The 1980 Democratic Primary

[H2O Man]

One of the issues that has been raised since Senator Edward Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama is the 1980 democratic primary, when Kennedy challenged President Jimmy Carter. There are people who have an agenda which includes using that to discredit Kennedy, by blaming him for Carter’s eventual loss to Ronald Reagan. The implication is, of course, that Senator Kennedy is again taking an underhanded action that harms the legitimate democratic candidate, and is selfishly putting our nation at risk of another republican victory.

Kennedy’s challenge of Carter is an interesting and important episode in the democratic party’s history. A real discussion of the events that led to Ted Kennedy entering the primary should be encouraged. It is important, however, to consider the event in a larger context, rather than in the simple semi-mythical story that intends only to arouse emotions.

A couple of issues that were important include events surrounding Iran, and the domestic economic problems that the Carter administration seemed incapable of dealing with. I’m going to attempt to put some of this in a context that might help people who are either too young to remember, or who perhaps have forgotten some of this, to understand not only "how" it happened – but more importantly, "why."

In 1972, President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger were attempting to deal with changes in the Middle East. They traveled to Teheran, where Nixon asked the Shah of Iran to act as the protector of US interests in the region. (I am assuming that DUers have an understanding of the US history with the Shah.)

The Shah agreed to help Nixon, in return to an almost unlimited supply of sophisticated military weapons. Nixon, of course, would soon be removed from the picture; Kissinger continued to play a role in US policy, and the support to the Shah would continue without limit during the Ford years. We will return to this topic soon.

One of the democrats that Richard Nixon was most concerned with was Senator Ted Kennedy. From the time that his brother Robert was killed in Los Angeles, a group of Washington insiders wanted Ted to run for president. Ted decided not to in ’68, and again in ’72. He would consider a run in ’76, but opted not to for a variety of reasons, including professional and personal issues.

Jimmy Carter, considered a Washington outsider, became the democratic nominee in 1976. One of the top people in his campaign was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had known Carter from the Trilateral Commission. Brzezinski was not, of course, a "Washington outsider": he had been an advisor to John Kennedy’s 1960 campaign, and was close to Averell Harriman.

Carter’s campaign made it an issue to not be publicly associated with what was then the democratic establishment in Washington, however. Jimmy Carter chose not to be in contact with party leaders such as Ted Kennedy, Ed Muskie, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, and Morris Udall.

On October 26, 1976, conservative liar William Buckley printed some trash that was aimed at causing divisions between liberal democrats and Jimmy Carter. (Some things never really change.) It might have gone without serious notice, but the next day’s Los Angeles Times ran an article that accurately quoted Carter as saying he believed the Genesis creation events were literal truth, rather than a symbolic story. This caused many democrats to question if Carter was a bit rigid in his thinking.

Although Carter would defeat Ford in the general election, he did not come to Washington with good connections with congressional leaders of either party. His "us-vs-them" thinking continued when problems with Iran began to flare up in 1977. The Shah had not been particularly interested in meeting the needs of the Iranian people, and he was having some problems in maintaining power. Carter blamed the Iranian situation on the CIA, which was certainly not entirely incorrect.

Brzezinski was the Carter administration’s version of Kissinger. He was at first a supporter of the Shah. When the problems with the internal Iranian unrest threatened the Shah’s hold on power, Brzezinski would begin daily contact with Arddeshir Zahedi, the Irainian ambassador to Washington.

Zahedi disliked the US ambassador to Teheran, William Sullivan, and he urged Brzezinski to cut him out of the picture. Zahedi associated everyone connected to the State Department with the CIA. Cy Vance was pre-occupied with Israel and Egypt, and so Brzezinski ran the show. He and President Carter viewed the problems with Iran to be the fault of the CIA, rather than a result of the Nixon-Kissinger policy.

Brzezinski asked George Ball to do a "special study" on US-Iranian policy in 1978. Ball surprised the Carter administration by proposing that the US replace the Shah with a moderate government. His suggestions were rejected. Ball was in contact with other Washington DC insiders, who were surprised to find that the Carter administration had not shared his study results with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Admiral Stansfield Turner had told Ball that the CIA had the ability to resolve the Shah’s problems by bringing in a few "good PR men." This was not considered a reassuring judgement by many outside the Carter administration.

In time, rumors were spreading throughout DC that the administration was considering an option for allowing Khomeini to return to Teheran, and then "responding" to the unrest by having the military take control of the Iranian government.

Moderate democrats and republicans in Washington believed that a military coup in Iran would not be successful. The top levels of the military were extremely unpopular, because of their association with the Shah. A conflict in Iran was viewed as having the potential to destabilize the region, including Saudi Arabia.

This atmosphere allowed other forces to begin to prepare to challenge Carter in 1980. These were republicans who backed George Bush, Sr. At the time, these people did not consider Ronald Reagan to be a realistic choice for the presidency. I believe that DUers are familiar with the events relating to Iran, Bush, and the 1980 elections.

From 1978 on, different groups within the democratic party wanted to dump Jimmy Carter. Some were concerned with international issues, and some with domestic issues. He was the first democratic president in recent history who did not have a name for his vision – from New Freedom, to New Deal, Fair Deal, New Frontier, and the Great Society. He was viewed as a manager, rather than a leader, and Washington insiders tended to believe he was mismanaging the economy.

Carter had successes, of course. But there were many meetings in DC where the powers behind the scenes wanted him to be denied the nomination in 1980. There were a number of democrats who were considered as alternative candidates. They included Jerry Brown, Morris Udall, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. And, of course, Ted Kennedy.

At first, Ted Kennedy said he would not challenge Carter. Although the two were not close, Kennedy recognized that a challenge would likely hurt the party. He did not view the situation as being as stark as in 1968 with LBJ. (More, Ted was opposed to RFK challenging LBJ in ’68. Also, family members worried about Ted’s safety if he ran for president.)

But there were pressures for him to step in, to keep the others from entering the primary. Friends and family members began to tell him that this might be his best chance to win the presidency.

In the first week of September, 1979, Ted had lunch with President Carter. At the time, Ted was still undecided about entering the primary. Carter insisted that Kennedy issue a "Sherman statement," saying he would not enter under any circumstance.

Rumors spread. Some were ugly. On September 9, a small group of Wall Street conservative business interests lunched in DC with a few Carter people, including Hamilton Jordan and Charlie Schultze. The Wall Street fellows wanted assurance that Carter would continue a conservative economic policy, as opposed to the liberal Ted Kennedy.

One of the Carter people said they would, and added, "Besides, he’s not going to survive the primary." This rubbed some the wrong way. Carter’s mother had recently said something similar, and even those who were not Kennedy supporters found this cold.

Felix Rohatyn, the investment banker credited with saving New York City from bankruptcy, reported the comments to other Washington DC insiders. (Rohatyn served as the ambassador to France under President Clinton.)

The 1980 democratic primary itself is a matter of public record. I do not think that this little essay will change anyone’s mind, who already has strong feelings about the personalities of politicians like Jimmy Carter or Teddy Kennedy. But I do hope it is of interest to some DUers who are interested in both "how" and "why" things happen. This might provide some insight on a couple of the events that were important in 1980 ….and also on how some thoughtless comments can cause hard feelings, and how those hard feelings can divide democrats during our national elections.

(Note: I’m rather tired, and am going to post this, although it is a very "rough draft." I hope it makes a little sense.)

[WinkyDink]

1. Say what you will; the fact is, Kennedy sought to unseat an INCUMBENT DEMOCRATIC President.

That he FAILED speaks to his---and his supporters'---hubris.

[H2O Man]

2. Yes.

In fact, I said that he did. I'm not sure how that speaks to my hubris, but I suppose many other things do. (grin)

[denem]

3. Thank you, muchly.

I had not connected the foreign policy dots.

[H2O Man]

4. Nothing happens

in a vacuum. It is easier for some to try to manipulate people's perceptions by appealing to emotions. Some will blame Ted Kennedy, others will blame Jimmy Carter. The truth is that both share in the responsibility for events in the 1980 primary.

[Me.]

13. You Are So Right

About nothing happening in a vacuum. Averill Harriman had some very questionable connections with the nazis and his partner in these dealings was Prescott Bush. This is the same Harriman whose last wife, Pamela, was appointed as ambassadress to France, by Clinton. It’s all really very cosy and all the dots are and have always been connected.

“In 1931, Bush became a founding partner of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. that was created through the 1931 merger of Brown Brothers & Co., a merchant bank founded in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1818 with Harriman Brothers & Co., established in New York City in 1927, and A. Harriman & Co.” cont…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

“Remarkably, little of Bush's dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him. But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush's business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.” Cont…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

“The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, tried to conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s, personally funded Adolf Hitler's rise to power by the subversion of democratic principle and German law.

Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George Herbert Walker, President Bush's maternal great-grandfather, continued their dealings with the German industrial tycoon for nearly a year after the U.S. entered the war.” Cont…

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/com-buchanan.html

[autorank]

25. What a deal. I was just wondering about this. BOOKMARKED

That's a fascinating narrative, one based on truth. Some can't stand the truth but we must.

The irony here is that when the whole operation was shut down, there was no punishment. The guilty survived and the successors prosper at our great expense. When will we learn.

There was no secret to who Hitler was and interfering with the foreign policy of the United States is
surely a violation of something.

Thanks.

[Me.]

26. That Violation Is Usually Described As Treason

No wonder the grandson thought it of so little importance

[autorank]

27. Thyssen during the 30's 40's - the banking partner, now known to be owner...

"Nazi Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Thyssen

Once the Nazi dictatorship took hold, however, Thyssen began to have second thoughts. Although he welcomed the suppression of the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the trade unions, he disliked the mob violence of the SA. In 1934 he was one of the business leaders who persuaded Hitler to suppress the SA, leading to the "Night of the Long Knives". Thyssen was horrified, however, at the simultaneous murder of various conservative figures such as Kurt von Schleicher.

Thyssen accepted the exclusion of Jews from German business and professional life by the Nazis, and dismissed his own Jewish employees, but he did not share Hitler's violent anti-Semitism. As a Catholic, he also objected to the increasing repression of the Roman Catholic Church, which gathered pace after 1935. The breaking point for Thyssen was the violent pogrom against the Jews in November 1938 known as Kristallnacht, which caused him to resign from the Council of State. By 1939 he was also bitterly criticising the regime's economic policies, which were subordinating everything to rearmament in preparation for war. <1>"

[Me.]

28. The Trouble With Inviting Evil Into Your Home For Dinner

Is that you usually end up being the meal

[wyldwolf]

5. A few counterpoints

There are people who have an agenda which includes using that to discredit Kennedy, by blaming him for Carter’s eventual loss to Ronald Reagan.

I posted about the 1980 Democratic campaign and the convention but did not 'blame' Kennedy for the Carter's loss. I raised the possibility that Kennedy's and his supporter's behavior may have created a public impression of Democratic disunity and contributed to the loss.

Based on what you've written, Kennedy sought to take advantage of Carter's turmoil, believing it to be his "best chance at winning the presidency." Interesting, and as Craig Crawford pointed out this morning, Kennedy still was not able to defeat an unpopular opponent.

But, as I said previously, Kennedy had every right to run but his (and his supporter's) behavior at the convention was shameful.

1. Kennedy tried to get delegates released from their voting commitment to Carter.
2. Kennedy supporters openly harassed Carter's supporters on the convention floor with their "go home boll weevils" mantra. (a derogatory term for southern Democrats)
3. Kennedy would not raise Carter's hand in victory. There was national TV coverage of Carter almost chasing Kennedy around the stage just to shake his hand!

This was the biggest display of being a sore loser most will ever see in a presidential election. An attempt to change the rules, supporter intimidation, and the shunning of the nominee on national television.

[H2O Man]

6. You are not

the only one who has posted information on the 1980 primary. And what you posted was not what motivated me to write about this. I had been thinking about it before you posted your opinion piece. Also, although I often disagree with the things that you post regarding the primaries, I recognize that you sometimes have valid points -- which separates you from the pack of others who seem to restrict themselves to posting utter nonsense.

A person can look at 1980 and disagree with what Senator Kennedy did. But it was not as simple as those who are trying to discredit Kennedy are implying. And if he had endorsed Senator Clinton, the same pack of clowns who are attacking him now would have been singing his praise.

[Tatiana]

7. You know, I didn't have a problem when we had 8 candidates.

Last time I checked, this was not a kingdom or a monarchy. No one is "entitled" to the Presidency. Not a Bush, not a Clinton, not a Kennedy.

But I find this continued bitterness over Kennedy's 1980 run fascinating. I must admit, I am a child of the '70s and so my perception of events is filtered through my parents' opinions and not necessarily an objective assessment of the facts. However, from all accounts (yours included), Kennedy never promised Carter himself that he wouldn't mount a challenge. I think a lot of people wanted Kennedy to run; they were not happy with Carter and his foreign policy. Also, some Dems I think were afraid of Moynihan and Brown (who did enjoy a following). If there was going to be an "anti-Carter" candidate, then Kennedy seemed a good choice.

There's sort of a striking parallel, IMO, to current events. There is an "anti-Clinton" contingent out there that also seems afraid of candidates like Edwards and Kucinich (who also enjoy substantial followings). It seems as if this group has made the decision that Obama is the best choice to challenge Clinton (who may as well be an incumbent, in most aspects).

I'm tired of people blaming Kennedy for what followed after 1980. He wasn't responsible for Carter's perceived weaknesses.

[H2O Man]

9. Brown would have

posed a challenge from the left, and Moynihan from the right. The potential of dividing the party was very real. Of course, the 1980 election marked when a segment of democrats known as the neoconservatives made their move to the republican party; this had begun with the split in the civil rights movement at the time of the Six Day War of 1967 and King's "A Time to Break Silence" (aka "Beyond Vietnam") speech. Moynihan was close to the neoconservatives, of course.

[Tatiana]

12. My dad thought Moynihan was brilliant and that Brown was a lunatic.

So yes, I see where the extremes could cause a devastating fracture and split.

However, Moynihan used his "elder statesman" act, IMO, to push a pretty conservative agenda. Bill Clinton is a direct example of the Moynihan effect. His welfare "reform" was really something Moynihan had been trying to accomplish for years. Moynihan believed single parents like myself needed fathers to help raise our children. We were "running the men off" so we could collect welfare.

I agree that a candidate of his ilk needed to be stopped. And who was to stop him? Brown? He didn't have the clout. So again, Kennedy's decision to run really makes sense given Carter's extreme unpopularity. I liked and admire Carter, don't get me wrong. But there seemed to be a point where he constantly had someone or something to blame for all the problems we were facing. It's only been more recently, as an ex-president, that he has finally admitted that his administration could have made better decisions.

[H2O Man]

18. Moynihan was brilliant.

He was well aware of that, of course. Moynihan was one of the politicians who was willing and able to work with people from both parties. He had a heck of a career. By the late 1970s, he was moving too closely to the neoconservatives on foreign affairs.

His study in the 1960s on family structure was a mixed bag. It offended some people, because it focused on black families and seemed to blame the victims of economic conditions beyond their immediate control. Yet it had some merit, as there are certain increased risk factors for kids raised in single parent households. I say this as a former single parent and retired social worker.

Moynihan was talented, but he was known for being most productive before noon. That would have kept him from being president. In his later years, he had a nice farm near Pinders Corners outside of Oneonta, NY. He did his writing in an old converted school house. He was a complex character.

[suston96]

8. I was a dedicated Kennedy supporter in those days in Massachusetts....

...and I was amazed at Carter saying referring to Kennedy running against him: " I am gonna whip his ass..."

And he did.

[book_worm]

10. when Kennedy joined the race in November of 1979 he was well ahead of the president in the polls

but all that changed later that month with the hostages being taken in Iran. It shifted the race from domestic problems--Kennedy's strong point to foreign problems which Carter benefitted from (at least initially). Carter went on to defeat Kennedy in Iowa and NH, but then EMK made a comeback in NY primary and some other big states (CA he also won), but Carter won most states in the MW, South, and pivotal contest in Ohio to clinch the nomination fairly easily. If Kennedy hurt Carter at all it was probably that he didn't give him a strong endorsement at the convention.

[unc70]

15. Ted Kennedy is more hated in South and MidWest than Clintons

Partly because of the JFK and RFK, partly because of 1980, Ted Kennedy is despised by many in the South and MidWest as the symbol of what they view as "wrong" with the New England wing of the DP. I don't share that position, but I don't see his endorsement helping Obama much in those regions.

BTW I tend to see his endorsement of Obama as just another episode in the Harvard v Yale rivalry (with all the rest of us on the outside). Ever since Ted Sorensen started introducing Obama as the heir to Camelot 18 months ago, you could see the direction this was heading.

[Irishonly]

11. Thank you N/T

[Me.]

14. Evening

:kick:

[hfojvt]

16. as far as Carter not having connections to party leaders

my understanding was that his choice of Mondale, protege of HHH, was supposed to be a concession to the liberal wing of the party.

It seemed to me that the press beat up on Carter almost from day one. There was the flaps about Andrew Young, the investigation of Bert Lance and various incidents with brother Billy. With the gas prices going up, and the hostages and the boycott of the summer Olympics it seemed that he was doing nothing right. As a young Republican high schooler, I bought into the media's message and was sure that Kennedy would beat him.

Of course, Carter was even more unpopular in South Dakota, a state he almost carried in 1976. One of his first acts was to cancel about a dozen water projects in South Dakota and somebody in the administration made some sort of snide comment that almost nobody lived there anyway. Not only did he lose big in SD in 1980, but three term incumbent George McGovern lost as well.

[H2O Man]

17. Right.

And there had been a few times when he listened to Walter Mondale, who really was one of the good guys in the democratic party. In the '76 campaign, Mondale gave Carter some good advice about pacing a national campaign, for example.

[bleever]

19. Very interesting.

I really appreciate what I learn from pieces like this. Thanks!

[KoKo]

20. Thanks much for this H20 man.... Carter was one of the most complicated

men who has served as President in my lifetime. (I hope I'm not exaggerating this..) but my frustration with him as President was the complex, yet very simplistic in other ways,intriguing parts of his whole personality.

I don't believe he was a "Politician" by nature"...and that he wasn't a "politician by nature," was what caused his Presidency great harm..and allowed those of us who HOPED and hailed him as the Great Coming of the "Little Man" who could remake Washington..to tend to expect Too Much from him. That's why I have trouble getting all worked up in ecstasy over those "outsiders" who promise "Mr. Smith" but end up bogged down in the muck and minefields of the "entrenched PTB." After Carter I became more cautious vowing I would be more careful than to ever again go for someone who was "too good to be true"......although Bill Clinton suckered me in again. I thought Bill had the Georgetown/Yale Credentials that would allow him to be "the REAL Mr. Smith" but with more sophistication and credibility with the DC Beltline Insider Crowd that would support him as one of their own. WRONG AGAIN! Clinton had the political skills Carter lacked...but he still was taken down by his own huberis...and the "powers that be."

I'm tired too, and not making much sense...but thank you for this. You did a great job with those nuances of what was going on in a short essay. It's much appreciated! As you say...there's more there..but it gives some context that folks will find very interesting who don't remember the time and just know the Mainstream Media versions of Carter/Kennedy and that time.

[WinkyDink]

22. I remember it, as I worked on the Carter campaign. As it is a hot topic, let me add

that Kennedy---and I greatly admire the current incarnation---SNUBBED and EMBARRASSED President Carter at the Convention, walking around on the stage while Jimmy kept trying to, yes, shake his hand.

[KoKo]

23. I understand what you say........

I think there is such a legacy with the Kennedy's that we shouldn't rule out their love of "powerbroking" just for it's own sake.....They love and live for politics as a profession...

[rosesaylavee]

21. K & R

I was a young republican then too as someone mentioned up thread. Happy then to be influenced by adults who I felt knew more about politics than me. What I wouldn't give to vote again in 1980 using the knowledge I have now.

I am VERY careful when talking politics with my son and his friends. I listen more than talk. This will be their first year voting... and they have been watching the debates and coming up with their own conclusions about what needs to be done and who they will vote for. I just ask what their reasoning is and when I'm told, tell them that's good they have opinions about it that are their own.

Thanks for the history lesson.

[OmahaBlueDog]

24. Pretty damn well written for a rough draft.

I'd be curious, when you are awake, to see your take on another aspect of the 80 elction, which was the role of BCCI, Bert Lance, Lance's eventual departure from the Carter administration, and the BCCI role in the election of Reagan/Bush.

[bleever]

29. On further reflection

(which posts like this tend to engender), at the time I was about to cast my first vote for president, and all I knew about this at the time (which was hectic in a university sort of way for a twenty year old) was that Kennedy wanted to unseat an incumbent Democratic president. From that vantage point, it looked like hubris.

The OP changes the depth of field and the context for me, in the sense that I also see Carter's insularity in not reaching out to the "establishment" Democrats in Congress, for fear of being identified with them. They should have, and could have, been stronger allies.

And then Bill Clinton climbs up the mountain, and makes the same mistake, but twice: he makes it a point to prove that he is not the Democrats in Congress, and further, that he is not Jimmy Carter.

Whether Obama or Hillary can absorb and act on this wisdom, I don't know. It looks like it gets pretty hot in the cockpit. But I hope as a party, our process will make the right choice.

[Tatiana]

30. Because history is important

:kick: