Hubert Humphry was underestimated

On reflection after a period of years I think between RFK's assasination and the onset of his own final illness Hubert Humphrey was the most qualified person to be POTUS. What if he had been elected in 1968 don't you think things would have been much better overall?

I doubt if anybody could have beaten Nixon in 1972, so 1968 was probably HHH's last chance.

This thread comes up occasionally; the general consensus is that at the least, it's a pause in the destruction of organized labor and several policies that have sense contributed to income inequality get the brakes put on them. In addition, his supreme court picks would have been a more robust set for an individuals rights against the police, rights against discrimination, and rights to organize. Whether he's able to be more muscularly liberal, and could do a better job selling Great Society, is up for debate.

Foreign policy-wise, you might have more of a standard Cold Warrior than Richard Nixon. Humphrey I think had the old secular left's dislike of communism, and true blue liberal probably can't go to China or engage in Detante without the Birchers starting to blow up buildings. There's been some speculation that if the hard right feels like they've been frozen out for an additional decade, they may turn to violence.

In general though, yes, there's an appreciation of the irony that while the New Left despised Hubert, there's no many capable of winning the Presidency in that period who's anywhere near as amenable to their goals or capable of wielding power or finessing the legislative branch.

He was a very good man. He seemed to have a very genuine compassionate outlook about people and he was an effective politician - he knew how to get things done.

Unfortunately for him, he rose to the top of the Democratic hierarchy at the worst possible time. Viet Nam, the necessary grind of enforcing the Civil Rights Act, the onset of the new breed of conservatism. Humphrey crested at a time when New Deal Liberalism was passing it's zenith (My opinion)

Driftless said:

He was a very good man. He seemed to have a very genuine compassionate outlook about people and he was an effective politician - he knew how to get things done.

Unfortunately for him, he rose to the top of the Democratic hierarchy at the worst possible time. Viet Nam, the necessary grind of enforcing the Civil Rights Act, the onset of the new breed of conservatism. Humphrey crested at a time when New Deal Liberalism was passing it's zenith (My opinion)

Click to expand...

Everything I said above being said, Driftless may have a real point here.

The one thing I'd throw out there is that a whole lot New Deal Liberalism didn't really pass its peak, it just became part of the basic assumptions of "how things have always been" - Social Security is inviolate under either President, and in 2010, there was a "conservative insurgency" that rallied over 65s with the banner of they're coming for your Medicare. So again, while Driftless may very likely be right, the level to which "discontent with government" is marketing and presentation, something a President has a lot of control over.

HHH was a much better man personally than JFK, LBJ or Nixon. He was for Civil Rights before it was cool(when the "kids" who called him a racist war criminal were still in diapers), and was an "old-style" liberal Cold Warrior in the best sense of the word. However... he lacked the guts/balls and going for brilliant strokes that can make history. In a more stable time period, he would have been a GREAT President. But not when he ran, especially in foreign policy-people don't understand how dangerous those years were. His ability to be muscularly liberal will be limited given the rise of the backlash to the Great Society/Civil Rights at this time, when it was all Nixon-NIXON-could do to contain them. The country was headed right, and the root causes were deeper than the election.

For Humphrey to turn back the tide requires a different populace and environment.

1972 is going to be as close to impossible as could exist for the Democrats, and after that he will be too old.

I absolutely agree that Humphrey could have been an effective president, maybe even a great president, but his best time to have been elected might have been 1964. he played a key role in much Civil Rights legislation.

1968 was a watershed year for the US. Everything (culturally, politically) began to change after that. Humphrey may well have navigated that difficult stretch. There would not have been the national disaster of Watergate with Humphrey.

I will give Nixon great credit for the diplomatic break through's with the Russians & Chinese. As YP noted, it would have been very difficult for Humphrey or other Dem to have pull off those two spectacular diplomatic coups.

Driftless said:

I absolutely agree that Humphrey could have been an effective president, maybe even a great president, but his best time to have been elected might have been 1964. he played a key role in much Civil Rights legislation.

1968 was a watershed year for the US. Everything (culturally, politically) began to change after that. Humphrey may well have navigated that difficult stretch. There would not have been the national disaster of Watergate with Humphrey.

I will give Nixon great credit for the diplomatic break through's with the Russians & Chinese. As YP noted, it would have been very difficult for Humphrey or other Dem to have pull off those two spectacular diplomatic coups.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but if elected in 1964, could he get things through like LBJ could? And as for Vietnam, don't forget, he'll have the same advisors pushing him as they did Johnson. Though its possible that he doesn't dig in like Johnson does when things go badly and does not alienate the reforming wing of the party AS BADLY. Perhaps the counterculture is less militant?

I'd argue that 1968 had deep roots and that while that year was important, a lot of what happened was still there. I do agree that there wouldn't be a Watergate like event that disgraces the President personally with Hubert, which I can't say for sure with Lyndon (or the Kennedy bros) if they were in office at the time. He was an effective legislator and a veteran of partisan combat, but a proud dirty tricks virgin. However, the decrease in confidence in government is going to come, as well as the general dirty laundry. Whether it does while Humphrey is in office is impossible to say.

Humphrey's biggest problem in a 68 victory is that he cannot placate the Republicans or the right, but he is also alienated from the reformist wing of his party. His basis of support is rather narrow, and given how he is identified with LBJ and his lack of "law and order" among the budding "Silent Majority", he will have to be careful. At the very least, he will not have the liberal accomplishments that he could have had earlier. Forget diplomatic coups, I'm worried about what will happen in Vietnam(we aren't getting out in 1969, no matter who is in power, so the antiwar left is there and seething with hatred for LBJ's legacy, but the right wing+Thieu will go crazy since Humphrey told Thieu that long term American aid is "not in the cards". Thieu really loathes the Democrats as a whole by 1969 and doesn't like or respect Humphrey.) as well as possible nuclear conflicts around the globe. Sometimes the best accomplishment is avoiding the worst. American foreign policy was in SERIOUS trouble in 1969. What Nixon did with the backchannels, secrecy, and generally un-stereotypically American Realpolitik wasn't pretty at times(and like LBJ applying Senate legislative approaches to foreign policy, was fatal when applied to a different area), but it worked. The bureaucrats, the Pentagon, the CIA/intelligence community(which Nixon correctly perceived as often incompetent and self serving), and certain Congressmen/politicians/influential figures from both sides of the aisle had to be cut out of foreign policy as much as possible, as well as any grand sentiments of the right or the left. It needed to be done. I'm not sure Humphrey has the personality(read:ruthlessness) or impetus or ability for doing this. Or even the desire to.

Assuming Humphrey wins in 1972 again, how would he handle the Middle East, for example?

Realpolitik said:

Maybe, but if elected in 1964, could he get things through like LBJ could? And as for Vietnam, don't forget, he'll have the same advisors pushing him as they did Johnson. Though its possible that he doesn't dig in like Johnson does when things go badly.

I'd argue that 1968 had deep roots and that while that year was important, a lot of what happened was still there. I do agree that there wouldn't be a Watergate with Hubert, which I can't say for sure with Lyndon(or the Kennedy bros) if they were in office at the time. He was an effective legislator and a veteran of partisan combat, but a proud dirty tricks virgin. However, the decrease in confidence in government is going to come, as well as the general dirty laundry. Whether it does while Humphrey is in office is impossible to say.

I'll update the rest of my post later, busy...

Click to expand...

Of course, this is all 20/20 hindsight on our parts.

I do think given his basic personality, Humphrey would have been far less likely to micro-manage the war like LBJ did. While I doubt that changed the outcome, it did not help - at all. For as effective as he could be, LBJ's tool box was mostly strong-arm. Humphrey could effectively finesse a weak hand better than LBJ. (My opinion)

Driftless said:

Of course, this is all 20/20 hindsight on our parts.

I do think given his basic personality, Humphrey would have been far less likely to micro-manage the war like LBJ did. While I doubt that changed the outcome, it did not help - at all. For as effective as he could be, LBJ's tool box was mostly strong-arm. Humphrey could effectively finesse a weak hand better than LBJ. (My opinion)

Click to expand...

Oh, of course. That's why I try not to be too judgmental with historical figures.

I'd agree with that. It's also what made LBJ get Civil Rights through-Humphrey might have more trouble doing that as President. LBJ being Southern was crucial. It truly was the domestic version of Nixon in China, what Johnson did with the Dixiecrats who had been heading the Congressional committees for generations. The momentum was there, but it needed an "oomph".

The advisors-the Kennedy holdovers who pushed LBJ into Vietnam in the first place-are still there and Humphrey seems more domestically focused. Something would happen in Vietnam, though perhaps not as bad. The advisors however didn't really handle the war competently either. Nobody did pre-Nixon, and even that's debatable.

goodguy777 said:

. . . What if he had been elected in 1968 . . .

Click to expand...

With Vietnam, what if Humphrey had hit upon the idea of a coalition government?

I mean, even with an open, monitored, super scrupulous election, if it turns out 51-49% where one side wins everything and the other side loses everything, how the heck is that going to be any kind of stable arrangement?

So, instead Humphrey instructs his negotiators to broach the idea of a coalition government. For example, maybe the communists really want to see land reform where they divide up the big holdings. The conservatives are concerned that this will lead to abuses against current landlords. So, as part of an overall negotiated coalition government, the conservatives implement land reform so there won't be abuses, and similar ideas, and areas where you can have measurable progress, etc.

PS I'm kind of proud of this overall idea. Now, that doesn't mean it's necessarily going to work, but it might.

GeographyDude said:

So, instead Humphrey instructs his negotiators to broach the idea of a coalition government. For example, maybe the communists really want to see land reform where they divide up the big holdings. The conservatives are concerned that this will lead to abuses against current landlords. So, as part of an overall negotiated coalition government, the conservatives implement land reform so there won't be abuses, and similar ideas, and areas where you can have measurable progress, etc.

PS I'm kind of proud of this overall idea. Now, that doesn't mean it's necessarily going to work, but it might.

Click to expand...

If the US insisted France propose exactly that when the troubles really began it might have been enough but by 1968 I think it's too little too late.
If the US had supported him earlier, against the French, uncle Ho could have easily been a (left leaning) nationalist revolutionary.

I think Humphrey would have needed a little help from Ho Chi Minh. Ho would have needed to realize that by running as a peace candidate, Humphrey had put himself in a box. And like a skilled poker player, probably not a time to overpush. Probably a time to be happy to get much of what you want.

For example, wasn't there oil off the coast of Vietnam and other industries? So, it's always going to be westerns running these industries, the Vietnamese are never going to get to run their own industry?

Ho and other leaders could have pushed for a period of transition, where the number of Vietnamese students accepted in American universities is ramped up, including older students with some life experience. And a time frame where we largely transfer the industries over in ten years, and then maybe this can be speeded up to eight years.


PS What did Humphrey's wife and friends call him? Did they call him 'Hubert'?

I don't know about HHH's nickname. His son Hubert Humphrey III (onetime Minnesota Attorney General) was routinely called "Skip", to differentiate him from his father

Humphrey sold his soul to be on the 1964 ticket with LBJ, which was his downfall, IMO. An interesting timeline would be HHH avoiding the Vice-Presidency and running in 1968 as an ATL McCarthy. I think the tragedy of Humphrey was not seeing Vietnam becoming the disaster it wound up being. HHH running in 1968 as a moderately pro-peace candidate with impeccable labor, anti-Communist and civil rights credentials might well have frozen RFK out of the race and I think he would have beaten Nixon, who was a reluctant vote for many.

GeographyDude said:

I think Humphrey would have needed a little help from Ho Chi Minh. Ho would have needed to realize that by running as a peace candidate, Humphrey had put himself in a box. And like a skilled poker player, probably not a time to overpush. Probably a time to be happy to get much of what you want.

For example, wasn't there oil off the coast of Vietnam and other industries? So, it's always going to be westerns running these industries, the Vietnamese are never going to get to run their own industry?

Ho and other leaders could have pushed for a period of transition, where the number of Vietnamese students accepted in American universities is ramped up, including older students with some life experience. And a time frame where we largely transfer the industries over in ten years, and then maybe this can be speeded up to eight years.


PS What did Humphrey's wife and friends call him? Did they call him 'Hubert'?

Click to expand...

I believe Hubert was the usual term. RFK, LBJ, and Nixon all called him that on various tape conversations.

Ho Chi Minh would not be in the mood for "helping" any American leader. With the US in domestic turbulence, he doesn't have to.

Thank you.

Apollo 20 said:

Humphrey sold his soul to be on the 1964 ticket with LBJ, which was his downfall, IMO. An interesting timeline would be HHH avoiding the Vice-Presidency and running in 1968 as an ATL McCarthy. I think the tragedy of Humphrey was not seeing Vietnam becoming the disaster it wound up being. HHH running in 1968 as a moderately pro-peace candidate with impeccable labor, anti-Communist and civil rights credentials might well have frozen RFK out of the race and I think he would have beaten Nixon, who was a reluctant vote for many.

Click to expand...

Hm… possible. I don't think RFK would leave though. He liked Humphrey, but he didn't respect him. If RFK lives, they will tear the party apart. RFK will have support from minorities and Catholics that he will never get-damn the facts, he is a Kennedy. Furthermore, if he doesn't look tough on "law and order issues" or Vietnam enough, he'll have trouble with the rather culturally conservative traditional party apparatus(Meany in particular was a hawk), who chooses in the end in 1968 and do not suffer McCarthy like types. 1968 is still going to be a really rough year for the moderate "establishment" figures, and Humphrey will be caught in between two forces. LBJ also will need to be appeased or ignored, and either option will irritate some people.

Humphrey could win the nomination, but he will piss off a certain wedge of the party enough that it would be difficult to win the general, electoral vote.

It's also possible that he is identified too much with the general establishment anyway. A lot of the peaceniks were "my way or the highway" types. And inevitably, if he pisses them off enough, they will cause chaos at the convention… but if he pisses the establishment off enough, he won't get the nomination. Humphrey doesn't have the charisma, glamour, or ruthlessness to overcome this like Bobby would.

HHH's real tragedy was that he wasn't President earlier on.

I tend to think peace in Vietnam early in 1969 might have been possible, just like peace in the 'Great War' might have been possible in 1916.

Difficult, but still possible.

Don't try too hard but keep trying. And hire additional negotiators as necessary. In poker terms, pick up the cheap pots no one else wants (the unexpected opportunities).

GeographyDude said:

I tend to think peace in Vietnam early in 1969 might have been possible, just like peace in the 'Great War' might have been possible in 1916.

Difficult, but still possible.

Don't try too hard but keep trying. And hire additional negotiators as necessary. In poker terms, pick up the cheap pots no one else wants (the unexpected opportunities).

Click to expand...

Aside from the logistical and bureaucratic problems, the political reactions in the US from the right wing if Hubert Humphrey were to do such a thing, the possible ramifications with initiatives with the Soviet Union and China, and the fact that ARVN needed to be trained to take over American positions, there is also the fact that neither side in Vietnam had any incentive to negotiate in 1969. Why would they? It'd be like asking Thieu and his nation to commit suicide to help the doves personal anguish, basically, and Hanoi basically figured they could go for victory and bleed the Americans-or invade. Neither set of Vietnamese WANTED a realistic peace agreement in 1969. Also, there is the whole geopolitical situation in the region.

The Prague Spring had just happened without an American response with the US looking weak as a result, and there were revolutionary elements in the West who-it seemed like-could tear the place apart. Worldwide, the Chinese and the Soviets were about to undergo near nuclear war, and there was also very turbulent "rest of the world". The Soviets had reached nuclear parity with the US. A weak-or perceived as such-America wouldn't be able to do anything about it. And the domestic scene... George Wallace and "Bombs Away" LeMay had won a nontrivial set of the vote. As Lyndon Johnson said-"Ignore those little shits on the campuses. The great beast is the reactionary elements in this country, they are the ones you have to fear." This was in 1965, at the height of his power and prestige.

This would be the case with HHH even moreso than Nixon, he could not afford to just capitulate even if he could, both domestically and internationally. I don't think anyone in office could have contemplated unilaterally withdrawing like that.

I know you should never say never, but I just don't see it happening. Obama has faced some of these problems with Iraq and Afghanistan. These sorts of things take time. Humphrey (or RFK) probably would have perused Vietnamization or some plan like it to at least stop the American bleeding-whoever is in office won't have a crystal ball, and that is probably what they will do. The idea we are getting out in 1969 is as fantastic as the fantasies of the right wing, who wanted a crusade. Only those without power can cherish either extreme.

I also, as a side note, think its a little much to expect the new administration to do in six months what the previous two Democrat administrations had not even thought of or could do over eight years, as many of former Kennedy/Johnson people seemed to expect OTL when Nixon took office, and perhaps also would if Humphrey does. Suddenly became doves and suggested concessions that they never would have implemented themselves. Many of them acted like innocent bystanders, or started blaming the current administration. This might be lessened, but it wouldn't go away, with Humphrey, I think. Similar things have happened with Obama attempting to clean up the GOP's mess in Iraq, and the GOP line to foreign policy shifting to opposing Obama even if he did what normally would be thought of as conservative.