the war in Vietnam, right away.

Not the escalation.  An end.  Now.  Some people think the war is over.  It isn’t.

Some people think the end is in sight.  It isn’t.

Some people think the killing has stopped.  It isn’t.

In fact 40% of all who have died in Vietnam have died since the Republicans took office.  (Indeed 3-½ years after President Nixon said he had a ‘secret’ plan to end the war, over 150,000 American boys are still fighting.)

Muskie will get every last soldier out.

Admittedly, candidate Nixon in 1968 had a “secret plan to end the war” – so take that rhetoric for what it is worth.  Still, Nixon himself, while escalating the war at times, did in fact continually draw down troops in Vietnam, and essentially (for all intents and purposes) ended the war in his second term.  So, perhaps the method in which the war was ended might have been different, but the end result would likely have been pretty similar.

But still, with moderates Nixon and Ford, environmental legislation, moderate fiscal policy, and a virtual end to the war in Vietnam, it seems likely that the Muskie Administration would have been very similar to the Nixon/Ford years.

The most obvious difference that would have happened is that the country would have been spared Watergate, the abuse of power scandals, and the loss of faith of the country in its government.

Interestingly, with no foil nationally, the Watergate babies would likely have never swept into power – which may have denied the country Senator Patrick Leahy, and Congressmen (now Senators) Dodd, Harkin, and Baucus as well as Congressmen Waxman, and Murtha.  The country would never have turned to Jimmy Carter as the decent, common man antidote to the poison of Nixon.  And, one wonders, without the perception of Democratic excess – would we have turned to Ronald Reagan in 1980?

It seems that were Senator Muskie to have been elected in 1972 instead of President Nixon, the administrations would not have changed much in policy, but we would have been spared one of the most enduring national nightmares in the history of the country.

That may in fact, have been his greatest enduring legacy.  The shame is, had it happened, no one would have known the pain, suffering and disillusionment that we would have been spared.

Matthew Gagnon

About Matthew Gagnon

Matthew Gagnon, of Yarmouth, is the Chief Executive Officer of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, a free market policy think tank based in Portland. Prior to Maine Heritage, he served as a senior strategist for the Republican Governors Association in Washington, D.C. Originally from Hampden, he has been involved with Maine politics for more than a decade.