In 1971, as a sophomore at California State University, Los Angeles, I had already experienced years of work in the anti-war, civil rights, and environmental movements, supporting my parents in those fields. When I heard about Senator George McGovern’s presidential candidacy, I was excited. Shortly after reading about him, meeting with some early campaign leaders, and getting a sense of where his values lay, I set up “California Students for McGovern” and became its chairman. We raised money, scheduled rallies, promoted his candidacy, and registered voters.

For us in the Left, we thought we had found a kind of ideological savior, someone who might represent those whose voices had previously been left unheard. Sen. McGovern seemed to be doing reasonably well, especially among those whose families had lost relatives in the Vietnam War.

Then, as you correctly pointed out, when we went to Miami for the Democratic National Convention, it was a post-Woodstock revival, only this time with delegate challenges, chicanery from the center-right of the Democratic Party, Willie Brown portraying himself as a black Moses at the head of the California Delegation, and the usual disorganized leftist bucket of squid.

The choice of Thomas Eagleton was appalling. We thought that McGovern was a well-organized, competent-but-Progressive candidate. The Eagleton mess was bad — but then McGovern’s equivocal turn to the center was devastating.

It reflected the lack of character in someone we thought epitomized character. It was a return to the center of someone whose candidacy was the antithesis of centrist politics. It was a fundamental betrayal of all that we felt was his defining persona: the World War II aviator who had learned from experience how hellish war was, and was eager to get us out of our own Hell in Vietnam.

So, McGovern crashed and burned because in the public’s eye he was the epitome of everything wrong with the Left: disorganized, diffused, with many different messages being sent out instead of having a disciplined core of followers, promoting one or two beliefs on which to campaign. The Right didn’t like him, because he was tainted by his supporters. The Left didn’t like him, because he appeared to have sold out.

And, yes, you are correct in saying that the mystical Center was never as big as it was touted by the press. It is even smaller now.

Sadly, then, McGovern became a “candidate without a constituency.” Nixon and his crooked minions instilled almost military discipline and consistency in their messaging and got reelected in spades. McGovern was feckless, and had his head handed to him on a platter.

Fast forward to today, and the only two candidates for the 2020 Presidential campaign who have maintained a strong and pretty consistent message of Progressive politics have been Bernie Sanders and, to a lesser degree, Elizabeth Warren.

Now, in a time of declining democracy, it is vital that Bernie’s supporters do everything in their power to get out the vote. Unless Trump is beaten handily, i.e., by more than 10%, he will equivocate and delay his departure from office, claiming “election fraud” as a basis for legal action to challenge the results.

And so, in the final analysis, we need a coherent, disciplined approach to the 2020 elections. A view of the two dozen (!!) candidates from the Democratic side shows that we are a house divided. We need to winnow the field, and quickly. We need, also, to have Biden get out of the race. He’s the epitome of the comfortable, middle-of-the-road “Social Democrat” (thanks to Mort Sahl for that great phrase) who everybody thinks of as “Uncle Joe,” but who won’t fight for Medicare for All or a Green New Deal. We need a clear-cut, distinctive candidate who advocates for socio-political, economic, racial, and environmental justice.

Bernie best represents those categories.