Discussion: Vietnam under the Democrats, 1968

How do you think Vietnam would go under either a Humphrey or Kennedy presidency in 1968? Yes, for an upcoming project. One rule: NO "Kennedy unilaterally withdraws a la McGovern '72" on Jan. 21, 1969. I'll chime in later. ;)
 
Well, you and I have talked a good deal about RFK, so I think I can make a decent guess as to what he'd do (backed up by your posts elsewhere) - which is to say, essentially Vietnamization. He might actually feel he has more latitude to execute air operations like Linebacker and Linebacker II to assist the RVN and to compel Hanoi to conclude a peace agreement. I think you're right when you stated elsewhere earlier this evening that if the South can hold on into the late 1970's, China will become more willing to put pressure on North Vietnam to make a peace settlement as Beijing starts tilting toward the West. Of course, that might push the North into the Soviet orbit - but OTL it was pretty much there by the late '70's anyway.

What I'm wondering is, what, if anything, could RFK do to reduce the likelihood of Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia? At this time Sihanouk is still trying to play both ends against the middle...
 
Agreed. I think Cambodia might be left to ARVN/VNAF. RFK will be very tough on Thieu: IOTL Thieu hated Kennedy's guts and allowed the Saigonese press to depict him in a NVA uniform. Rest assured that would not be forgotten. ;) Kennedy will likely try to persuade Thieu's Asian allies: Lee, the Tunku, McEwen, Holyoake and Marcos, to pressure him as well. If Kennedy pursues a tougher line, he'll have to keep his Vietnam policies afloat with Republican votes.

Humphrey: pretty much the same, but willing to authorize a Cambodian incursion by US forces.
 
Agreed. I think Cambodia might be left to ARVN/VNAF. RFK will be very tough on Thieu: IOTL Thieu hated Kennedy's guts and allowed the Saigonese press to depict him in a NVA uniform. Rest assured that would not be forgotten. ;) Kennedy will likely try to persuade Thieu's Asian allies: Lee, the Tunku, McEwen, Holyoake and Marcos, to pressure him as well. If Kennedy pursues a tougher line, he'll have to keep his Vietnam policies afloat with Republican votes.

Humphrey: pretty much the same, but willing to authorize a Cambodian incursion by US forces.

Yes. My own gut instinct says RFK will be more than happy to bust the NVN leadership a good one or two in the chops via B-52 during the process of drawdown if they try to get cute with him. This will fit his essential anti-Communist instincts and will help him with conservative voters.
 
I think that all three would pursue essentially the same goal. Kennedy and Humphrey often spoke of "peace with honor". Like Obama on Iraq, their remarks were (deliberately) sufficiently vague to enable a wide variety of interpretations, depending on the audience. Or as Kennedy put it when asked of his own position: "whether you're a hawk, a dove, or a dawk or a hove..." But yes, if nothing else, neither Humphrey or Kennedy want their positions undermined or ego bruised by a "fifth-rate power" as LBJ called DRV in 1965.
 
I think that all three would pursue essentially the same goal. Kennedy and Humphrey often spoke of "peace with honor". Like Obama on Iraq, their remarks were (deliberately) sufficiently vague to enable a wide variety of interpretations, depending on the audience. Or as Kennedy put it when asked of his own position: "whether you're a hawk, a dove, or a dawk or a hove..." But yes, if nothing else, neither Humphrey or Kennedy want their positions undermined or ego bruised by a "fifth-rate power" as LBJ called DRV in 1965.

Domestically, I'm wondering how complex RFK's relations with the antiwar movement would be. He'd have gotten into office on an end-the-war platform, after all, but I can't think he'd be comfortable at all, given his history, with the more leftish segments of the movement.

Actually, I think RFK would run into problems similar to what Obama is having now with the antiwar movement, which, as you know, is quite disappointed that Obama is actually boosting the war effort in Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
Agreed: Kennedy was not at all comfortable with the New Left, though friendly with some of their journalists. Al Lowenstein was his "Deep Throat" in the movement. He always said that the draft would be replaced by a lottery without exceptions: "you are sitting here (U of Indiana medical school) while black and Hispanic people are carrying the burden of fighting in Vietnam". Draft-dodgers are cowards, period. An antiwar message can be broadened to "anti-US involvement", but extending the air war would be very difficult, if at all. Though even Johnson, once he admitted defeat, said that "perhaps when he sits in this chair he'll think a little differently on the war." After all, his brother's OTL strategy was Vietnamization, though no one called it that at the time. No Democrat is going to sit out a campaign where Richard Nixon is the Republican nominee. If Humphrey wins in 1968, he loses in 1972 because his economic program will not keep the economy on an even keel, thus getting crushed by Reagan. If Kennedy wins, then he'll right (pun intended) the economy in time for a repeat of 1964 in 1972. So neither really need the antiwar crowd in the long run.

Back to Humphrey: I believe that he would follow the same path as Nixon, essentially. Even if he wished a different position, Humphrey would not disobey LBJ until late in the campaign, if at all. Further confirming he's Lyndon's proxy, and worse, his tool.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. Going beyond Vietnam and the economy, there's also the fact that, historically speaking, Americans like to "throw the rascals out" after 12 to 16 years when one party has held the White House for that span. If RFK wins big in 1972 as you suggest, I get the idea that his second term is actually going to be quite difficult because of things he won't necessarily have any control over (frex, if the Arabs and Israelis go at each other in '73-'76, not necessarily during Yom Kippur, and the OPEC oil embargo goes ahead, that'll mess up a lot of the economic gains made during RFK's first term). Even worse if poor HHH wins in '68 (from what you say, I think he may have been better off in the long run losing the election!)

The basic problem with Humphrey, as you say, is that he's too closely identified with Johnson to really make a go of it as regards Vietnam. I think a big reason Nixon (and, ATL, RFK) could succeed with Vietnamization is that they were, in large part, seen as not being LBJ. Like I say, HHH may not have thought so, but he was likely better off not winning.
 
Agreed on Humphrey and Kennedy. If you asked Humphrey what the policy differences were between LBJ and himself, he'd say "umm... there aren't any". Like Obama, Kennedy has clout with both sides, and can say: if you don't vote for me, you'll get Dick Nixon in the White House for eight years.

Cartography...

HHH v. Nixon

genusmap.php


(D) HHH/Sanford: 271 EV, 43.8%
(R) RN/Agnew: 222 EV, 43.6%
(AI) GCW/CEL: 45 EV, 13.5%

President-elect: Hubert Humphrey (D)

RFK v. Nixon

genusmap.php


(D) RFK/ Sanford: 304 EV, 44.1%
(R) RN/Agnew: 207 EV, 43.9%
(AI) GCW/CEL: 27 EV, 13%

President-elect: Robert Kennedy (D)


HHH v. Reagan, 1972

(R) Reagan/Schweiker: 401 EV, 55.6%
(D) HHH/Sanford: 137 EV, 44.3%

President-elect: Ronald Reagan (R)
 
Agreed on Humphrey and Kennedy. If you asked Humphrey what the policy differences were between LBJ and himself, he'd say "umm... there aren't any".

That reminds me of the infamous George Will quote about George Will in relation to Ronald Reagan - you know, "the thin, tinny 'arf' of a lapdog". It's too good a line not to have some liberal (or GOP-leaning) columnist use about HHH in ATL '68. :D
 
I prefer the media or Kennedy (who was often acidulously sarcastic) using Nixon's OTL line applied to his Democratic rivals: "peas in a pod, prisoners of the failed policies of the past." Kennedy's popping Hubert's optimistic bubble with needles was best imitated by Hillary in 2008. "Hope and change aren't brought about by words." "If you want to be fed Pablum and tranquilizers, I suggest you vote for some other candidate."
 
Getting back to your question about Church-Case: HHH wouldn't be in office after 1972, it would be Reagan, which is a different story. SoDems/GOP would kill it in an instant.

Kennedy will have to get near-unanimous Republican support in the House, which he'll get. But in the Senate, he'd have to veto it and the Republicans would prevent a veto override. If Kennedy twists enough arms, he might get the SoDems to prevent initial passage. The best thing that could happen for Kennedy in 1970 and 1974, both on domestic and foreign affairs, is a SoDem-GOP majority. Like Clinton, he'll find it much easier to work with them than the liberal Democrats, who are stuck with him anyways.
 
Getting back to your question about Church-Case: HHH wouldn't be in office after 1972, it would be Reagan, which is a different story. SoDems/GOP would kill it in an instant.

Kennedy will have to get near-unanimous Republican support in the House, which he'll get. But in the Senate, he'd have to veto it and the Republicans would prevent a veto override. If Kennedy twists enough arms, he might get the SoDems to prevent initial passage. The best thing that could happen for Kennedy in 1970 and 1974, both on domestic and foreign affairs, is a SoDem-GOP majority. Like Clinton, he'll find it much easier to work with them than the liberal Democrats, who are stuck with him anyways.

OK, I understand. As far as HHH goes, I was actually thinking more in terms of the '69 -'73 timeframe, given that we've already discussed how weak a position he would be in. But if the Republicans win big in the '70 offyears, they might actually be in a position to help him hold off a Church-Case analogue - probably the only favor they'd do Humphrey, come to that.
 
The Republicans never came close to winning a congressional majority from 1956 to 1994, the best performances were during the Reagan years. But yes, the Republicans would do that favour to Humphrey, as they did with Johnson after the '66 midterms with a GOP-SoDem majority.
 
I think that either Humphrey or Kennedy might have their poll numbers decline sharply to 50-53% by the end of their first 100 days. In Kennedy's case, it gets mitigated by the Kennedy aura to a degree, but Humphrey doesn't have that luck.
 
Top