The first Free Cuban Election
On May 30th, 1964, the first election under the new Free Cuban government took place.
Under the new system, the President, in this case Cardona, would largely be a ceremonial figure as head of state.
Instead, the Prime Minister would be the de facto “true” power in Free Cuba and would be the figure largely responsible for leading the federal government.
A number of different political parties formed to contest the election. These included:
- The Christian Democratic Party – A party made up of economically liberal, socially conservative politicians.
- Liberal Party of Cuba – A center-left party modeled primarily on the Democratic Party in the US, more specifically on the beliefs of President Kennedy and his New Frontier.
- The Cuban Renewal Party – A right wing nationalist party, made up of many former supporters of Fulgencio Batista and other hard-line right-wing figures.
- The Cuban Labor Party – A center-left, though explicitly not communist political party which operates in conjunction with Cuba’s trade union movement (which saw considerable purges and alterations following Castro’s ousting).
- The Conservative Republican Party of Cuba – A right wing/center-right political party largely modeled after the Republican Party in the United States
- Cuban Unity – A “big tent” centrist political party.
Many former Brigade 2506 soldiers made the decision to enter politics in this election, and a number of exiled former politicians returned.
However, one notable figure that had not returned was Fulgencio Batista.
The former leader and military dictator in Cuba, it was agreed to by the US and Free Cuban leadership that Batista would not return until the new government had firmly established and legitimized himself.
Batista’s return would be on the condition that he not involve himself in any political matters, and instead simply “enjoy retirement”. The 9th President of Cuba agreed to these terms.
When all the votes were counted, no single party had a majority of the seats.
As such, four parties – the Liberal Party, Cuban Labor Party, Cuban Unity and Christian Democrats – formed a governing coalition with Carlos Márquez Sterling to serve as Prime Minister.
Sterling, a former politician himself, had been an opposed to both Batista and Castro, and as such, Kennedy was delighted that he would be the next leader.
Eusebio Mujal, an anti-Communist Cuban trade union leader, would be Deputy Prime Minister.
Notably, there were no Marxist or anti-American political parties, which was largely by design. The US had done what it could to ensure that whatever the outcome, they would have a steadfast ally in power.
With a center-left wing coalition at the helm, that was surely to be the case.
The California primary
June 2nd, 1964, saw the long-awaited Republican primary content in California finally take place.
The polls showed the two leading candidates – Rockefeller and Goldwater – virtually neck-and-neck in the state.
This had not been the case only a few weeks ago – Rockefeller had led Goldwater by a comfortable margin.
But in the time since then, Goldwater had employed a masterful combination of grass roots organising and high-profile surrogates to cut into Rockefeller’s lead.
The figurehead of both these tactics was Ronald Reagan. Already, there was talk of Reagan running for political office in the 1966 mid-terms.
But that was years away. First came the 1964 Republican primary.
If Goldwater could pull it off, and win the nomination, he could begin the process of permanently reshaping the Republican Party into his conservative vision.
If Rockefeller won, it would revitalize the Eastern Establishment and ensure that the race was between two liberal candidates.
In the end, the election would prove to be the nail biter that everyone assumed it would be.
When all the votes were counted Rockefeller had won with 50.5%, while Goldwater got 49.5% of the vote.
Goldwater had come within a single percentage point of defeating Rockefeller and upending the race, but he had still come up short.
As a winner-take-all contest, Rockefeller would receive all the delegates that the state of California had to offer.
Barring some backdoor deals at the convention, it was likely that Rockefeller would be the Republican nominee in 1964.
The result disappointed Kennedy, who was looking forward to running against his close friend, Barry Goldwater, and felt that defeating Goldwater would prove an easier task than defeating Rockefeller.
However, Kennedy saw a number of benefits to the current situation.
For one thing, favorite son and write-in candidates won approximately 45% of the vote in the primary, signifying the deep split that existed inside the Republican party.
In truth, it was obvious to virtually everyone that Governor Richard Nixon was the overwhelming preferred choice of Republican voters. Nixon knew this too, and repeatedly ruled his name out of consideration.
There was another added benefit – Nelson Rockefeller was firmly committed to civil rights and supportive of the current Civil Rights Act before the Congress. This effectively removed civil rights as a campaign issue, and perhaps could even give Kennedy leverage to secure its passage.
However, there was one man who assuredly did not see any positives to a Kennedy vs Rockefeller race in 1964.
And that man was George Wallace.
Wallace’s ultimatum
On the 10th of June, 1964, George Wallace gave an interview with Birmingham News in which he denounced the prospect of a Kennedy vs Rockefeller race.
A large crowd had turned out to meet their Governor, who had become the public face of the pro-segregationist movement:
“The notion of a race between two candidates – a Democrat and Republican – both in support of this ‘Civil Wrongs’ movement, should turn the stomach of every decent, God fearing white American.
We stand at a turning point in history, when all people must decide whether they wish to live free or be the subject of a tyranny overreaching federal government that controls every aspect of their lives.
I have been a proud Democrat for my whole life, and what I have seen from the present administration does not reflect the Democratic Party that I know.
The Democratic Party that I represent is the party of States’ Rights. The party of freedom and limited government. The party of law and order.
Instead, those so-called “Democrats” in the White House have chosen to worship at the alter of pointy headed intellectualism and left wing agitators.
Well, I will not stand for it. And I know there are so many Democrats in the South, and elsewhere, who agree with me.
We will always stand for local governments, lower taxes, and I believe most importantly - law and order. We will stand against communism, government overreach, lawlessness, and any attempt to pervert our great constitution.
At the Democratic National Convention in August, we will make our voices heard.”
These were all bread-and-butter issues for Wallace, and he looked to build on his performance in the Democratic primaries to embolden segregationists in Congress, and, if possible, set himself for greater things in politics, down the line.
Reactions to Wallace’s announcement were generally split along geographic and ideological lines. Many in the south were broadly behind him, as were the various groups in Wisconsin, Maryland, and Indiana that Wallace had reached out to during the primaries.
Nelson Rockefeller used Wallace’s statement to tie Goldwater to George Wallace, claiming that if Goldwater were to win the nomination, he would be Wallace’s preferred choice, or perhaps Goldwater would make Wallace his running mate.
Goldwater publicly repudiated the statement, saying that “if I am chosen as the Republican Party’s nominee, I will choose another Republican to be my running mate, one that shares my views of individual freedom and a strong national defense.”
Moderate and liberal Republicans were bristled by Goldwater’s comments, and cited them as evidence that Goldwater would choose a conservative running mate and completely ignore the notion of ideological balance.
Among southern segregationists, there was a push for Wallace to form a 3rd party which he declined to do, stating that “the Democratic Party will still be the party for the Southern man, if I have anything to say about it”.
Even with his failed primary effort, Wallace’s presence loomed large in 1964.
Operation Heavyweight
The North was on fire.
On the 19th of June 1964, Operation Heavyweight, a sustained US bombing of North Vietnamese infrastructure, began.
It would signify the start of escalated US involvement in Vietnam.
At the US became more involved in Vietnam, there was debate over how to use American air power in the conflict.
He refused the request to target civilian infrastructure, fearing it would turn public opinion against the United States.
Kennedy may have been willing to stand up to and tell the military leadership when he believed they were wrong, but he also knew when to give them broad authority to carry out the tasks he devised for them. Originally, he did not favor using air attacks against North Vietnam at all, but this was debated strongly by some of the people he trusted most.
It was a delicate balance. However, Kennedy’s propensity to surround himself with an inner circle of figures whose abilities he trusted, but whose judgement he never placed above his own, made the system work.
So, Kennedy allowed for US forces to bomb military targets and instillation inside North Vietnam.
Reactions to Operation Heavyweight were some variation on shock. The Soviets, Chinese Communists and North Vietnamese leadership were not expecting such a sustained and strong bombing attack so quickly.
Kennedy’s reluctance to use airpower in Cuba and Latin America had led America’s adversaries to believe he would tread carefully into Vietnam and carry out only limited strikes against enemy troops inside South Vietnam – this shift in approach surprised friend and foe alike.
Hawks in Congress were delighted. The likes of Barry Goldwater and Henry Jackson praised Kennedy’s “strong, appropriate response to North Vietnamese aggression”. Those less eager to employ US military power were disapproving, urging Kennedy to limit the scope of the bombings to inside South Vietnam. The American public largely supported the President.
The international community however, largely condemned the operation, with the UN delegation to several countries decrying Kennedy’s action as a war crime.
Similarly, the protest movement inside the United States, grown out of anti-war, anti-nuclear arms, and anti-segregation movements, was brought into a frenzy.
Thousands upon thousands marched in cities and demonstrated on college campuses following the announcement of Operation Heavyweight. They derided Kennedy as an evil imperialist and called on him to cease all US involvement in Vietnam.
“Hey, hey, JFK, how many kids did you kill today?”
-- A common chant for anti-war protestors
It wasn’t just college kids protesting. Several academics and intellectuals added gravitas to the burgeoning anti-war movement. One such academic, Noam Chomsky, had this to say of US involvement in Vietnam:
“The terror and violence inflicted upon the people of North Vietnam represents one of the great atrocities in the history of not only the United States, but in all human history. If John F. Kennedy were judged by the standards of the Nuremberg Trials, he would be hanged.”
Kennedy, while not unmoved by the protests, was undeterred from his current course of action.
A student of history, he recalled the words of General Sherman, who responded to a Mississippi woman with Confederate sympathies during the Meridian campaign:
“War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueller it is, the sooner it will be over.”