On Saturday morning, I had the real honor of speaking with the 1972 Democratic Presidential nominee, Sen. George McGovern (D-SD). McGovern, who is now putting the finishing touches on his new library at Dakota Wesleyan University, was a hero during World War II before becoming a professor at the University in 1950. McGovern was elected to the House in 1956, serving two terms before narrowly losing a Senate race in 1960. After serving as President Kennedy's director of the Food for Peace Program, McGovern was subsequently elected to the United States Senate in 1962, where he served three terms.

Jonathan Singer: You’re speaking from South Dakota. There’s been a lot of talk following the 2000 and especially 2004 election of “red” states and “blue” states, and people usually think of South Dakota as a “red” state. But two of its three Congressional members are Democrats, and previously all three were. North Dakota is represented by all three Democrats. What do you make of this talk of “red” states and “blue” states? Does it even exist, really?

George McGovern: I have trouble remembering from one day to the next what “blue” and “red” mean. They used to call us Democrats “reds” because they thought we were too liberal, too pink. I’m glad the Republicans have assumed that label now.

But in any event, I think it’s a kind of superficial way to look at politics. People, more and more, tend to vote on something in addition to partisan considerations. During my years in politics here in South Dakota, I was constantly stopped by people in the street who would say, “I’m a Republican, but I’m for you George.” And this state kept me in office for almost a quarter of a century. So I don’t think of it as either “red” or “blue.” And I think that’s true with most states.

Singer: In the last campaign, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist came to South Dakota to campaign against the Democratic Leader, Tom Daschle. What do you make of that?

McGovern: I think it greatly diminished Bill Frist in the eyes of many people, not only Democrats. But I think people have understood over the years that the two leaders in the United States Senate have to get along. They have to have to get along. They have to have an amicable relationship, even though they may disagree sharply on the issues. And by tradition, it’s always been the case that one leader did not go into the other’s home state and campaign against him, as Bill Frist did here in South Dakota. I thought it was in very bad taste and against the building of a workable, congenial relationship in the Senate.

Singer: You, of course, ran in 1972 at a time of a lot of scandal for the administration. Currently, even in the last few weeks, we’ve seen two White House officials – the chief of staff to the Vice President, Scooter Libby, and the top procurement official, David Safavian – both indicted, in addition to a number of looming investigations. How does the situation compare to when you ran?

McGovern: It’s a really shabby operation that we’re witnessing now. It might not be as critical to the nation’s well-being and security as some of these earlier scandals, such as the Watergate period, where you actively had the President himself involved in one violation of federal law after another. Unfortunately, it was hard to get people to focus on that until after the election of ’72. I think that was an unusually serious situation in the life of the country.

But this is pretty bad, what’s going on today. The man who is frequently referred to as “the President’s brain,” Karl Rove, appears to have been involved in that revelation of the CIA agent that led to the indictment of Scooter Libby, the Vice President’s top person. I don’t think he’s out of the woods yet. I think that investigator is still looking at his operations. So it’s a pretty bad situation. And then to have the leader of the House, Tom DeLay, faced with indictments for what appears to be felonious conduct and Bill Frist, the Republican leader in the Senate, [alleged to be] guilty of insider trading – the same kind of thing that sent Martha Stewart to jail* – I think all those things are beginning to accumulate to the point where it helps explain why the President’s approval rating has gone down sharply over the last year or so.

Singer: Looking forward to 2006, the Democratic Party seems to have in the ballpark of a half dozen Iraq War veterans who are at least considering runs in congressional districts around the country, and many more veterans of other wars. You were a great hero during World War II, although you were a little loath to wear it on your sleeve in 1972. But what do you think this current trend means for the party and for the nation?

McGovern: I’d like to see some of these Iraq veterans – Americans who have been directly exposed to Iraq – I’d like to see them running for office. I happen to know from talking to many of them and their families over the last few years that there’s a growing disillusionment with the war. We never should have gone into Iraq, and some of the people who understand that most clearly are the veterans who are now fighting over there. I would welcome some of them coming home and telling people on the home front what they think of this war and what they think about other issues. I hope that they will run for office.

It looks like this great football star, Pat Tillman from the Arizona Cardinals, who gave up his football career and volunteered to go to the Middle East as a soldier… it’s now quite clear that he was killed by friendly fire. It’s also clear now – and we have his mother as a witness to this – that he became greatly disillusioned with the war when he saw what was going on over there and saw what the situation was, and was, as a matter of fact, reading quite widely, about the problems of the war.

Singer: Very interesting. Speaking of the Democratic Party, going back to that, leading into the 1972 campaign following the kind of debacle at the 1968 at the convention, you led a commission that fundamentally changed the nominating process and kind of gave us the system we have today. Now there’s quite a bit of talk of mixing up the system again. Iowa and New Hampshire are both small states and they’re both overwhelmingly white states – not necessarily representative of the entire polity. So there’s talk of adding caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire, to break up the power of the Granite State. What do you make of these proposals?

McGovern: I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally wrong with the Iowa-New Hampshire situation. They’re two states widely separated geographically. They represent a rather broad spread of ethnic and political and economic interests in the country. And by tradition, candidates have known that if they’re going to well, they’re going to have to go out and meet people on a one-on-one basis in those smaller states. So I’d be reluctant to recommend a change there.

The reforms that we put through in 1969 and 1970 that I had something to do with… I had agreed with the late Senator Humphrey, who was then the titular head of our party, to head up this commission and to carry out the reforms that we were instructed to do by the 1968 convention. One of the major things that we did was to make sure that women and young people and black people and brown people and others had a fair shot at becoming delegates to name the presidential nominee. I think that’s a good rule, and apparently the party does, because it’s kept it in place for 35 years, and the Republicans have now adopted most of those reforms that we Democrats led the way on in the late 60s and early 70s.

Singer: I would remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to ask you a little bit about the youth participation in politics. One of my professors – his name is John Seery – is writing a book called “Jesus for President” calling for an abolishment of the age restrictions for service, because although the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 before the 1972 election, people between the ages of 18 and 25 cannot hold any federal office. What do you think of an idea like that?

McGovern: It’s worth thinking about. I’m certainly glad that they’re now able to vote. I’m glad that less than 100 years ago we gave women the right to vote in this country. That was a big step forward.

Whether or not people below the age of 25 are ready to go to Congress, though, I think is another question. I’m not sure that I would favor that right now. We do learn, we do mature, we do become wiser with a few years, and I think that the system as it is now is pretty good.

Singer: Getting back to your career, your freshman class in the Senate, which included Abe Ribicoff, Dan Inouye, Birch Bayh, Gaylord Nelson and others –

McGovern: Ted Kennedy.

Singer: Ted Kennedy – helped pass some of the really great pieces of progressive legislation, from Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act to Medicare and Medicaid, Clean Water and Clean Air, and I’m sure I’m leaving out dozens, if not hundreds, of pieces of legislation. You really had the momentum back then. Is there any way to reclaim that momentum for the country?

McGovern: I wish I knew. I would lay it out. I’ve written a book called The Essential America that came out a year or so ago in which I point out that practically every forward step in the life of the country that is now generally accepted by both of our major parties began as a liberal initiative, at first over conservative opposition. Then with the passage of time, the conservatives swung around in support of it. I’m thinking about important programs like Social Security, Medicare, rural electrification, Civil Rights, guaranteed bank deposits, the whole range of things. Let me put it to you this way: I can’t think of a single major forward step in the life of this country that didn’t begin as a liberal initiative originally opposed by conservatives. So obviously I think what I think we need is a return to a stronger liberal government in the United States.

I don’t know what’s happened, frankly, to conservatives, on the other hand. They used to be for things a balanced budget and they used to oppose deficit spending. They used to be cautious about sending young Americans to war. All of those things seem to have fallen by the wayside. Under the current administration, we’re running the biggest deficits and the biggest national debt that I can recall. So I think the liberals need to be a little more courageous, a little more assertive, and I think these neoconservatives that now seem to control the Republican Party should be willing to take a look at some of the old-fashioned conservatives that were more careful about how our money was spent and more careful about where we send American forces abroad.

Singer: Just watching the Congress since Tuesday’s elections in Virginia, California, New Jersey and other places, it looks like some of the few remaining moderates within the party are beginning to assert at least some power, blocking the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (the drilling there), blocking the GOP budget in the House, blocking tax cuts in the Senate. Do you think this is maybe the beginning of a trend?

McGovern: I hope so. I’d love to see the return of the kind of moderate, constructive Republicans who were in office when I was part of the Congress. I’m thinking of people like Jack Javits of New York; I’m thinking about George Aiken, the old moderate Republican from Vermont; I’m thinking about Senator Cooper of Kentucky. There was a whole range of them that I thought provided a constructive and helpful contribution in politics. I’m going to have to leave you in a minute here. Are we getting near the end?

Singer: I think that’s probably a great place to stop with a positive vision of the future.

McGovern: Well good luck to you.

Singer: Well thank you so much, and have a great day.

McGovern: You too.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]