Events in 1971 - America In Crisis, A World In Turmoil
Tom Bradley’s year had gotten off to a wonderful start. While Reagan’s razor thin victory was a disappointment to many Democrats, for Bradley, it represented a major opportunity – he had performed very well in the 1970 primaries, and the Democrats were well positioned to win in 1974.
For Mayor Bradley, his campaign for governor had already begun. A media blitz which had begun in the new year carried through to February, where Bradley was hosting a meeting with constitutes at City Hall.
Even as he left the building, crowds of supporters surrounded the building, held back by police and metal fencing. Mayor Bradley walked over to shake the hands of his constituents. Black, white, Latino, rich, middle class and poor – he had full confidence that the coalition that made Tom Bradley the Mayor of Los Angeles would take him to the Governor’s mansion.
As he walked down the line, he approached a young, serious looking woman. Bradley reached out to grab the woman’s left, but as he did so the man quickly removed her right hand from her purse, holding an object that Bradley could not quite discern in the instant it took for events to transpire.
Bradley’s police guard reacted a quarter of a second too late. A series of loud cracks filled the air. Mayor Bradley fell backwards clutching his chest. There was immediate pandemonium as a crowd leapt on the shooter, punching, and kicking her as the police attempted to pull the crowd away and make the arrest.
The badly beaten woman was eventually pulled away from the crowd and taken to a downtown Los Angeles police station. She had no identification on her, but the things on his possession were a snub nosed revolver, ammunition, a Ronald Reagan 1970 re-election campaign button and Barry Goldwater’s Conscious of a Conservative.
Over the course of their investigation, police were able to eventually get her nickname – Squeaky. The media, and the nation at large, took particular note of the disturbing nature of this crime as the shooter was a woman – generally, such acts of violence were perpetrated by men.
When asked her reasons for shooting, she cited a coming “race war” and the shooting was revenge. She claimed that Bradley had organised the killing of a white elderly couple in a Brentwood neighborhood the night before.
Sure enough, Los Angeles police combed the area and found a slain man and woman, aged 65 and 63 respectively, in an upper-class Brentwood home. They had both been restrained and stabbed to death, before the words ‘PIG’ and “HELTER SKELTER’ were scrawled in blood across the walls.
The police were immediately skeptical of the woman’s motivation, and immediately wondered if this wasn’t the result of drugs, mental illness, or even a communist plot to cause chaos in the United States.
However, word of the woman’s alleged motivations, the accusations against Bradley, and the conservative memorabilia on Squeaky’s person was eventually leaked to the press. The next morning, it was announced that Bradley had died of his injuries in hospital.
The combination of these two events sent ripples through Log Angeles. Protests broke out across the city, and across California more generally, in response to the murder of Tom Bradley by a man claiming to be involved in a “race war”. There were demands for Goldwater and Reagan, both of whom had supported segregation in the past, to resign from their positions for “inciting violence and discrimination against the African American community”.
These riots were not as deadly or destructive as many of the worst riots of the 1960s but had a sizeable impact on the American psyche as television screens again showed disorder in America’s urban areas. The City of Angels had become Hell on Earth.
Ronald Reagan, ignoring calls to step down, paid tribute to Tom Bradley, calling him a “great public servant” and deriding Watson as “a sick, twisted individual”. Barry Goldwater echoed similar statements but added that “senseless violence cannot be met with senseless violence. We are working with the Governor to put an end to the chaos in the street”.
At Spahn Ranch, Charles Manson surveyed the chaos on television. As far as he was concerned, his dear Squeaky Fromme had fired the first shot in apocalyptic race war that would leave he and his Followers the leaders of the New World.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The days after Mayor Tom Bradley’s assassination were incredibly tense ones for Los Angeles. A cloud of anger and confusion hung over the city’s 2,816,061 people. Even as the immediate surge of violent protests ended after the first few days, fear and suspicion had seeped into the vary marrow of the populace.
The police investigation into the murder was slow – the parents of Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme had come forward acknowledging the shooter as their estranged daughter, but beyond that there was very little paper trail on her life. She’d been homeless since dropping out of college, and she refused to tell detectives where she’d been living since then.
It was not until 5 days after Bradley’s death that Paul Watkins came forward claiming that Fromme was part of a cult of supporters of aspiring singer-songwriter Charles Manson. Watkins further claimed that Manson had spent years trying to engineer Helter Skelter, a race war that would leave he and his followers to lead a world where all white people were killed by black people. He also revealed that the killing of Bradley and the elderly couple in Brentwood was their second major attempt to engineer the start of a race war. The first attack perpetrated by the so-called Manson Family was against Sharon Tate’s home, which was thwarted by Steve McQueen.
These were startling revelations, and a large detachment of state police were sent on a raid against Manson’s compounds at Spahn Ranch and Barker Ranch in the Death Valley.
Dozens of arrests were carried out and Manson’s face was plastered all over American news media. He was everything many Americans had come to fear – a radical, drug addicted, hippie with an army of loyalist followers who would even kill for his doomsday conspiracies.
Earlier attempts to frame conservatism as the reason for Tom Bradley’s assassination had caused substantial friction amongst political circles, and along racial lines, in Los Angeles and across the nation. The day after Manson’s arrest, Governor Ronald Reagan himself would go on television and address the tumultuous events of recent days:
“Mayor Tom Bradley was a man of faith, conviction, kindness, and fair judgement. He united people together in common cause and proved that we become stronger communities when we put aside divisions of faith, color, religion or income level. Tom Bradley’s life was a testament to the very idea of the United States of America. He spread those ideals not just through the city of Los Angeles, but across this land.
Though these have been among the most trying days of the history of California we should not give into hatred, division, or mistrust – these are not the ideals Mayor Bradley would want us to take away from his life. As pained as we all are, we must remember that what Tom Bradley did in his life ultimately matter more than his tragic passing. If we want to honor Mayor Bradley, and all those who died in these senseless killings, let us come together as Californians and purge suspicion from our hearts.”
Reagan’s speech, while masterfully delivered, did little to stem the resentment simmering beneath the surface. The impact of Tom Bradley’s death at the hands of the Manson Family would produce a scar on the American psyche that would stay with a generation of Californians for decades to come.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April saw the Washington Post release a massive expose on the crimes of US serviceman in Vietnam. The report made note of the increasingly violent behavior of US serviceman who patrolled the North, with stories extrajudicial murders, torture, looting, and sexual assaults shared by a number of disgusted soldiers, sailors and airmen.
These, along with more than a dozen other accounts by the Washington Post of war crimes by American forces caused a large public outcry, and many in and out of the US cited the report as a sign that American troops had overstayed their welcome in Vietnam. The White House, and many conservatives, were utterly indignant about the reports of war crimes. These were not the first accusations leveled at American servicemen in Vietnam, but they served to reignite the debate held last year about US war crimes in Indochina.
Defence Secretary Westmoreland, when asked about the accusations, stated: “The fighting men of the United States carry out their duties with honor, professionalism, and within the confines of the laws of war. To suggest anything else is an afront to all those who have served and given their lives in the course of their duty. In those rare instances were a soldier, sailor, or airman acts unbecoming, we would most certainly take full action under the law to see them appropriately punished. But we will not conduct a trial by media.”
Off the back off this renewed public discontent, in May, the Democratic Congress and Senate passed the
Vietnam Stabilization Act of 1971 which called for a withdrawal of all American forces over a period of 90 days. Though it was a Democratic imitative, it had substantial support from many Republicans who’d grown war weary. The one concession that Republicans were able to get was an increase in financial and military support to their Vietnamese and Cambodian allies.
There was no chance of a veto, even Goldwater knew that the jig was up. Direct American involvement in the Vietnam War was coming to an end. A sullen Goldwater signed the legislation, albeit with massive reservations, days later.
“Our commitment to defending freedom in Southeast Asia does not end here,” he stated in a speech from his Arizona residence, “This legislation will allow for the steady flow of arms and armaments to allow our ARVN allies to do the job of defeating the communist holdouts across North Vietnam. Our Vietnamese friends have sacrificed so much, and we will not give up on them as they march towards a future united in freedom.”
But privately, Goldwater was bitterly disappointed. Signing this legislation had flown in the face of all he had said about his commitment to seeing the war through to the end. America was in it to win it, he said. And now, they were leaving a job only half done.
But the South Vietnamese military was well trained, had high morale and was well armed – they would be given whatever necessary to win it for themselves and defeat remaining insurgents.
Perhaps that was for the best. Goldwater never wanted politics to get ahead of winning a war, but he had to admit – he could effectively campaign on having ended America’s largest war since Korea with the fall of a communist government and the establishment of a unified, friendly Vietnamese nation. Not bad.
Several victory parades were already being planned for America’s returning heroes. However, the ongoing media controversy around alleged war crimes would divide the nation on the issue of the Vietnam War, even as it was coming to a close.
As usual, Barry Goldwater felt like his Presidency was moving one step forward, one step back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the end of the Sino-Soviet War, the question of whether the Chinese Communist Party still maintained a Mandate From Heaven was up in the air. In response, Mao had emboldened his Red Revolutionary Guard and continually sidelined a demoralised and embittered PLA.
More and more, discontent had festered throughout the People’s Liberation Army.
July of 1971 saw tensions between a local Revolutionary Guard militia and the PLA in Chongqing explode. For weeks prior, the two sides had been pestering each other throughout the city until a Revolutionary Guard squadron conducted an ambush on a PLA checkpoint, killing 12 soldiers and wounding five wounded.
This led to a guerrilla campaign between the two opposing sides, with ambush attacks, arrests and violence from both sides conducted against their rivals, with regular citizens often caught in the middle. The upper echelon of the Communist Party was eventually brought in to arbitrate, and Mao himself intervened and saw that the PLA detachment to the city was disbanded. Those who refused were gunned down in the street.
For many inside the PLA, this was the final injustice. What had become bitter resentment was morphing into popular discontent. All it would take would be for a spark to light the fires of open rebellion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the Vietnam War in the back mirror and a growing economic crisis at home, the Department of Treasury and the rest of Goldwater’s team worked feverously to develop a solution.
Numerous ideas were floated around by economists inside and outside the White House – price controls, removing America from the Gold Standard, and a broad range of Keynesian policy measures to alleviate rising inflation and unemployment. Goldwater rejected these all measures and cited his long-held belief that “the essential item in inflation is government spending.”
He wouldn’t budge on the issue. The Tao of Barry Goldwater was immutable, and his advisors simply had to work around it.
Barry Goldwater would deal with a stagnant economy his way. And so, he came before the American people on the 13th of August 1971, and gave a speech that would define the economic problems of the day and how to deal with them.
“Good evening, my fellow Americans. I am speaking to you today from the Oval Office, as I have many times before. In these many speeches, most have been on the most pressing issue of our time, the War in Vietnam.
But now, the war is over. The troops are returning home, and the tide has turned against communist tyranny.
We have won the war in Indochina. We must now win the peace back here in the United States.
And the challenges of peace in our current era are well defined – the first of these is unemployment.
The tradition political thing to do when faced with issues of unemployment is to suggest a plethora of wasteful government programs to generate bureaucratic make-work.
But this so-called cure to our ills has actually been a slow acting poison that fuels our greatest threat – inflation.
Inflation that eats away at our dollar, makes the cost of living more expensive, and undermines the savings of all Americans. Most concerningly, our scenarios who rely on savings or a fixed income are most disadvantaged by rising inflation.
Make no mistake, the cause of this inflation is painfully clear – government spending.
This is why I shall resist every effort to address unemployment by means of runaway government spending and a new unending, bloated new department. Let the Congress be made aware – I shall use my veto power to keep spending under control.
I shall not sacrifice our long-term fiscal future for short term political gain.
Only the private sector can create the jobs necessary to return us to healthy levels of employment. The government must get out of the way and create the conditions to allow captains of industry to unleash the full economic might of our private sector, the envy of the world.
Thus, I am calling on the Congress to pass a 5%, across the board tax cut to get the government out of the pockets of business and labor alike. In concert with this reduction in tax revenue, we must reduce government spending across the board. Therefore, I recommend a one-year spending freeze which will save billions of dollars and bring the beast of inflation under control.
We have already taken steps to tighten our belts here in the White House. On my order, we have postponed the scheduled pay rise for government employees. Second, I have ordered a 10% reduction in the number of government employees currently on the federal payroll, and a 20% decrease in foreign aid.
Only by sacrifice and public austerity can we bring under control the great beast of burden that has become an unaccountable government bureaucracy. But we must do so in a way that preserves essential programs to provide care for those who truly need it, like Social Security and Medicare.
There have been some voices who call for us to abandon the gold standard and destroy the international Bretton Woods system, which has been the backbone of economic prosperity since the end of World War 2. Nothing could be worse for the health of the global financial system then this. There are no quick fixes to our present troubles, and to attempt any would risk plunging the United States and the world into an economic dark age even worse than the Great Depression.
Instead, we must lower tariffs and encourage the free flow of goods and capital across the seas, stimulating the economy and adding fuel to the fires of our economic engines.
Make no mistake, as long as I am President, America’s long-term fiscal health shall not be sacrificed at the altar of political expediency or short-term fixes for an increase in poll popularity.”
As he always did, Barry Goldwater drew a line in the sand on a controversial issue and left no one confused as to his views. And it divided the public along partisan lines.
Conservative pundits and intellectuals lauded Goldwater for his restraint. Milton Freidman praised the President for “following a sound policy program that offers the only real, sustainable path towards a healthy economic system”. Ayn Rand wrote favorably about Goldwater’s speech in her newsletter, while the National Review was filled with praises for the President. Murray Rothbard declared in the New York Times that on August 15 that the President stood “firmly against the creeping urge towards fascism in the United States by those in the Congress who remain fixated on an ever-expanding government and economic determinism that promises to erode human freedom as we know it.”
Goldwater’s speech, and his firm stance, saw an immediate uptick in favorability that saw him hit 50% for the first time since the early days of his first time. The war had ended, and now the President took a hard-line on economic conditions that he promised would end the pain many Americans felt.
However, this honeymoon did not last long.
What followed was weeks of bitter fights between the White House and the Democratic Congress. The Democratic Congress worked feverishly to pass a series of wage and price controls that they argued would alleviate inflation, but Goldwater stonewalled them at every turn, even vetoing the legislation when it finally got to his desk.
Democrats used Goldwater’s hard-line reputation as a hardliner to their advantage by suggesting bill after bill of economic stimulus, new programs and departments which they argued would bring prosperity the way the New Deal did in the 1930s and 1940s.
However, Goldwater vetoed them all. What was first seen as firm resolve by the public soon become viewed as an exhausting gridlock. In a matter of weeks, Goldwater’s newfound popularity collapsed again, and his popularity languished in the low 40% range.
A certain cynicism was beginning to envelop the White House. This was a familiar pattern – with every victory came a bitter defeat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the evening of September 12th, 1971, Barry Goldwater was awoken by a telephone call directly from his Chief of Staff, Denison Kitchel. This was a phone call unlike any other he’d received in his time as President, and Kitchel’s voice was a mix of confusion, seriousness, and the slightest hint of excitement.
“Mr President, there was some sort of train explosion outside of Beijing. We think – actually well we’re pretty sure – Mao was on that train. We’re getting a lot of chatter saying he’s dead.”
“Well shit,” the President responded, “What happens now?”
“We are getting together the National Security Council for a meeting in the Situation Room. But I believe it’s mostly a matter of waiting to see how this all pans out, Mr President.”
Goldwater attended the meeting with his team of foreign policy and defence advisors – they knew precious little and could only wait as details were slow dripped out to them in the hours that followed.
In the aftermath of Mao’s alleged assassination, a mass contingent of the People’s Liberation Army had marched on The Forbidden City, taking it over and executing members of the Revolutionary Guard, and imprisoning Mao loyalists. Elsewhere, the PLA conducted a series of well-coordinated strikes against the Revolutionary Guard’s main headquarters in Beijing, and at their various power centers in urban areas across China.
Lin Bao, Vice Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party and Marshal of the People’s Republic of China eventually released a statement on radio on the 13th, which blamed the death of Mao on “capitalist counterrevolutionary forces disguised as revolutionaries” and anointed himself as the new leader of the interim Chinese Communist Party, and thus, leader of China, until order could be restored. In his first act as leader of China, he outlawed the Red Revolutionary Guard and ordered their complete surrender.
Wang Dongxing, Mao’s security chief and the head of the Red Revolutionary Guard, had narrowly avoided death in the train explosion and quickly become a symbol of Maoist continuity among the deceased Chairman’s loyalists. He announced that Mao’s death was the result of “capital roaders and rebels in league with Chiang Kai-Shek”, further claiming that the PLA had become corrupted by anti-revolutionary madness and that Lin Bao was an also an agent of the Soviet Union. He further called on average citizens and the Red Revolutionary Guard to rise up and reclaim China in the name of Mao’s Revolution.
By the 15th of September, the People’s Republic of China had devolved into what could only be described as a civil war. The People’s Liberation Army and the Red Revolutionary Guard battled across urban sprawls and in rural areas. Pragmatic political figures, like Deng Xiaoping, went underground and refused to take sides generally. Others, like Hua Guofeng had been killed in the fighting.
It was complete chaos to anyone on the outside world looking in – there was no word as to who controlled what territory
On the 16th, the White House received a diplomatic cable from Chiang Kai-shek ’s Republic of China calling for more weapons, supplies, and tanks. Goldwater agreed.
Perhaps there was hope yet, that if Harry Truman was the President who lost China, then Barry Goldwater could be the one who got it back.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Against the backdrop of ongoing chaos in the People’s Republic of China, on September 17th, Associate Justice Hugo Black announced his retirement from the Supreme Court citing health issues, only days before his death.
Goldwater now had the opportunity to shape the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction, and immediately had advisors create a list of conservative judges to appoint.
The results were not encouraging.
With inflation continuing to rise, and an economy in recession, the last thing the White House needed was a divisive battle over the court. Many argued that Goldwater should appoint someone uncontroversial, but this was just not how President Goldwater wanted to operate.
“Get me a list, I’ll read over it and make my final decision”, the President ordered. There was not to be any second guessing.
Warren E. Burger was a reliably conservative judge but had enough of an independent streak to be acceptable to Democrats. Edward Thaxter Gignoux was another option, though he was perhaps too prone to bouts of judicial activism than Goldwater was comfortable with. There were over a dozen names, but one stood out to Goldwater above all others – Robert Bork.
Bork was a dyed in the wool conservative who’d been Goldwater’s Solicitor General since 1969, and in that capacity had argued before the Supreme Court many times on issues such as busing, the segregation of religious schools, and the hot button issues of the day. He was the antithesis to the overwhelmingly liberal Goldberg Court.
Liberals immediately bristled at the prospect of someone like Bork on the Court. Ted Kennedy came out firing, immediately suggesting that Bork would “undo the decade of progress under built by the present members of this distinguished body – the Supreme Court”, further suggesting that Robert Bork sought to reinstitute segregation and wind back the rights of defendants to a fair trial.
Against a Democratic Congress, Bork stood little chance. His record was attacked relentlessly, and in a few short weeks he withdrew his name from consideration.
Goldwater was thus forced to choose the most conservative acceptable option – Warren Burger.
Burger was a critic of the Warren Court, an advocate of strict constructionism, an Eisenhower appointee, and a supporter of the deceased former Vice President Nixon. However, he was also relatively inoffensive to most Democrats, and had enough of an independent streak with respect to civil liberties to make him an all but certain confirmation.
In the end, Goldwater acquiesced. Burger was put before the Senate and easily confirmed after a short and friendly hearing.
Again, Goldwater would be forced to put a spin and was a disappointment for his White House:
“Today, I have appointed a man who will carry on a strong tradition of strict respect for the Constitution in America’s most esteemed legal body, the Supreme Court. Warren Burger reflects the highest traditions of America’s legal institutions, and I know all Americans will join me in celebrating the appointment of such a qualified, and thoughtful man to shape American life for years to come.”
However, privately, conservatives were becoming disenchanted with the Goldwater administration.
“The much-vaunted Goldwater Revolution,” William F. Buckley wrote in the National Review, “Appears to have died before it ever truly began. There have been successes, to be sure, such as Indochina and there are promising signs in Red China - but with each success comes another bitter defeat waiting around the corner. I have no doubt that Mr Burger will be a capable Supreme Court Justice – more so than any appointed by the previous administration, most certainly – and yet his appointment does not represent the radical shift in the Constitutional landscape of the country in the way that the appointment of someone like Mr Bork might have. In this, and in so many other areas, the President’s accomplishments have fallen short of some admittedly lofty expectations to reshape this nation after decades spent retreating from our founding principles. I fear what will happen come the elections in 1972.”
William F. Buckley was far from the only one concerned about Republican chances in 1972. But the situation in China offered perhaps a chance at redemption for Goldwater yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Allies in Asia Pacific Act of 1971 was passed along broadly bipartisan lines in both Houses in Congress. It saw increased military aid given to US allies such as Japan, Vietnam, and Taiwan. In truth, most of the aid would go to Taiwan, with some going to Vietnam and a modest amount to Japan. In the end, Chiang Kai-Shek would get exactly what he asked for.
The Goldwater White House were privately discussing the possibility of assisting Chiang in re-taking the mainland, privately reaching out to their allies in Vietnam and Japan to discuss the possibility of their logistical assistance in the matter – neither were particularly eager.
Indeed, the idea of retaking the Chinese mainland from the communist had become an obsession of the Goldwater White House – on the back of an abysmal economy, social unrest, and Congressional gridlock, the President believed that overseeing the liberation of China would ultimately save his presidency and secure him a second term.
But America’s next great security headache would not come from Asia, it would come from Latin America.
The Panamanian People’s Front, a leftist guerrilla group led by Omar Torrijos, had grown in size throughout rural areas in Panama, and now easily outnumbered the pro-government forces. However, continued logistical and material support from the United States meant that Avila’s government would always have the qualitative edge which was all but impossible for a ragtag militia to overcome.
The United States would not stop assisting the current government unless they were forced to. Torrijos had seen the news reports – the American people were tired of violence and fighting, and they had a President who was hamstrung by a Congress who sought to rein in his tendencies as a warmonger.
Eventually, if the People’s Revolution was to succeed, America would intervene just as they had against Castro. It was better to make a move now while they were weak, war weary and divided, to secure a political settlement with the United States that ensured the revolution would survive.
Despite some warnings from America’s intelligence assets in the area, evidence of a major strike against American targets in Panama was dismissed by the White House as an unrealistic, borderline suicidal move by the PPF.
American forces were caught almost completely surprise when a series of 14 explosions rocked the Panama Canal Zone. Targeting both critical infrastructure and American troops, the 14 explosions represented the 14 military bases on Panama, and symbolized PPF’s displeasure with US involvement in the country. 19 American troops would be killed in the attack, 30 Panamanian civilians and hundreds more would be injured.
Attempts to destroy the locks on the canal failed and resulted in relatively minor damage. But American investors, already wary as a result of the continuing recession, were terrified that such a critical avenue for the flow of trade and goods could be openly attacked. The stock market experienced the sharpest drop in the American stock market since the Soviet’s nuclear strikes against the People’s Republic of China. Torrijos announced publicly that attacks on the Canal would continue unless the United States pulled its support from the Avila government.
Goldwater, never one to relent when America’s interests were threatened militarily, announced that troops would be sent as part of an international coalition, alongside the Cuban military and Panama’s own security forces, to “end the threat of Omar Torrijos’s terror squads once and for all and protect the Panama Canal, the backbone of trade in our hemisphere”.
Goldwater, wary of Kennedy’s mistakes in Cuba, decided that overwhelming force was the quickest way to resolve the conflict. The President ordered a massive detachment of ships from the Second Fleet almost double the size of the one Kennedy used to invade Cuba, while special forces were inserted into key points around Panama to protect critical infrastructure and hunt down leftist rebels.
As part of the overall strategy for defeating the rebels, air and naval activities, covert operations would be followed by a massive deployment of US marines and army to quash the Panamanian People’s Front in one massive offensive, or at least cripple them to the point where local Panamanian forces could easily handle whatever was left.
This was also the first foreign adventure for the reformed Cuban military, whose involvement would be mostly symbolic.
Despite the involvement of Cuban forces, many anti-war protestors and foreign governments viewed America’s newest conflict with scorn. Foreign newspapers were filled with cartoons depicting Goldwater as a caricature of an angry, lumbering brute or a Teddy Roosevelt style imperialist. The President had one of the latter cartoons, printed in a French magazine, framed, and placed on his desk in his personal residence in Arizona.
America had left Vietnam, but now a new conflict awaited them in Panama.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In late November of Massachusetts Governor Bobby Kennedy made his long-awaited announcement that he would run for President in 1972. He had loomed large over the entire field – Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy, Scoop Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, and former Texas Governor John Connally were the current candidates.
Notably, former Vice-Presidential candidate and New Jersey Governor Richard Hughes had declined to enter the race and was instead the first person to endorse Kennedy outside of Massachusetts.
In his announcement speech, Kennedy laid out his fundamental disagreements with Goldwater.
“I am today announcing my candidacy for the presidency of the United States.
I do not run for the presidency merely to oppose any man but to propose new policies. I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course and because I have such strong feelings about what must be done, and I feel that I'm obliged to do all that I can.
I run to seek new policies - policies to make the world safe from nuclear Armageddon, policies to end the constant state of wars in Latin America and Asia, policies to reinvigorate the American economy, policies to close the gaps that now exist between black and white, between rich and poor, between young and old, in this country and around the rest of the world.
I run for the presidency because I want the Democratic Party and the United States of America to stand for hope instead of despair, for reconciliation of men instead of the growing risk of world war.
I run because it is now unmistakably clear that we can change these disastrous, divisive policies only by changing the men who are now making them. For the reality of recent events in Panama and China have laid bare the perilous nature of the modern world.
At home, millions of citizens who cry out for assistance are left unheard.
The crisis in gold, the crisis in our cities, the crisis in our farms and in our ghettos have all been with stunning indifference and cruel neglect.
No one knows what I know about the extraordinary demands of the presidency can be certain that any mortal can adequately fill that position.
But my service in the National Security Council during the War in Cuba, and later United Nations have taught me something about both the uses and limitations of military power, about the opportunities and the dangers which await our nation in many corners of the globe in which I have traveled.
As a member of the cabinet, I have seen the inexcusable and ugly deprivation which causes children to starve in Mississippi, black citizens to riot in Watts; young Indians to commit suicide on their reservations because they've lacked all hope and they feel they have no future, and proud and able-bodied families to wait our their lives in empty idleness in eastern Kentucky.
As the Governor of Massachusetts, I have sought to tackle issues of poverty and deprivation. I have worked to protect the environment. I have worked to strengthen the rights and the health of all our people. But no Governor alone can resolve the problems that plague our entire nation, and which permeate across the world.
I have traveled and I have listened to the young people of our nation and felt their anger about the wars that they are sent to fight - in Vietnam and now in Panama - and about the world they are about to inherit.
In private talks and in public, I have tried in vain to alter our course in managing our relationship with the Soviet Union before it pushes both our nation towards a Third World Way which shall destroy all organized life on this Earth. We must maintain a sober view of the Soviets, but nothing can be gained by continuing our current policy of isolation and global division.
I cannot stand aside from the contest that will decide our nation's future and our children's future.
President Goldwater ran in 1968 on ending crime. Yet we still see crime and violence in our streets, that no amount of policing and harsh policies can resolve. Because our present crime wave is the result of hopelessness and lack of opportunity.
We must reinvigorate our economy and give our citizens, particularly the young and vulnerable, opportunities and things to strive for. This shall stop them from falling into the dangerous spiral of delinquency and crime.
The last four years of conflict, division and destitution have proven one thing – our nation is on the wrong course, and we must change.
I enter a crowded field of diverse and intelligent candidates for Presidency. But I believe that I have the experience, the energy, and the ideas to solve the problems we face today. And this is not to say there won’t be struggles ahead, but things can be better, and our national leadership must do better.
At stake is not simply the leadership of our party and even our country. It is our right to moral leadership of this planet.”
Governor Kennedy, despite his national renown, had mostly avoided federal issues for the past two years and instead focused squarely on local issues inside Massachusetts. With an overwhelming majority in the state legislature, Kennedy passed a whole litany of liberal reforms to focus on job retraining, investment in health and education, and an increase in welfare benefits.
As a result, Massachusetts’ budget had expanded rapidly, and this quickly became an avenue of attack for Republicans who derided Kennedy’s “tax and spend agenda”.
Kennedy, seemingly ignoring his Democratic opponents in the primary, spent the vast majority of his time railing against Goldwater’s “do nothing, heartless economic agenda” and dividing his time between the early states and charming the party bosses, many of whom had connections to the former President Kennedy and were Camelot loyalists.
Of the field, the likes of McGovern, McCarthy and Chisolm occupied the liberal end of the spectrum, while John Connally had proven to be a surprisingly strong campaigner with a message of conservatism that spoke to many blue-collar workers and Southerners.
Hubert Humphrey represented something closer to the Democratic mainstream and would complete with Kennedy for that spot on the ideological spectrum. The final major candidate, Scoop Jackson, was little known but quickly gained prominence for his ultra-hawkish views.
He commended many aspects of Goldwater’s foreign policy, including the continuing sanctions against the Soviet Union and American efforts to isolate the Soviet Union diplomatically even years after the end of the Sino-Soviet War. There had been no major bilateral talks between the two superpowers in years, and to many Americans the impenetrable shroud of the Iron Curtain was more unknowable than ever. Despite Jackson’s hawkishness, he was liberal on social and economic issues which made his coalition of voters relatively scattershot.
Kennedy’s policies of renewed diplomacy with the Soviet Union, greater government intervention to combat the ongoing recession, and care for America’s returning veterans proved to be relatively close to the likes of McGovern and McCarthy. However, Kennedy quickly differentiated himself with qualified support for Goldwater’s action in Panama, insisting that Omar Torrijos was a destabilizing element in America’s backyard who had to be put down. This put him at odds with the likes of McGovern, who argued for a negotiated end to hostilities.
Governor Kennedy was attempting to thread the needle between a transformative liberal agenda and a dedicated, sensible, proponent of American interests at the height of the Cold War. And as 1971 came to an end, things looked to be going his way.
He polled 10 points ahead of Goldwater and had a massive lead over the rest of the Democratic field. In many ways, the race was his to lose.