From Gene to Dean

The Weekly Standard ^ | January 19, 2004 | Andrew Ferguson

[RWR8189]

Eugene McCarthy The Rise and Fall of Postwar American Liberalism by Dominic Sandbrook Knopf, 352 pp., $25.95

OVER THE PAST YEAR, as Howard Dean's Children's Crusade emerged from the dorms and classrooms and ecstasy raves of America's colleges, and the young crusaders began tilting their wooden (and very sharp) swords toward the heart of what remains of the Democratic party establishment, some of us turned our thoughts to the first Children's Crusade in American politics--the one led against the party establishment in 1968 by the improbable figure of Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota.

Hoary ruminations on McCarthy may well become unavoidable in the next few weeks with the appearance of a new biography by a British historian named Dominic Sandbrook. "Eugene McCarthy: The Rise and Fall of Postwar American Liberalism" is an interesting book, handsomely written, and closely researched. And while Sandbrook, like all sober-sided biographers, declines to draw cheap, facile parallels between his historical subject and today's headlines, his work is rich enough to allow others, like me, to do so.

It would be too bad, though, if reviewers relied on Sandbrook's book alone for their parallel-drawing, for "Eugene McCarthy" betrays a hostility toward Eugene McCarthy that verges on character assassination. They say every biographer begins to hate his subject somewhere during his research, in keeping with the principle that familiarity breeds contempt, and that the biographer's duty therefore lies in crawling his way back toward something like toleration, if not affection, before he finishes his work. Sandbrook's familiarity with McCarthy evidently curdled into contempt early on, and he never crawled back. As McCarthy meanders through a long, various, and eventful career, Sandbrook snipes at him from behind any available rock, never troubling with inconsistencies in the line of attack. McCarthy is reactionary, except when he is unrealistically liberal. He is too idealistic; he is too cynical. He has his head in the clouds and entertains the basest motives exclusively. He is a crudely ambitious pol who cares only about writing vers libre. He cracks jokes that, while very funny, are often inappropriate, and he's humorless to boot.

Where the historical record is thin, Sandbrook speculates, as biographers will--yet only when it ill serves his subject. McCarthy never catches a break. I put the book down with no intention of picking it back up when, about two-thirds through, I came across the sentence that distills the Sandbrookian method. McCarthy's view of constitutional interpretation grew more conservative over the years--a development his biographer accounts for like so: "This was no doubt a matter of personal pique as much as philosophical conviction." That "no doubt" gives the game away: I don't have any evidence for this, but what else would you expect from such a creep? McCarthy was a fastidiously private "public figure," and his motives were always hard to discern, but Sandbrook patches these holes in his narrative with a caulk of bile. The poor guy must have hated writing this book.

BUT I PICKED IT UP AGAIN ANYWAY, because (his biographer notwithstanding) McCarthy stands out from recent political history as a uniquely appealing man: funny, thoughtful, eccentric, allusive; a professional politician whose mind had plenty left over when the politics was done. He's hard to figure out. No one, early in McCarthy's career, could have predicted that his political life would reach a climax with an effort to unhorse a president of his own party. As a young man he had entered a Benedictine seminary, dropped out, joined up again, and dropped out again, and he never shook the habits of a mind steeped in Catholic scholasticism. His classical training would emerge at the unlikeliest moments. Watching from a hotel window as a phalanx of Chicago police-men waded into protestors during the chaotic 1968 Democratic convention, he turned to a companion and said the horrible scene reminded him of the Battle of Lake Trasimeno.

[185JHP]

I remember seeing Gene, Hubert, and RFK standing on a podium right before the Cali primary in '68. A pundit said to him "You've been characterized by some as an impersonal candidate. What's your response to that?" Gene says "I'm the only candidate who's said that if he's elected, he'll fire J. Edgar Hoover. And he's a person."

[Iris7]

"McCarthy is reactionary, except when he is unrealistically liberal. He is too idealistic; he is too cynical. He has his head in the clouds and entertains the basest motives exclusively. He is a crudely ambitious pol who cares only about writing vers libre. He cracks jokes that, while very funny, are often inappropriate, and he's humorless to boot."

This is good, sardonic, but funny. Also an accurate description of McCarthy. Actually McCarthy was pretty cool. For being such a bloody liberal.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
8	Pennsylvania	1,065.00	26	40.96	531	2.01	255.00	18

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[jack gillis]

Mwah haw hah.

So, RWR8189, we meet again, ay?

Needless to say, great article about a great guy.

McCarthy endorsed Reagan in 1980, you know.

[RWR8189]

McCarthy endorsed Reagan in 1980, you know.

I had since forgotten that.

Considering the alternative was 4 more years of malaise, I'd say that's one the smartest choices he ever made

[Congressman Billybob]

The reviewer has it right, as the biography does not. Institutionally, McCarthy is a profound conservative. I was working for him as a lawyer, when he was co-authoring a book with James Kilpatrick, illustrations by Jeff McNeeley. A Political Bestiary, a fine, sardonic look at thbe realities of American politics.

The review is wrong about why McCarthy disliked Robert Kennedy. As Gene told me, the reason was that he went to Kennedy before deciding to run for President and got Bobby's assurance that he would not enter the race. Gene was always a stickler for people keeping their word.

I was deeply honored that my first win in the Supreme Court was on behalf of Gene: McCarthy v. Briscoe, (1976), that ordered Gene on the Texas ballot as an independent candidate for President.

Congressman Billybob

Click here to stick a thumb in the eye of CFR, "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob."

[Iris7]

Thanks. I have underestimated you. My respects.

[leadpenny]

A Kennedy who lied? I'm shocked, I tell you.

McCarthy had a tick - a complex - IIRC, Cong Bb. What was it? When he
spoke, he was embarrassed about something. His teeth? It's a long time ago.
Always did kinda like the guy.

[Iris7]

Looked at your site. Been thinking about retiring maybe in ten or eleven years, have been thinking about Texas. How about North Carolina instead? The 11th out west, not Citified? Wistfully?

[Jim Noble]

Well, I was there, as they say-18 years old and I had to get a haircut.

Clean for Gene, as they said.

I'm not sure the RAT party establishment has the stones to do in Howard the way they did to McCarthy, but I have often seen Hillary! in the role of RFK.

Good post.