Give Peace Another Chance: The Presidency of Eugene McCarthy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Introduction
Final Title Card 1 cropped.jpg

Welcome to Give Peace Another Chance, the revised and updated version of the Turtledove-nominated Give Peace A Chance: The Presidency of Eugene McCarthy. Give Peace A Chance, my first timeline, started on May 23rd 2018. After about a year and a half of weekly posting (more or less), the timeline was put on a seven month hiatus, while I researched and improved upon the original concept, which can be found here. That hiatus is now over, and this is the result, which I can say with absolute certainty is the better version. Those who have read Give Peace A Chance will recognize familiar faces and events, but changes to improve the quality and plausibility will provide new twists even for our veteran readers.

This timeline explores a world where Eugene McCarthy, the quixotic Senator for Minnesota and Vietnam War critic, successfully wins the presidency in 1968, avoiding his fate as an obscure maverick and perennial candidate. I first took inspiration for this idea after concluding that I wanted to write a timeline on a figure who had little-to-no alternate-historical coverage. As McCarthy has been overshadowed by such figures as the Kennedys, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon in the canon of the 1960s, I hope that I have done him justice as the leading man. That being said, Gene McCarthy was as deeply flawed as he was deeply principled, and I have attempted to write him as accurately to his nature as historical research and my own speculation will allow. A further detail I must point out is that I am first and foremost a student of Cold War political history. While McCarthy’s legacy is inseparable from the Vietnam War, the politics aspects of the conflict will be prioritized over the actual fighting.

The main purpose of writing an ongoing timeline, to me at least, is to keep up the motivation to write. So that is what I intend to do! Ideally, main chapters will be posted once every two weeks, with asides, vignettes, and other little tidbits being posted every other week from the main chapters. The vignette chapters are especially open to those who want to contribute ideas, or appear as guest writers, so please let me know if you are interested or have any suggestions! Research continues at the same time that I am writing this timeline. As a reflection of that, the bibliography attached to the introduction will see more additions as the timeline goes on. Every once in a while, with the original version, I would take research breaks after 'election night' chapters to get a head start on writing the next presidential term, and to do research for it. While I hope to be far enough ahead to avoid doing this for Give Peace Another Chance, it is something that is still on the table. If that does turn out to be the case, I still aim to have the vignette chapters continuing weekly.

Comments, suggestions, recommendations, corrections, and criticisms are, of course, welcome (but hopefully we won’t get too many of the latter). A special thanks to all my long-time readers, all those who have given suggestions in the past, and all those who have encouraged me to keep up the good work, and a hearty welcome to new readers as well!

So, without further ado, let us begin anew...

Boomhower, Ray E. Robert F. Kennedy and the 1968 Indiana Primary (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008).

Canellos, Peter S. Last Lion: The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2009).

Carter, Dan T. The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2000).

Chafe, William H. Never Stop Running: Allard Lowenstein and the Struggle to Save American Liberalism (New York: BasicBooks, 1993).

Connally, John, and Herskowitz, Mickey. In History’s Shadow: An American Odyssey (New York: Hyperion, 1993).

Crossley, Archibald M., and Crossley, Helen M. "Polling in 1968," Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 33 No. 1 (Spring 1969), 1-16.

Eisele, Albert. Almost to the Presidency: A Biography of Two American Politicians (Blue Earth: The Piper Company, 1972).

Farrell, John A. Richard Nixon: The Life (New York: Doubleday, 2017).

Francis, Michael J. The Allende Victory: An Analysis of the 1970 Chilean Presidential Election (Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 1973).

Green, Matthew N. "McCormack Versus Udall: Explaining Intraparty Challenges to the Speaker of the House," American Politics Research Vol. 34 No. 1 (January 2006), 3-21.

Goscha, Christopher. The Penguin History of Modern Vietnam (London: Penguin Random House, 2017).

Guan, Ang Cheng. The Vietnam War From the Other Side: The Vietnamese Communists' Perspective (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002).

Guan, Ang Cheng. Ending the Vietnam War: The Vietnamese Communists' Perspective (New York, RoutledgeCurzon, 2004).

Guthman, Edwin O., and Allen, C. Richard. RFK: His Words For Our Times (New York: HarperCollins, 2018).

Henkin, Bruce Jay. Analysis of Editorial Treatment by the California Press of Senators Eugene J. McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy during the California Presidential Primary Election of 1968 (Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Publishing, 1969).

Hersh, Seymour M. Reporter: A Memoir (New York: Vintage Books, 2018).

Herzog III, Arthur. McCarthy for President (New York: Viking Press, 1969).

Hoeh, David C. 1968 – McCarthy – New Hampshire (Rochester: Lone Oak Press, 1994).

Johnson, Dale L. The Chilean Road to Socialism (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1973).

Kaufman, Scott. Ambition, Pragmatism, and Party: A Political Biography of Gerald R. Ford (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2017).

Kirkpatrick, Rob. 1969: The Year Everything Changed (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2019).

Kurlansky, Mark. 1968: The Year That Rocked the World (New York: Random House, 2005).

Larner, Jeremy. Nobody Knows: Reflections on the McCarthy Campaign of 1968 (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1969).

Linehan, Mary. “Women in the 1968 Eugene McCarthy Campaign and the Development of Feminist Politics,” Journal of Women's History Vol. 29 No. 1 (Spring, 2017), 111-137.

Longley, Kyle. LBJ’s 1968: Power, Politics, and the Presidency in America’s Year of Upheaval (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).

McCarthy, Abigail. Private Faces/Public Places (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1972).

McCarthy, Eugene. The Limits of Power (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967).

McCarthy, Eugene. “Robert Lowell and the Politics of 1968,” Harvard Review No. 12 (Spring, 1997), 116-121.

McCarthy, Eugene. The Year of the People (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1969).

Murphy, John M. “Presidential Debates and Campaign Rhetoric: Text Within Context,” The Southern Communications Journal Vol. 57 No. 3 (Spring 1992), 219-228.

Nelson, Justin A. “Drafting Lyndon Johnson: The President’s Secret Role in the 1968 Democratic Convention,” Presidential Studies Quarterly Vol. 30 No. 4 (December, 2000), 688-713.

O’Donnell, Lawrence. Playing With Fire: The 1968 Election and the Transformation of American Politics (New York: Penguin Press, 2017).

Offner, Arnold A. Hubert Humphrey: The Conscience of the Country (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018).

Paletz, David L. “Delegates' Views of the TV Coverage of the 1968 Democratic Convention,” Journal of Broadcasting Vol. 16 No. 4 (Fall, 1972), 441-452.

Patton, Bonnie. The 1968 Political Campaign of Senator Eugene J. Mccarthy: The Study of Rhetorical Choice (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1969).

Reston Jr., James. The Lone Star: The Life of John Connally (New York: Harper and Row, 1989).

Ripon Society. The Lessons of Victory (New York: Dial Press, 1969).

Rising, George. Clean For Gene: Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 Presidential Campaign (Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1997).

Sandbrook, Dominic. Eugene McCarthy and the Rise and Fall of Postwar American Liberalism (New York: Anchor Books, 2004).

Sandbrook, Dominic. White Heat: A History of Britain in the Swinging Sixties (Boston: Abacus, 2007).

Stavis, Ben. We Were the Campaign: From New Hampshire to Chicago for McCarthy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969).

Thayer, George. The War Business: The International Trade in Armaments (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969).

Tye, Larry. Bobby Kennedy: The Making of a Liberal Icon (New York: Random House, 2018).

Wainstock, Dennis. Election Year 1968: The Turning Point (New York: Enigma Books, 2012).

Wells, Tom. The War Within: America’s Battle Over Vietnam (New York: Open Road Distribution, 2013).

White, Theodore. The Making of the President 1968 (New York: Atheneum House, 1969).
 
Last edited:
WE BACK! I am deeply excited for take two. I’d also like to note how much I love the source list, and all timelines should include one :)
27CDD288-DD7F-474F-BBBC-9848F2001719.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Chapter One - You Can't Always Get What You Want
Chapter One - You Can't Always Get What You Want

Eugene McCarthy, known to most as Gene, was born in small town Watkins, Minnesota, in the early spring of 1916. His father, Michael McCarthy, was a Progressive Republican and the postmaster general of the state, before being forced out of office in 1913 by the nascent administration of the Democratic President Woodrow Wilson. Gene's mother, Anna McCarthy, was a devout Catholic, who raised him and his siblings almost single-handedly, while their father worked as a travelling salesman in the cattle trade following the end of his political career. His father’s bitter, biting wit and his mother’s absolute faith in God and the Catholic Church would become defining features of McCarthy’s personality and future political career.

McCarthy was an exceptionally bright student and a star athlete, frequently finishing at the top of his class and teams. Receiving degrees from Saint John’s University and the University of Minnesota, McCarthy entered the teaching profession almost immediately, working at various high schools across the state, before meeting his future wife and fellow teacher, Abigail Quigley, in Mandan, North Dakota. After a long engagement that included a nine month stint where McCarthy became a monk, and a wartime career as a codebreaker for the Military Intelligence Division, the pair married in 1945. Working in academia for a few years in St. Paul, Minnesota, McCarthy was inspired by the call of Pope Pius XII for Catholics to become more politically involved. McCarthy was further concerned by the necessity of a strong, liberal, anti-communist presence in American politics with the advent of the Cold War. Joining Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a progressive liberal anti-communist activist group, McCarthy became an associate of one of the group’s founders, the Mayor of Minneapolis, Hubert Humphrey. McCarthy also became involved with the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL), and worked with Humphrey to expel communists from the DFL. Shortly after Humphrey’s famous call for a civil rights plank at the 1948 Democratic National Convention and his following election to the Senate, McCarthy himself was elected to the House of Representatives. In the House, McCarthy distinguished himself as a leading young liberal, unafraid to buck the leadership, drafting a manifesto for a group of congressmen in support of President Truman’s Fair Deal agenda. The group, originally known as McCarthy’s Marauders (or, alternatively, McCarthy’s Mavericks) would become the basis of the influential Democratic Study Group (DSG). Despite this, McCarthy had a good relationship with many Southern Democrats, particularly from the state of Texas. By the time McCarthy entered the Senate in 1959, his St. Paul faction controlled about half of the DFL. Senator Humphrey, and Minnesota’s governor, Orville Freeman, served as de facto co-leaders of the Minneapolis faction and the other half of the DFL. The three men got along well, but McCarthy was always somewhat distant from the other two.

Entering the Senate, McCarthy also drew the attention of the wily Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Perhaps cautious over McCarthy’s ability to rile up congressional liberals and looking to make a good impression, Johnson appointed him as the Chair of the Temporary Committee on Unemployment, as well as to a prestigious position on the Senate Finance Committee. This was met with the understanding that McCarthy would be cooperative, and the new Senator voted the party line, even if it was considered too moderate by the more liberal Democrats in Congress. This came up most frequently with McCarthy’s rigid support for the oil industry, and his consistent voting record in favour of continuing its tax exempt status [1].

Despite these early accomplishments, McCarthy remained in the shadow of Humphrey, and worked as the co-manager for the senior senator’s presidential bid in 1960. In the primaries, Humphrey had to compete with the well-financed political machine of the handsome and popular Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Kennedy, coming from a nouveau riche family of Irish Catholics, had distinguished himself during the Second World War before joining Congress. While his time in the House and Senate was relatively unmemorable, he had begun to develop a large national following. Both Kennedy and Humphrey were looking to prove their viability to the party bosses by performing well in the primaries. Kennedy had the extra challenge to prove that his Catholicism would not hurt the party, as it had in 1928, when the Catholic Democrat Al Smith lost in a landslide, in large part because of anti-Catholic bigotry. Ultimately, Humphrey fared poorly in the primaries against the well-financed politicking and celebrity status of Kennedy. The Kennedy team smeared Humphrey with accusations of draft dodging during the Second World War (when in fact he had been ineligible due to poor health), and the relatively poor Humphrey could not compete with the huge budget that Kennedy had at his disposal. Humphrey lost to Kennedy in Wisconsin, despite it neighbouring his home state of Minnesota, and lost to him in West Virginia, despite fears that the Catholic Kennedy would not be appealing in the overwhelmingly Protestant state. The bruising primary battle planted the first seeds of distaste against the Kennedys in McCarthy’s mind, along with the fact that Kennedy’s meteoric rise endangered what McCarthy felt was his destiny to become the first Catholic President of the United States. By the time of the 1960 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, Humphrey had eliminated himself as a contender, and released his delegates' obligation to vote for him. This left Minnesota a valuable up-for-grabs state, but one with divided loyalties.

When it came to choosing the Democratic nominee, Humphrey was inclined toward Adlai Stevenson, the former Governor of Illinois who had twice led the Democrats against – and twice failed to beat – the popular incumbent President Dwight Eisenhower. Unfortunately for Humphrey, Stevenson was not officially running, only stating that he would accept the candidacy if nominated. Meanwhile, Freeman had been enticed by the Kennedy camp with the possibility of being made vice president, but only in exchange for delivering the Minnesota delegation. As for McCarthy, to him, any candidate but Kennedy was acceptable. Therefore, the two most likely alternatives were Stevenson, and Johnson, who had not run in the primaries, and had entered the race with only a week left until the convention. As the convention began, it was unclear with whom McCarthy's loyalties lied: he had not challenged a public statement by Senator Robert Kerr of Oklahoma that he was backing Johnson, but, privately, he seemed to prefer Stevenson.

Kennedy aimed to overwhelm his opponents and win on the first ballot, while Johnson hoped to deny Kennedy a majority and force the convention to a second ballot, where he could stop Kennedy's momentum and snatch the nomination. Humphrey believed that Kennedy's lead was insurmountable, but pushed for McCarthy to be selected for the vice presidential slot if Johnson got the nomination.

On the night of the first ballot vote, the candidates received their nominating speeches. Freeman was chosen to nominate Kennedy, although he had failed to rally Minnesota to the cause. Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn nominated Johnson, and Governor of Missouri James Blair Jr. nominated the minor candidate Stuart Symington. McCarthy then took to the stage to nominate Stevenson. Whipping the Stevensonians into a frenzy, he declared that Stevenson had already proven himself the favourite son of not one state, but the favourite son of all fifty states, and every country on Earth. Imploring the delegates with the biblical commandment to not leave Stevenson “a prophet without honor in his own party,” he called on the convention to go to a second ballot [2]. This way, he said, delegates would be able to vote their conscience, free of obligation to any candidate. Despite his spirited effort, McCarthy's plea fell on deaf ears, and Kennedy was nominated on the first ballot without the Minnesota delegation; Freeman was passed over for Johnson for the vice presidency, who was chosen to unite the party and keep the South in the Democratic column, in what was expected to be a tight election [3].

The three Minnesotans all left the convention disappointed for different reasons, but they had exerted an amazing amount of influence over the proceedings. As put by Senator John Stennis of Mississippi: “You can never count that old Hubert out. Here he is, a defeated presidential candidate without a bit of power and the first thing you know, one of his boys is nominating the winning candidate, another of his boys gives the best speech of the convention, and his delegation still votes for Hubert.”

The next time McCarthy saw Freeman was in 1961, when the latter had been sworn in as Secretary of Agriculture – a far cry from the vice presidency. The first thing McCarthy said to him was, “so you got your payoff.”

McCarthy, Humphrey, and Jack Kennedy, Moorhead MN 1960.jpg

"I'm twice as liberal as Humphrey and twice as Catholic as Kennedy." McCarthy was disappointed by Jack Kennedy winning the Democratic presidential nomination, as he felt that he was more deserving to be the first Catholic president. Despite this, he campaigned for the Kennedy/Johnson ticket. He is seen here seated next to Hubert Humphrey, with Kennedy riding in the back, as they campaign in Moorhead, Minnesota.
The day after he was nominated, Kennedy met with McCarthy. Over breakfast, he asked McCarthy to campaign on his behalf in Connecticut and southern California, where Stevenson had some of his strongest support. McCarthy accepted, and by his own estimate gave sixty speeches in sixteen states on behalf of the Kennedy campaign. Between his national tours, McCarthy returned to Minnesota, where he stumped on behalf of Humphrey’s re-election campaign. While Kennedy narrowly won one of the closest elections in American history over Vice President Richard Nixon, Humphrey breezed to a landslide victory and second term.

Kennedy continued to pay special recognition to McCarthy following his election to the presidency; he visited the Senator after he had been hospitalized for pneumonia, invited him to deliver the administration’s 1961 speech at the annual journalists’ Gridiron Dinner, and asked him to travel to Rome to deliver a message to Pope John XXIII. McCarthy supposedly did more shadowy work for Kennedy as well, with it being alleged that McCarthy's trip to the 1961 Christian Democratic World Conference in Chile was a cover to deliver CIA funds to that country's Christian Democratic Party [4]. Regardless, the bonhomie was often one-sided: At Kennedy’s inauguration, McCarthy complained that he was a better Catholic than Kennedy and more qualified to be president in every way, with the only difference being he did not have rich father. Likewise, McCarthy was a frequent critic of Kennedy from the left on the Senate floor. In the privacy of his office, he criticized Kennedy’s speeches, and collectively referred to the Kennedy clan as ‘Big Brother.’ A final attempt at reconciliation on Kennedy's part succeeded in 1962, when the President personally visited McCarthy’s Minnesota office during a tour of the Midwest, and joined him for Mass. Afterwards, McCarthy began to talk much more favourably of Kennedy in private, and while he continued to criticize the administration, it dulled to being no more than the same criticisms of other Senate liberals, frustrated with the slow pace of reform.

Despite the special attention given to him, McCarthy’s career had reached a political dead end under the Kennedy Administration; prestigious positions were given to Senators who were more loyal and cooperative, while McCarthy remained a minor figure. But, his fortunes saw a dramatic reversal following the Kennedy Assassination: with Kennedy dead and Lyndon Johnson president, McCarthy could once again claim to be the foremost rising Catholic in the party, and a likely nominee for vice president. McCarthy became a welcome guest in the White House once Johnson had settled in. With the renewed possibility of the vice presidency now dangling in front of him, McCarthy became one of the staunchest defenders of the Johnson Administration, fully supporting the Great Society, the War on Poverty, the Civil Rights Act, and especially the Vietnam War.

And through it all, McCarthy insisted that he and Jack Kennedy had always been the best of friends.

LBJ and McCarthy, approx 1964.jpg

Senator Eugene McCarthy with President Lyndon Johnson. Johnson had been McCarthy's benefactor during their time together in the Senate. Once Johnson rose to the presidency following the Kennedy Assassination, McCarthy aspired for the vice presidency.
As the 1964 Democratic Convention approached, McCarthy became more and more excited about the prospect of becoming vice president. With the idea buzzing in his head, he eagerly voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave the President nearly unlimited executive power for overseeing military action in Vietnam. He also became a vociferous defender of the Vietnam War to his constituents, describing it as a necessity to defeat international communism. Meanwhile, Johnson continued to ask special favours of McCarthy, and frequently implied that he was going to be the vice presidential pick. Johnson had McCarthy rewrite his speech to the United Nations, and had him act as his unofficial whip on the Senate Finance Committee, among other responsibilities. The President also urged McCarthy to introduce himself to party bosses such as Jesse Unruh of California and Richard Daley of Illinois. On top of all that, Johnson made a surprise, unannounced visit to McCarthy's re-election fundraiser dinner, where he talked up the Senator to a delighted Washington crowd. Considering himself “everybody's second choice” and the least divisive option, McCarthy became absolutely convinced that he was going to be vice president, to the extent that he spent tens of thousands of dollars to start a nominating committee, open a secret campaign office, hire a small staff, and begin a whisper campaign against Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey had relented on his previous disinterest in the vice presidency, realizing that it was the only path to the presidency for a poor man from a small state. At the same time, McCarthy proxies suggested that Humphrey was too divisive on civil rights and too dovish on Vietnam to be a good vice presidential pick. But, what McCarthy felt was the X factor that would put him ahead of any other candidate, was the close relationship between his wife, Abigail, and the First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson.

Besides the two senators from Minnesota, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, the brother of the martyred president, was also in the running for the second spot on the ticket.

Obsessed with winning in his own right, Johnson was paranoid that Bobby Kennedy would swoop down and try to steal the nomination, or at the very least would try to use public sympathy to be drafted as vice president at the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City. Johnson, disdainful of the idea of being a placeholder between two Kennedys, resolved to only nominate Bobby if it was the only path to victory in November. However, as the Republican primaries continued, and it became more and more clear that the Republican nominee would be the ultraconservative Barry Goldwater, Johnson realized he did not need Kennedy. As a smokescreen tactic, Johnson announced that no member of his cabinet would be under consideration for the vice presidency, eliminating Kennedy, as well as Johnson's personal preference, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. Freeman, who was still serving as Secretary of Agriculture and had still been holding out hope to be selected, was also eliminated.

As it turned out, Humphrey was everybody's second choice, not McCarthy. Freeman, having never fully made amends with McCarthy, supported their mutual friend instead. Kennedy also supported Humphrey, disapproving of McCarthy's attempts to make himself the premier party Catholic. McCarthy did not help his case when he criticized Bobby as a carpetbagger for resigning from the attorney generalship to run for Senate in New York. Polling was also in Humphrey's favour: with Kennedy eliminated, Humphrey was the nation's top choice for vice president, with McCarthy in dead last. Humphrey also had the overwhelming support of organized labour and the Minnesota delegation. McCarthy's only saving grace was that he was the chosen candidate of the South. While McCarthy had a strong civil rights record, his reputation was not tied to it like Humphrey, and he was perceived as a moderate for his willingness to associate with Southerners. McCarthy frequently sat at the Texas table in the congressional restaurant with his colleagues Homer Thornberry and Frank Ikard, and had worked with the likes of Robert Kerr of Oklahoma, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Russell Long of Louisiana, and Albert Gore of Tennessee on the Senate Finance Committee. McCarthy was even acquainted with arch-segregationists like James Eastland of Mississippi. Eastland, along with Governor of Texas John Connally, pleaded McCarthy's case to Johnson, but to no avail [5].

By the time of the convention in Atlantic City, McCarthy had become suspicious of his chances, despite the White House insisting he was still under consideration. Johnson toyed with Humphrey and McCarthy up to the very last minute, phoning both of them during their respective Meet the Press interviews to vacillate over his pick. Johnson even went so far as to consider having them both stand behind him at the podium where he would announce his choice, and tell the loser to nominate the chosen candidate [6]. Fed up with Johnson's mind games, McCarthy withdrew his name from consideration, but was still forced to deliver the nominating speech for Humphrey, in a delivery described as “barely perfunctory.” At the same time as McCarthy was giving the speech, Johnson waded into the crowd to shake hands, intentionally distracting the delegates from the speech, as one final rebuke. McCarthy broke all ties with Johnson, and developed a bitter contempt for Humphrey in less then a day, delivering mean-spirited jokes at his expense during his celebration party. McCarthy withdrew to his motel room for the rest of the convention. There, he spent time with his friend and fellow senator Edmund Muskie of Maine, developing vague revenge fantasies of somehow defeating his erstwhile allies in 1968 [7].

McCarthy and Lady Bird 1964.jpg

"I'm Lady Bird's favorite." McCarthy believed he would be selected as Johnson's running mate in 1964 in large part because of the close friendship between Lady Bird Johnson and Abigail McCarthy. As it turned out, McCarthy was being strung along by Johnson, who never seriously considered choosing him for the vice presidency.

Despite trouncing his opponent in his re-election bid, McCarthy returned to the Senate a resentful man. The Johnson/Humphrey ticket had won one of the biggest landslides in American history, and was riding high on its popular mandate. Meanwhile, McCarthy had been banished from Johnson’s inner circle, and denied any room for advancement; he was passed over as Ambassador to the United Nations, with the job instead being given to Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg. Goldberg was in turn replaced on the court by Johnson ally Abe Fortas.

Friends noticed that McCarthy had gone from witty to cruel with his barbed remarks, and that he rarely fulfilled his committee obligations, often leaving in the middle of hearings to go read in his office or chat with journalists in the Senate restaurant. While McCarthy continued to vote for nearly every piece of progressive legislation put in front of him, it was vacant of any passion that might have been there previously. The only policies that McCarthy still seemed specifically interested in were immigration reform, tax reform, and continuing tax exemptions for the oil industry (the only issue where maintained a conservative voting record). His absences from Washington became longer and more noticeable as he went on extended lecture tours to sell his books.

McCarthy also carried his reignited vendetta against the Kennedys back into Congress, in part blaming Bobby for blocking his nomination. McCarthy considered Bobby to have all of the ruthless calculation of Jack, without any of his warmth or reconciliatory attitudes. Bobby considered McCarthy a vain, jealous loser who barely put in any work. Their distaste was mutual, to say the least, as was their ability to hold a grudge. One instance of McCarthy's resentfulness involved the youngest Kennedy brother, Ted. Accompanied by his friend Lester Hyman, Senator Ted Kennedy was desperately trying to rally votes for his amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to abolish the poll tax on all levels of government. The poll tax had been designed with the intention of keeping poor (overwhelmingly black) voters from participating in the democratic process in the South. Under the original proposal, the poll tax would only be removed federally, while the Attorney General would challenge the constitutionality of it on other levels of government. While the vote was on the floor, McCarthy was eating lunch in the Senate restaurant, and refused to vote until he was finished. Eventually, he did saunter into the chamber with minutes to spare… and voted against the amendment. While McCarthy did support the abolition of the poll tax, he claimed that Bobby Kennedy’s replacement as Attorney General, Nicholas Katzenbach, had told him to vote against it so it could be abolished by the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, his conduct furthered the divide between him and the Kennedys [8].

McCarthy and Stevenson, 1964.jpg

McCarthy with his ideological mentor, Adlai Stevenson, shortly before the latter's death in 1965. Much like Stevenson, McCarthy's foreign policy was driven by a belief in anti-communist, liberal internationalism, and cooperation between the nations of the world.
As McCarthy’s career seemed to be in terminal decline, he changed his fate by joining the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a lark.

In his role as a member of the Senate Steering Committee, McCarthy had intended to appoint his friend Edmund Muskie to the vacancy on the Foreign Relations Committee. Muskie had declined, and suggested in passing that McCarthy should appoint himself to it instead, which he decided to do.

Once he had officially joined, McCarthy came under the wing of the committee's Chair: Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas. Fulbright had been one of the chief supporters of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, but only on assurances from Johnson that American involvement in Vietnam would be kept to a minimum. Many Americans had seen the Vietnam War as a backwater civil war between communist North and anti-communist South, with Johnson's tough talk on the subject just being to keep the Republicans from accusing him of being soft on the Reds. Many thought that US involvement would be kept to a minimum, with military advisors and bombing campaigns. However, with more American troops in Vietnam than ever, with few signs to indicate a quick end to the war, Fulbright grew increasingly skeptical of the chances of success, and rallied the rest of the Democrats on the committee to his dovish foreign policy positions [9]. The final break between Fulbright, his committee, and the President occurred over the Dominican Civil War of 1965: the democratically elected President of the Dominican Republic, Juan Bosch, had been toppled in a military coup in 1963. Supporters of Bosch launched a counter-coup in 1965 to reinstate the elected government, but tens of thousands of American marines were deployed by Johnson to support the military junta. Johnson had been erroneously told that the rebels were communists, and fearful of “another Cuba,” he had deployed the troops with only a partial picture of what was going on. Fulbright was not only furious that Johnson had crushed a democratic movement, but that he had deployed American troops without congressional approval. In the ensuing hearings, McCarthy clearly sided with Fulbright, and began to question the fundamental beliefs of America's Cold War policies [10].

While the Dominican Civil War quickly concluded with American involvement, the same could not be said of the war in Vietnam. By 1966, Fulbright had completely turned against the Vietnam War. McCarthy – in part convinced by his time on the Foreign Relations Committee and in part convinced because of pressure from Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam (CALCAV) – had turned with him. In hearings investigating the coup against South Vietnam's presidential dictator, Nguyen Khanh, Johnson's cabinet team continued to dismiss the committee's concerns, and claimed that victory was assured. However, high profile testimonials before the committee by foreign policy and military specialists like George Kennan and James Gavin severely damaged the war's prestige: Kennan, the godfather of American Cold War policy, denounced the war as untenable, while former General Gavin suggested that American forces should only defend essential positions until a ceasefire could be negotiated. With the testimonials under his belt, Fulbright began criticizing what he called the “Myth of the Cold War,” that all communist nations were equally hostile to the United States, and equally beholden to Moscow; something that was considered the gospel truth by almost every politician in Washington [11].

As for McCarthy himself, he had completed his metamorphosis from liberal hawk to zealous dove. Beyond seeing Vietnam as a failing of the Johnson Administration and Cold War policy, he saw it as a divine battle of good and evil. To McCarthy, Johnson's fixation with Vietnam, and his obsession with not being the first president to lose a war, was emblematic of all of America's spiritual woes and the destruction of its moral fibre: America had become obsessed with death and killing, which in turn was causing the unravelling of society. McCarthy dove back into his work in the Senate, calling for orderly withdrawal from Vietnam along the lines of the Gavin Plan, a moratorium on arms sales to the developing world, and a motion to put the CIA under the control of a Senate committee, declaring that “Americans must abandon the notion that morality stops at the entrance to the Central Intelligence Agency.” Meanwhile, the Democratic Party had lost significant ground in the House of Representatives in the 1966 Midterms, and was close to running out of money. Johnson slashed the party's budget and siphoned it into the White House's operating costs, ignoring warnings that state organizations were on the brink of collapse across the country. On Christmas Eve of 1966, McCarthy's staff secretly drew up plans titled Operation Casa Blanca, with the goal being to challenge Johnson in the 1968 Democratic primaries, with funding to be provided by a clique of Wall Street bankers who were old supporters of Adlai Stevenson.

However, McCarthy's enthusiasm was short-lived, and he soon returned to his old absenteeism. He began to plan his retirement from the Senate, and hoped to acquire some sort of academic position back in Minnesota. Despite these plans, McCarthy's opposition toward the war remained, occupying his thoughts more than any other issue.

In an appropriations hearing for the war in August of 1967, Fulbright and Under Secretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach [12] were gripped in the same quarrel as ever, over exactly how much power the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave the President. Exasperated by the circuitous argument, and Katzenbach's assertion that Johnson had supreme executive power, McCarthy left the room, with the committee’s Chief of Staff, Carl Marcy, on his heels. With the only other person in the hall outside being New York Times reporter Ned Kenworthy, McCarthy railed against Johnson and Katzenbach to his audience of two: “Someone's got to take them on. This is the wildest testimony I've ever heard. There is no limit to what he says the President can do! There is only one thing to do – take it to the country. And if I have to run for president to do it, I'm going to do it.”

And it was in that moment that McCarthy began to seriously consider – if not a run for president – then at least a stroll.



[1] McCarthy was first introduced to the oil industry by his Texan friends, Homer Thornberry and Frank Ikard. Through them, McCarthy met the oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall. With McCarthy's help, Marshall was able to expedite the construction of the Pine Bend Refinery, and its various pipelines that ran through McCarthy's congressional district. McCarthy consistently supported the oil industry after that, and received noticeable financial backing from the oil lobby for the rest of his career.

[2] McCarthy’s support for Adlai Stevenson at the 1960 Democratic National Convention is stranger than one might think at face value. McCarthy had never actually met Stevenson before the convention, and was chosen to nominate him based off of the suggestion of Senator Mike Monroney of Oklahoma. Friends of Stevenson, such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and George Ball, suspected that McCarthy was an agent of Lyndon Johnson. Schlesinger speculated that by prompting a second liberal candidate to enter the field on the second ballot, it would split the vote between Kennedy and Stevenson, and make it easier for Johnson to secure the nomination, with McCarthy as his vice presidential candidate. McCarthy would later deny the rumours of this plan, and claimed that Kennedy would have been chosen as the vice presidential nominee if Johnson had won out at the convention. Despite these accusations, McCarthy had been an enthusiastic supporter of Stevenson in 1952 and 1956, and continued to praise him well into the 1980s.

[3] Despite Kennedy dangling it in front of him, it was highly unlikely that Freeman ever would have gotten the vice presidential nomination. While Kennedy admitted that he was weak with demographics where the Minnesota Democrats were notably strong (particularly labour unions), he was weaker in the South, where Republicans had won Johnson's home state of Texas for the last two elections in a row. In the entirety of American history up to that point, a Democrat had never won the election without also winning Texas, making Johnson the best choice, politically speaking.

[4] This is according to McCarthy's one-time press secretary Seymour Hersh. In his memoir, Hersh reported that McCarthy brought this incident up when they were discussing his working relationship with Kennedy. It does correlate with the CIA's long history of covertly backing the Christian Democrats in Chile, and McCarthy's close relationship with Chilean political figures such as Eduardo Frei and Radomiro Tomic. Additionally, McCarthy was friends with two CIA agents, Tom Finney and Thomas McCoy, who he met under unknown circumstances and who would later play a key part in his presidential campaign. However, it is contrary to McCarthy's longstanding animosity toward the CIA, which was already alive and well by the early 1960s.

[5] In a phone conversation between Johnson and Connally on July 23, 1964, they discussed the possible choices for vice president. Conally argued that McCarthy was a good choice for the position because he was not a notable political figure, and was “damn little harm, damn little good.” Johnson countered that McCarthy’s longstanding support for the oil industry would be a point of frequent criticism by the liberal press. Presciently, Johnson also said “He’s too willful. I got to be sure he won’t be running against me four years from now.”

[6] This was a particular sticking point for McCarthy, and he called Johnson a “sadistic son of a bitch” when he heard about it. McCarthy later denied saying it, claiming that he had only called two people "shits" in his entire life. This is contradicted by various accounts of people who worked with or for McCarthy.

[7] McCarthy would later claim he never had any interest in the vice presidency, which appears quite clearly false judging by his actions at the time.

[8] The poll tax was ultimately struck down on the state level in the Supreme Court cases Harman v. Forssenius and Harper v. Virginia State Board of Election. The Kennedy Amendment failed by a vote of forty-nine to forty-four.

[9] The Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee, led by Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, remained a hawkish lot.

[10] During the hearings about the intervention in the Dominican Republic, Johnson's Under Sectretary of State for Latin Affairs Thomas Mann earned the permanent ire of McCarthy. Mann dismissed Bosch as a “poet-professor type” and said that a pro-American dictatorship was better than a democratically elected socialist government. This particularly irked McCarthy, as he could be perfectly described as a “poet-professor type.” In general, Johnson's team was very condescending towards the Foreign Relations Committee, describing them as “cloakroom crusaders, brave in private, cautious in public, fitfully aroused and poorly informed.”

[11] While Fulbright was one of the most forward-thinking American foreign policy specialists of the Cold War, he was also an ardent segregationist who voted against every piece of civil rights legislation put in front of him in his decades-long career.

[12] Johnson moved Katzenbach from the position of Attorney General to the position of Under Secretary of State in October of 1966.
 
Last edited:
Glad to see this back. Have some likely ideas for when it comes to the USSR and Eastern Europe, alternate Soviet leaders, and so on.
 
McCarthy Speaks: The 1960 and 1964 Democratic National Conventions
McCarthy Speaks: The 1960 and 1964 Democratic National Conventions

Eugene McCarthy first reached national prominence at the 1960 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles. With Hubert Humphrey having withdrawn from the presidential race, the Minnesota delegation had divided loyalties. It was unclear if McCarthy would support Lyndon Johnson or Adlai Stevenson for the presidency, but he ultimately supported the latter, and instructed the delegates under his control to do the same. After being contacted by Senator Mike Monroney of Oklahoma (a Stevenson supporter), and Stevenson himself, McCarthy was chosen to nominate him before the convention. McCarthy's nominating speech for Stevenson is generally considered the best of his career.

There was some question on if McCarthy was secretly working behind the scenes for Johnson. Some of Stevenson's inner circle believed that McCarthy was only supporting him to split the liberal vote and throw the nomination to Johnson, who would then choose him as the vice presidential nominee. Indeed, McCarthy asked for Johnson's blessing before delivering Stevenson nominating speech, but there is no clear evidence that the secret Johnson-McCarthy alliance ever actually existed. Jack Kennedy would go on to beat out Johnson and Stevenson (and Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri) for the nomination on the first ballot, and would go on to beat Vice President Richard Nixon in the general election.

McCarthy nominating Stevenson 1960.jpg

"Do not leave this prophet without honor in his own party." McCarthy nominating Adlai Stevenson for president at the 1960 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles.
"Mr. Chairman, Democratic delegates at this great convention: we now approach the hour of all important decision. You are the chosen people out of 172,000,000 Americans, the chosen of the Democratic Party, to come here to Los Angeles to not only choose a man to lead this Democratic party in the campaign of this fall and this November, but to choose a man who we hope will lead this country and all of our friends and all of those peoples who look to us for help, who look to us for understanding, who look to us for leadership.

We are here participating in the great task of democratic society. As you know this way of life is being challenged today. There are those, the enemies of democracy, who say that free men and free women cannot exercise that measure of intellectual responsibility, cannot demonstrate that measure of moral responsibility, which is called for to make the kind of decisions that we free people are called upon to make in this year of 1960, and there are those, I remind you, who are the friends of democracy, who have expressed some doubt and reservation as to whether or not this ideology, this way of life, these institutions of ours, can survive.

Let me ask you at this time to put aside all of your prejudices, to put aside any kind of unwarranted regional loyalties, to put aside for the time being preferences which are based purely upon questions of personalities. Put aside, if you can, early decisions – decisions which were made before all of the candidates were in the race, decisions which were made when the issues were not as clear as they are today.

I say to those of you – candidates and spokesmen for candidates – who say you are confident of the strength you have at this convention, who say that you are confident and believe in democracy – let this go to a second ballot.

I say let this go to a second ballot, when every delegate who is here will be as free as he can be free to make a decision.

Let us strike off the fetters of instructed delegations. Let Governors say to their people: This is the moment of decision and we want to make it as free Americans, responsible to your own consciences and to the people of the state that sent you here, and to the people of this country.

This I say is the real test of democracy. Do you have confidence in the people at this convention to make a fair and responsible choice, or do you not have this confidence?

What has happened in this world and what has happened in this United States has been described to you here by great speakers. Each new headline every day that we have been here has been a shock to us; each new headline has been a shock.

These times, men say, are out of joint. They say that they are the worst of times without being the best of times – this may be true. But I say to you these external signs, these practical problems which face us are nothing compared to the problems of the mind and of the spirit which face the United States and the free world today.

If the mind is clouded and if the will is confused and uncertain, there can be no sound decision and no sound action.

There's demagoguery abroad in the land at all times, and demagoguery, I say to you, takes many forms. There's that which says "here is wealth, and here is material comfort." We suffer a little from that in the United States.

There's demagoguery which promises people power, which is used for improper purposes and ends. And we have seen in this century and in this generation what happens when power is abused.

I say to you, there's a subtle kind of demagoguery which erodes the spirit. And this is the demagoguery which has affected this United States in the last eight years.

What are we told? What have we been told? We've been told that we can be strong without sacrifice. This is what we've been told. We have been told that we can be good without any kind of discipline if we just say that we are humble and sincere – this is the nature of goodness. We have been told that we can be wise without reflection. We could be wise without studying, we've been told. I say this is the erosion of the spirit which has been taken place in this United States in the last eight years. And I say to you that the time has come to raise again the cry of the ancient prophet. What did he say? He said, the prophets prophesy falsely and the high priests, he said, ruled by their word, and my people who love to have it so. But what will be the end?

I say to you the political prophets have prophesied falsely in these eight years. And the high priests of Government have ruled by that false prophecy. And the people seemed to have loved it so.

But there was one man – there was one man who did not prophesy falsely, let me remind you. There was one man who said: Let's talk sense to the American people.

What did the scoffers say? The scoffers said: Nonsense. They said: Catastrophic nonsense. But we know it was the essential and the basic and the fundamental truth that he spoke to us.

There was a man who talked sense to the American people. There was one man who said: This is a time for self-examination. This is a time for us to take stock, he said. This is a time to decide where we are and where we're going.

This, he said, is a time for virtue. But what virtues did he say we needed? Oh yes, he said we need the heroic virtues – we always do. We need fortitude; we need courage; we need justice. Everyone cheers when you speak out for those virtues.

But what did he say in addition to that? He said we need the unheroic virtues in America. We need the virtue, he said, of patience. There were those who said we've had too much patience.

We need, he said, the virtue of tolerance. We need the virtue of forbearance. We need the virtues of patience and understanding.

This was what the prophet said. This is what he said to the American people. I ask you, did he prophesy falsely? Did he prophesy falsely?

He said this is a time for greatness. This is a time for greatness for America. He did not say he possessed it. He did not even say he was destined for it. He did say that the heritage of America is one of greatness.

And he described that heritage to us. And he said, the promise of America is a promise of greatness. And he said, this promise we must fulfill.

This was his call to greatness, and it was the call to greatness that was issued in 1952.

He did not seek power for himself in 1952. He did not seek power in 1956.

He is not seeking it for himself today.

This man knows – this man knows, as all of us do from history, that power often comes to those who seek it. But history does not prove that power is always well used by those who seek it.

On the contrary, the whole history of democratic politics is to this end, that power is best exercised by those who are sought out by the people, by those to whom power is given by a free people.

And so I say to you, Democrats here assembled: Do not turn away from this man. Do not reject this man. He has fought gallantly. He has fought courageously. He has fought honorably. In 1952 in the great battle. In 1956 he fought bravely. And between those years and since, he has stood off the guerrilla attacks of his enemies and the sniping attacks of those who should have been his friends. Do not reject this man who, his enemies said, spoke above the heads of the people, but they said it only because they didn't want the people to listen. He spoke to the people. He moved their minds and stirred their hearts, and this was what was objected to. Do not leave this prophet without honor in his own party. Do not reject this man.

I submit to you a man who is not the favorite son of any one state. I submit to you the man who is the favorite son of fifty states.

And not only of fifty states but the favorite son of every country in the world in which he is known – the favorite son in every country in which he is unknown but in which some spark, even though unexpressed, of desire for liberty and freedom still lives.

This favorite son I submit to you: Adlai E. Stevenson of Illinois."

Gene and Abigail with Stevenson cropped.jpg

The Prophet and his Disciples: Eugene and Abigail McCarthy with Adlai Stevenson. Both of the McCarthys credited Stevenson with inspiring a new generation of progressive liberal activism that culminated in the legislative reforms of the 1960s. Stevenson's friend, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., noted that Stevenson was much more moderate than McCarthy assumed.
By 1964, Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy had become competitors for the vice presidential nomination on the ticket with Lyndon Johnson. Johnson played the two off of each other, but was always most inclined towards picking Humphrey, using McCarthy as a tool to present the illusion of competition in the lead-up to the 1964 Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City. Unwilling to tolerate further manipulation by Johnson, McCarthy, in the middle of the convention, publicly announced he was removing himself from consideration for the vice presidency. Johnson reportedly "blew his top" when he heard the news.

Despite his withdrawal, McCarthy was forced to deliver the nominating speech for Humphrey after Johnson announced his choice, with the New York Times describing the performance as "barely perfunctory." It did not help that Johnson was intentionally distracting the audience out of spite, by wading through the crowd to shake hands. After the events of the convention, which McCarthy considered a betrayal against him by Johnson and Humphrey, McCarthy began making his first plans for a 1968 presidential run, though he did not seriously start considering it until December of 1966 at the earliest.

McCarthy and Humphrey 1964 cropped.jpg

Almost to the (Vice) Presidency: Senators Humphrey and McCarthy shortly before the 1964 Democratic National Convention.

"Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, Distinguished Delegates and Visitors to this great Democratic convention, I assure you that the name which I shall give to you as I finish my speech will be the same as that which the President of the United States has just given to you.

At no time in the recent history of any political party has a party presented to its convention and beyond that to the people of this country two men who are so alike in energy, in ability, in experience, in dedication, and in compassion as the two men whom this Democratic party will present to the people of this nation for approval in November of 1964: one of them from the State of Texas, the Lone Star State, and one from the State of Minnesota, the North Star State.

Neither of these men has been proved in one shining hour, but each has been tested in the slow trials of time. They have known hardship and poverty and have seen the edge of despair. They know both the weaknesses and the strength of America. Both of them are qualified to provide leadership for the United States of America.

They have been leaders in the great Democratic party – our party – this, the party of war and the party of peace. We acknowledge this to be true; for when the safety of this nation and the honor of our country call for military action, we have been prepared to take such action and we prepared to take it today. We are also the party of peace. When we have been called upon as the party in power to make commitments to the future, to act in hope, and to act in trust that a better world may be established, we have not hesitated and we have not delayed in expressing that trust and in working to establish and strengthen the basis for peace.

We are the party of poverty when poverty calls for action, and it calls for action today in the midst of plenty. We are also the party of plenty and the party of progress. We are the party of promises, but we are also the party of fulfillment.

We, the Democratic party, are the party of history. We accept the traditions of America. We accept the history of the East – of the old and the new. We accept the history of the South – of the old and of the new and of the changing South. We accept the North and we accept the West. We accept all of this America as our America, and beyond that are willing to accept responsibility in every part of the world in which we have some power to influence people for good or to help them achieve the good and the full life.

What have the Republicans set against us in 1964: their spokesman and leader – a prophet of despair, their presidential candidate – the greatest 'no-sayer' in the recent history of this country; a man who has chosen to vote 'no' in the three great tests to which the Congress of this United States has been placed in the last four years. He has stood outside the conference room of discussion and outside the conference room of decision, shouting objections from the corridor of 'no commitment, refusing to come in and to take the responsibility for decision.

On the Test Ban Treaty in which we acknowledged, with trust in Providence, that the powers which men have developed can be brought under some kind of moral control, he said, 'No.' He stood aside.

In the test of civil rights, in which we were called upon to affirm our belief in the universality of human dignity and of human rights, again the man who leads and speaks for the Republican party excused himself. He stepped out of the scene. He refused responsibility.

And finally in the great effort to eliminate poverty and to make the economy of this country produce so as to meet the needs of our people and to make it possible for us to meet the obligations which we carry around the world – again his was the voice of fear and his was the vote of no confidence. At a time when we were given positive answers to every criticism which the Marxists have directed at our economy, proving that we can produce without depression, proving that we can prosper without exploitation, proving that we can progress without the class struggle and meet all of the needs of our people and meet our obligation in justice around the world, this man who now speaks for the Republican party, who now leads the Republican party, chose again to stay in a world of his own: a world in which the calendar has no years, in which the clock has no hands, and in which glasses have no lenses. In that strange world – in that strange world in which he lives – the pale horse of death and of destruction and the white horse of conquest and of victory are indistinguishable.

I call upon you here tonight, Democrats all, to affirm America. This is a time for all of us to enter into the fabric of our time and to accept the challenge of the history of the 20th Century, to declare and manifest our belief that the power of reason can give some direction to the movement of history itself.

I call upon you here tonight to dedicate yourselves to the efforts of our party, to dedicate yourselves again in support of Lyndon Johnson as President and to accept my colleague, the friend of the President and my friend, Hubert Humphrey as Vice President."
 
Cool stuff. I'll find clips of him speaking to get an idea of what he sounded like. When you're ready for ideas when it comes to the USSR and other countries, let me know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top